0001437749-24-010672uec20230731c_10ka.htm
true 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 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1)
 
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023
 
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   
 
For the transition period from ________________ to ________________
 
Commission file number: 001-33706
 
URANIUM ENERGY CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
Nevada
 
98-0399476
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation of organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
500 North Shoreline, Ste. 800, Corpus Christi, Texas, U.S.A.
 
78401
(U.S. corporate headquarters)
 
(Zip Code)
 
1830 – 1188 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
 
V6E 4A2
(Canadian corporate headquarters)
 
(Zip Code)
 
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
 
(361) 888-8235
 
 
(Registrant’s telephone number, including
area code)
 
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
Title of each class:
Trading Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered:
Common Stock
UEC
NYSE American
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
 
N/A
(Title of class)
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes ☒ No ☐
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes ☐ No
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes ☒ No ☐
 
 

 
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐
 
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
 
☒ Large accelerated filer
☐ Accelerated filer
☐ Non-accelerated filer
 Smaller reporting company
 
 Emerging growth company
 
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. 
 
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. 
 
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b).  ☐
 
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes No ☒
 
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter ($4.03 on January 31, 2023) was approximately $1,479,408,555.
 
The registrant had 385,848,443 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 28, 2023.
 

 
ii

 
 
EXPLANATORY NOTE
 
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
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_1.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
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
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
 
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
           
 
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
           
 
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
                             
 
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
X
   
2
Yes
 
Christensen Ranch Satellite Production Plant
   
100%
UEC
Standby
9,000 gpm
X
   
4
Yes
State/Province
Plant
Location (Latitude)
Location (Longitude)
Equity Interest
Operator
Status
Annual Permitted Production Capacity
Fully Permitted
to Mine
Partially Permitted
to Mine
Not
Permitted
to Mine
TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits
TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
Texas
Hobson Central Processing Plant
28.945
-97.989
100%
UEC
Production Suspended
4.0 Mlb/year
X
   
2
Yes
 
Our Mineral Properties
 
Below is a table setting out our summary disclosure of current measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resource estimates. Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Section 11, Mineral Resource Estimates, of each relevant TRS.
 
Table 2.5 – Mineral Resources
 
Uranium Oxide Mineral Resources
Country
State/Province
Project
Measured
Indicated
Inferred
     
Tons
('000's)
Tonnes
('000's)
Grade
(% 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%
 
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%
 
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:
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_2.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“WRB”).  The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming.  The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south.  The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.
 
Both the Wind River and Fort Union Formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium. The primary source of sediments for the Wind River and Fort Union Formations in the eastern WRB was the ancestral Granite Mountains along the southern boundary of the basin. The Granite Mountains were formed during the Laramide Orogeny, a period of extensive mountain building, which began at the end of the Mesozoic Era and continued into the early Cenozoic Era. Subsequent erosion of the Granite Mountain highlands coupled with the down-warping of adjacent basins, such as the Wind River and Powder River Basins, combined to accumulate thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits.
 
The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale. Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation. The White River Formation also consists of sandstones, siltstone and shale, however, along with fluvial deposition of the sands and clays, substantial volumes of windblown volcanic ash (tuffs) were also deposited. This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits. Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union Formations.
 
- 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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_3.jpg.ashx
 
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
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_4.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
 
Table 2.9: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill
holes)
Results of Work
1967
Independent Operators
Assembled as a large land package by independent operators.
Approximately 4,860
Right to mine secured. Preliminary delineation of mineralized areas.
1979
Arizona Public Services (“APS”), parent company of Malapai
APS became a 50% partner in 1979.
Approximately 2,220
Delineation of mineralized areas.
1981
Malapai
Malapai assumed sole ownership of the Christensen Ranch Project Area by acquiring the interests of Wold Energy (“Wold”) and Western Nuclear Corporation (“WNC”). Malapai purchased the Irigaray Project Area from Westinghouse in 1987, and the Christensen Ranch Project Area was licensed for operations under the Irigaray U.S. NRC and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) license/permit in 1988. Uranium production by ISR was started by Malapai in 1989 and was placed on standby in 1990.
Approximately 1,460
Delineation of mineralized areas. Began ISR production.
1990
TOMIN and EDF
EDF acquired the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Project Areas from Malapai in 1990. TOMIN acted as project operator for EDF under a joint participation agreement. TOMIN restarted ISR operations in 1991.
Approximately 2,270
Delineation of mineralized areas. Restarted ISR production.
1993
COGEMA and EDF
In 1993, COGEMA acquired the assets of TOMIN and changed the name of the operating entity to COGEMA Mining, Inc. EDF (now Malapai) was still owner of 29%, COGEMA, as operator, owned 71% through the joint participation agreement.
Approximately 3,690
3.70 million lbs of 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.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.   In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
The Christensen Ranch Project Area contains portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. These fluvial host systems are identified as K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Christensen Ranch Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 feet (80 m) in thickness. These sands in turn host the K1, K2, K3 and K4 uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Christensen Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
- 24 -

 
Table 2.10 – Mineral Resources for the Christensen Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_5.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Moore Ranch Project Area.
 
Table 2.11: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Moore Ranch Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1971
Conoco Minerals (“Conoco”) and Kerr-McGee Corporation (“Kerr-McGee”)
Conoco and Kerr-McGee operated as a joint venture. Of the joint venture, Conoco controlled 50% of the Moore Ranch Project Area and served as the operator.
Approximately 2,700 rotary drill holes
Approximately 130 core holes
Discovery and delineation of mineralized areas. Permitting and licensing of a proposed uranium processing facility known as Sand Rock Mill was completed through the WDEQ/LQD and the NRC.
1983
Wold and Kerr-McGee
Conoco sold its interests to Wold in 1983. Kerr-McGee retained the rights with Wold. Assessment drilling was conducted.
None
Retained mining claims. Mining claim assessment drilling.
1989
Rio Algom Mining Corp.
(“Rio Algom”)
Rio Algom acquired the project in 1989. Rio Algom conducted mining claim assessment drilling to retain mining claims through 1992, which was the last year to allow mining claim assessment drilling.
None
Retained mining claims. Mining claim assessment drilling.
1992
Rio Algom
Claim maintenance paid directly to the BLM. No further drilling conducted.
None
Mining claims retained through payment.
2002
Power Resources, Inc. (“PRI”)
(now Cameco Resources)
Rio Algom acquired by PRI.
None
Ownership transition.
2004
Energy Metals Corporation (“EMC”)
EMC acquired most of the mining claims and state leases.
N/A
Secured right to mine.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Moore Ranch Project Area. Uranium One completed verification and resource enhancement drilling, coring, baseline monitor wells, and pump test wells. The Moore Ranch Project Area is fully permitted by WDEQ/LQD in 2011 and the NRC in 2013.
Approximately 800
Exploration efforts focused on developing and upgrading mineral resources.
2021
UEC
Moore Ranch Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed to date. Power lines are constructed and accessible in the area.
 
- 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.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
Geology at the Moore Ranch Project Area is similar to the geology at the North and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and includes the Felix and Badger coals. The mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 feet below this coal bed and at a depth of 200–350 feet below the surface. The host sandstone is 80-150 feet thick.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Moore Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.12 – Mineral Resources for the Moore Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_6.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Reno Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 824.  The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602, formerly a U.S. NRC license.  Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018.  Permit to Mine No. 824 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions.  Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees.  Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Reno Creek Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Reno Creek Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
 
Mineralization in the Reno Creek Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.  Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.  The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.  The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.  Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
At the Reno Creek Project Area, the Felix Coal seams are laterally continuous in the North and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and extend northward into the Moore and Bing resource areas. The Felix Coal seams, and the underlying Badger Coal seam, provide important correlation points across the Reno Creek Project Area. Sandstone horizons that host uranium mineralization within the production zone aquifer are typically cross-bedded, graded sequences fining upward from very coarse-grained at the base to fine-grained at the top, representing sedimentary cycles from 5-20 feet thick. Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body accumulations over 200 feet thick.
 
- 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
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_7.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area.
 
Table 2.15: Historic Ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1960s-1970s
Cordero Mining
Numerous exploration companies including Teton Exploration (“Teton”), PRI, Uranium Resources, Inc. (“URI”) and Malapai (a subsidiary of APS) collectively explored in the Ludeman Project Area.
Approximately 5,420
Explored for uranium roll-front mineralization and delineated deposits in the Ludeman Project Area.
1980
United Nuclear Corp. (“UNC”) and partner Teton
Constructed and operated the Leuenberger ISR pilot test facility for 12 months. Groundwater restoration was completed following production and a commercial permit to mine was granted. Due to a decline in the market, the permitted mine was not placed into commercial operation and the permit expired.
N/A
Produced 12,800 lbs of 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
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_8.jpg.ashx
 
Figure 2.8 – Location of the Allemand-Ross Project
 
Property Description
 
The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern PRB Uranium District of Wyoming, at latitude 43.3101 and longitude -105.7787 in decimal degrees. The Allemand-Ross Project Area covers 13,331.72 acres, including all (or portions of) 21 sections within three townships of the PRB.
 
The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located approximately 42 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming., The Allemand-Ross Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal or state-managed land. The Allemand-Ross Project Area was previously divided into North and South areas, with North Allemand-Ross historically called the Sand Draw Property and South Allemand-Ross called the North Bear Creek Property., This designation is not utilized by UEC, as both areas are now within the Allemand-Ross Project Area. The land ownership is a combination of private, state of Wyoming and federally owned land administered by the BLM.
 
The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross project area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (958 acres), 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (9,040 acres) and seven fee (private) mineral leases (3,333.72 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 13,331.72 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
- 36 -
 
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operation at the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
 
Table 2.17: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Allemand-Ross Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1967
Kerr-McGee, Homestake, Teton
Early uranium exploration was completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross Project Area. Exploration was typically for shallower mineralization (<1,000 ft).
Approximately 100
Exploration of shallow mineralization (<1,000 ft).
1971
Conoco
Conoco staked lode mining claims in 1969. In 1970, Conoco entered an agreement with National Resources Corporation to earn in on the Allemand-Ranch land holdings. National Resources Corporation’s interests were acquired by Pioneer Nuclear in 1972 and the joint venture partnership was maintained until 1975. In 1979, Conoco continued to operate the drilling program. Conoco closed its mineral department in 1984.
Approximately 1,180
A significant amount of the mineralization within the Allemand-Ross Project Area was delineated.
1984
Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (“PNC”)
PNC assumed control of the Allemand-Ross Project Area and continued exploration.
Approximately 50
Additional exploration completed by PNC.
Early
1990s
PNC
Mineral rights were allowed to lapse due to further declining uranium market conditions.
N/A
Lost mineral rights.
Early
2000s-2005
HPU and EMC
Claims and leases were acquired during the uranium market upswing. HPU held most claims and leases and EMC holding the remainder of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
N/A
Mineral rights were acquired.
2007
EMC
EMC acquired HPU. The properties were consolidated.
N/A
Properties consolidated.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC. Uranium One proceeded to conduct verification and resource enhancement drilling. Most drilling was completed between 2008 and 2010.
Approximately 300
Additional exploration completed within the Allemand-Ross Project Area with average depths ranging from 1,118 ft to 1,546 ft.
2021
UEC
The Allemand-Ross Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
- 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.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.  In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.  In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.  In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Allemand-Ross Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.  The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium.  The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.  Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.  The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.  The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.  Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone.  Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”, which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.  Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.18 – Mineral Resources for the Allemand Ross Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_9.jpg.ashx
 
Figure 2.9 – Location of the Barge Project
 
Property Description
 
The Barge Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the PRB Uranium District of Wyoming, at latitude 43.2729 and longitude -105.5905 in decimal degrees. The Barge Project Area covers 7,480 acres, including all (or portions of) 18 sections of the PRB.
 
The Barge Project Area is located approximately 50 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming. The Barge Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal BLM or state-managed land.
 
The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Barge project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (640 acres) and 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (6,840 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 7,480 acres.  All payments for the lease and claims are up to date.
 
- 39 -

 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Barge Project Area.
 
Table 2.19: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Barge Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1969
Mono and RME
Under a joint venture, Mono and RME conducted the initial exploration program through drilling. Upon successful exploration, the Bear Creek Uranium Company was formed under general partnership between Mono and RME.
Unspecified and included in the total estimate.
Successful exploration led to joint venture and mill construction.
1975-1982
Bear Creek Uranium Company
A mill was constructed in 1975. Open pit mining operations began in 1977 until 1982. Mining claims were dropped after 1982.
Approximately 6,880
4.7 million tons of material from open pit mining processed at the Bear Creek mill.
2006
EMC
EMC located the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.
N/A
Lapsed mineral leases acquired.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Barge Project Area.
None as of 2019.
No exploration had been completed.
2021
UEC
Barge Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Barge Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Barge Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
- 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.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.  In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.  In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
Table 2.20 – Mineral Resources for the Barge Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_10.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_11.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_12.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_13.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_14.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore (1000s)
Average Grade (% eU3O8)
Pounds eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_15.jpg.ashx
 
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. 
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_16.jpg.ashx
 
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
1990s
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 1990s
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
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8
(000s)
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_17.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_18.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_19.jpg.ashx
 
 
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
 
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 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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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% eU3O8.
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_20.jpg.ashx
 
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 N30oW to N55oW and dip steeply (approximately 80o) to the southwest.
 
Another set of faults trending more westerly (N65oW) 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% U3O8 to 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 (000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Average Sum
Thickness (ft)
Average Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds eU3O8 (000s)
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_20c.jpg.ashx
 
Figure 2.20 – Canadian Uranium Projects
 
- 82 -
 
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_21.jpg.ashx
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_22.jpg.ashx
 
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 (000s)
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_23.jpg.ashx
 
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.
 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_24.jpg.ashx
 
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
 
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 BMPs.
 
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 (000s)
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.
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_25.jpg.ashx
 
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 -

 
http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672figure2_26.jpg.ashx
 
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
(000s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000s)
Weighted
Average
Grade
(% eU3O8)
Pounds
eU3O8 (000s)
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
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.1.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
10.21
10.22
10.23
10.24
 
- 99 -

 
10.25
10.26
10.27
10.28
10.29
10.30
10.31
10.32
10.33
10.34
10.35
10.36
10.37
10.38
10.39
10.40
10.41
10.42
10.43
10.44
10.45
10.46
10.47
10.48
10.49
10.50
10.51
10.52
10.53
10.54
10.55
10.56
10.57
10.58
10.59
10.60
10.61
10.62
10.63
10.64
10.65
10.66
 
- 100 -

 
10.67
10.68
10.69
10.70
10.71
10.72
10.73
10.74
10.75
10.76
10.77
10.78
10.79
10.80
10.81
10.82
10.83
10.84
10.85
10.86
10.87
10.88
10.89
21.1
23.1
23.2
23.3
23.4
23.5
23.6
23.7
23.8
23.9
23.10
23.11
23.12
23.13
23.14
31.1
31.2
 
- 101 -

 
32.1
96.1
96.2
96.3
96.4
96.5
96.6
96.7
96.8
96.9
96.10
99.1
99.2
99.3
   
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 -
0001437749-24-010672ex_646325.htm

Exhibit 23.2

 

CONSENT OF BENJAMIN J. SCHIFFER

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “Technical Report Summary S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project Campbell County, WY USA” dated January 31, 2022, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

/s/ Benjamin J. Schiffer

 

Benjamin J. Schiffer, P.G.

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646326.htm

Exhibit 23.3

 

 

CONSENT OF WESTERN WATER CONSULTANTS, INC.

 

We consent to the use of our name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “Amended S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary for the Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, TX USA” date March 9, 2023; and the technical report summary entitled “Amended S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary for the Wyoming In-Situ Recovery Hub and Spoke Project, WY, USA” dated March 9, 2023, that we prepared, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

We further consent to the filing of the technical report summaries as exhibits to the Form 10-K/A.

 

Western Water Consultants, Inc.
d.b.a. WWC Engineering

 

Per:         /s/ Brady S. Lewis                  
Brady S. Lewis, President/CEO
Western Water Consultants, Inc.
d.b.a. WWC Engineering

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646327.htm

Exhibit 23.4

 

CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. BEAHM

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA” dated March 9, 2023; the technical report summary entitled “Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA” dated March 9, 2023; and the technical report summary entitled “2022 Initial Assessment on the Workman Creek Project US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Gila County, Arizona, USA” dated February 14, 2023, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summaries as exhibits to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

/s/ Douglas L. Beahm

 

Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., SME Registered Member

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646328.htm

Exhibit 23.5

 

CONSENT OF CLYDE L. YANCEY

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA” dated March 9, 2023; the technical report summary entitled “Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA” dated March 9, 2023; and the technical report summary entitled “2022 Initial Assessment on the Workman Creek Project US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Gila County, Arizona, USA” dated February 14, 2023, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summaries as exhibits to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

/s/ Clyde L. Yancey

 

Clyde L. Yancey, P.G., SME Registered Member

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646329.htm

Exhibit 23.6

 

CONSENT OF BRS, INC.

 

We consent to the use of our name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA” dated March 9, 2023; and the technical summary report entitled “Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA” dated March 9, 2023, that we prepared, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

We further consent to the filing of the technical report summaries as exhibits to the Form 10-K/A.

 

BRS, Inc.

 

 

Per:  /s/ Douglas L. Beahm

 

Douglas L. Beahm, President, P.E., P.G., SME Registered Member

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646330.htm

Exhibit 23.7

 

CONSENT OF VICTOR FERNANDEZ-CROSA

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2022 Technical Report on the Shea Creek Project, Saskatchewan” dated December 30, 2022; and the technical report summary entitled “2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan” dated March 1, 2024, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summaries as exhibits to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

/s/ Victor Fernandez-Crosa

 

Victor Fernandez-Crosa,

Paraguay Manager, Company

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646331.htm

Exhibit 23.8

 

CONSENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. HAMEL

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2022 Technical Report on the Shea Creek Project, Saskatchewan” dated December 30, 2022; and the technical report summary entitled “2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan” dated March 1, 2024, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summaries as exhibits to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

/s/ Christopher J. Hamel  
Christopher J. Hamel, P.Geo., APEGS Registered Member

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646332.htm

Exhibit 23.9

 

CONSENT OF JAMES N. GRAY

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2022 Technical Report on the Shea Creek Project, Saskatchewan” dated December 30, 2022, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

/s/ James N. Gray  
James N. Gray, P.Geo., EGBC Registered Member  

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646333.htm

Exhibit 23.10

 

CONSENT OF DAVID A. RHYS

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2022 Technical Report on the Shea Creek Project, Saskatchewan” dated December 30, 2022, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

/s/ David A. Rhys  
David A. Rhys, P.Geo., PGO Registered Member  

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646334.htm

Exhibit 23.11

 

CONSENT OF NATHAN A. BARSI

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan” dated March 1, 2024, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A

 

 

/s/ Nathan A. Barsi  
Nathan A. Barsi, P.Geo., APEGS Registered Member  

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646335.htm

Exhibit 23.12

 

CONSENT OF ROGER M. LEMAITRE

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan” dated March 1, 2024, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

/s/ Roger M. Lemaitre  
Roger M. Lemaitre, P.Eng., P.Geo., APEGS Registered Member

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646336.htm

Exhibit 23.13

 

CONSENT OF CARL DAVID WARREN

 

I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “2022 Initial Assessment on the Workman Creek Project US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Gila County, Arizona, USA”, dated February 14, 2023, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

I further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

/s/ Carl David Warren  
Carl David Warren, P.E., P.G., SME Registered Member  

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646337.htm

Exhibit 23.14

 

CONSENT OF SRK CONSULTING (UK) LIMITED

 

We consent to the use of our name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “Technical Report Summary: Roughrider Uranium Project, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated April 25, 2023, that we prepared, included or incorporated by reference in:

 

 

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any amendments or supplements thereto;

 

 

(ii)

the Company’s Form S-3 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-220404, 333-267992 and 333-268417), and any amendments or supplements thereto; and

 

 

(iii)

the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, 333-262197 and 333-273321); and any amendments or supplements thereto.

 

 

We further consent to the filing of the technical report summary as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A.

 

SRK CONSULTING (UK) LIMITED

 

 

Per:   /s/ Guy Dishaw  
Guy Dishaw, P.Geo  

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646338.htm

Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Amir Adnani, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of Uranium Energy Corp.; and

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

By:

/s/ Amir Adnani

 

Amir Adnani

 

President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director

__________

 

 
0001437749-24-010672ex_646339.htm

Exhibit 31.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Pat Obara, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of Uranium Energy Corp.; and

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date: April 2, 2024

 

By: 

/s/ Pat Obara

 

Pat Obara

 

Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

__________

 

 

 
HTML Editor

Exhibit 96.4

 

2024 TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE HORSESHOE-RAVEN PROJECT, SASKATCHEWAN

 

 

Uranium Energy Corp.

 

 

Effective Date: March 1, 2024

 

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672logomed.jpg.ashx

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nathan A. Barsi, P.Geo.

Christopher J. Hamel, P.Geo.

Roger Lemaitre, P.Eng., P.Geo.

 

March 1, 2024

 

 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS   PAGE #

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1.1

Introduction

1

1.2

Property Description and Ownership

1

1.3

History

2

1.4

Geology and Mineralization

2

1.5

Exploration

3

1.6

Development and Operations

4

1.7

Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

4

1.8

Data Verification

4

1.9

Metallurgy

4

1.10

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

4

1.11

Recovery Methods

7

1.12

Adjacent Properties

8

1.13

Permitting Requirements

8

1.14

Conclusions and Recommendations

8

2

INTRODUCTION

10

2.1

Work Program

10

2.2

Basis of the Technical Report

10

2.3

Qualifications of Authors and UEX Team

10

2.4

Site Visit

11

2.5

Previous Reports

11

2.6

Key Definitions

11

2.7

Declaration

11

3

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

12

3.1

Mineral Tenure

13

3.2

Mining Rights in Saskatchewan

15

3.3

Underlying Agreements

15

3.4

Permits and Authorization

15

3.5

Environmental Considerations

15

4

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

16

4.1

Accessibility

16

4.2

Local Resources and Infrastructure

16

4.3

Climate

17

4.4

Physiography

17

5

HISTORY

19

5.1

Property Ownership

19

5.2

Exploration and Development History

19

5.3

Early Uranium Exploration (1968 to 2002)

20

5.4

Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

21

5.5

Historical Production

22

6

GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

23

6.1

Regional Geology

23

6.2

Geology of the Horseshoe-Raven Property: Distribution of Lithologies

27

6.3

Pre-Athabasca Lithologies on the Hidden Bay Property: Wollaston Group

28

6.3.1

Lower Pelitic Gneiss

28

6.3.2

Meta-Arkose Unit

28

6.3.3

Carbonate and Calc-Silicate Units at the top of the Meta-Arkose Sequence

29

6.3.4

Hidden Bay Assemblage

29

6.3.5

Granitic Rocks and Other Igneous Lithologies in the Region

29

6.3.6

The Collins Bay and McClean Lake Domes: Possible Archean Basement

29

6.3.7

Granite Sills and Dykes in the Wollaston Group

30

6.3.8

Granitic Gneiss in Quartzite of Hidden Bay Assemblage

30

 

i

 

6.3.9

Pegmatite Sills and Dykes

32

6.3.10

Post-Metamorphic Sediments: Athabasca Sandstone

32

6.3.11

Paleoweathering/Saprolite at the Top of the Basement Rocks

32

6.4

Structural Setting of the Horseshoe-Raven Property

33

6.4.1

Penetrative Deformation and Folding

33

6.4.2

D1 Deformation

33

6.4.3

D2 Deformation

33

6.5

Mineralization

34

6.6

Local Geology of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

35

6.6.1

Host Lithologies to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

35

6.6.2

Structural Setting - Metamorphic Structural Architecture

35

6.6.3

Mineralization

35

6.7

Athabasca Uranium Deposits

36

6.7.1

Sandstone-Hosted Deposits

37

6.7.2

Basement-Hosted Deposits

37

7

EXPLORATION

40

7.1

Geophysics in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area

40

7.2

Drilling in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area

41

7.2.1

Historical Drilling by Gulf in the Horseshoe and Raven Area

43

7.3

Drilling (Mid-2009 – 2012)

44

7.4

Core Handling, Drillhole Surveys and Logistical Considerations during the Mid-2009 – 2012 Drilling Programs

67

7.4.1

Drillhole Field Locations and Surveys

68

7.4.2

Downhole Surveys

68

7.4.3

Drill Core Handling Procedures

68

7.4.4

Core Recovery

69

7.4.5

Drill Core Logging

69

7.4.6

Geotechnical Logging

70

7.4.7

Radiometric Probing of Drillholes

71

7.4.8

Relationship between Sample Length and True Thickness

71

7.4.9

Hydrogeology

72

8

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

73

8.1

Horseshoe and Raven Geochemical Sample Collection

73

8.2

Drillhole Sampling Quality and Representativeness

74

8.3

Shipping and Security

75

8.4

Geochemical Analyses

75

8.4.1

Analytical Procedures

75

8.4.2

SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories U3O8 Method Summary

76

8.4.3

Laboratory Audits

76

8.5

Uranium Equivalent Grades

76

8.6

Dry Bulk Density Samples

77

8.6.1

Analytical Methods

78

8.7

Summary

80

8.7.1

Verifications of Analytical Quality Control Data

81

9

DATA VERIFICATION

91

9.1

Qualified Person Data Verification

91

9.2

Database Verification

91

9.3

Logging and Sampling Procedure Review

92

9.4

Collar Position

92

9.4.1

Downhole Surveys, Collar and Lithology Review

92

9.5

Assay and Bulk Densities Databases

93

9.6

Independent Samples

93

9.7

Conclusion

94

9.8

QP Comments

94

10

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

95

11

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

97

 

ii

 

11.1

Introduction

97

11.2

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology

97

11.3

Resource Database

98

11.4

Geological Modelling

99

11.5

Specific Gravity

101

11.6

Composites

104

11.7

Capping

104

11.8

Block Model Definition

107

11.9

Search Ellipsoid

107

11.10

Estimation Strategy

108

11.11

Block Model Validation

109

11.11.1

Block Volume/Solid Volume Comparison

109

11.11.2

Visual Validation of Sections

109

11.11.3

Swath Plots

111

11.11.4

Validation Author Statement

113

11.12

Mineral Resource Classification

113

11.13

Grade Sensitivity Analysis

116

11.14

Resource Uncertainty and Prospect of Economic Extraction

117

12

MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

118

13

MINING METHODS

119

14

PROCESS AND RECOVERY METHODS

120

15

INFRASTRUCTURE

121

16

MARKET STUDIES

122

17

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS

123

18

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

124

19

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

125

20

ADJACENT PROPERTIES

126

21

OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

127

22

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

128

23

RECOMMENDATIONS

129

23.1

Preliminary Economic Assessment

129

23.2

Additional Field Duplicate Sampling

129

23.3

Advanced Metallurgy

129

24

REFERENCES

131

25

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

137

26

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGES

138

 

iii

 

LIST OF FIGURES Page #

Figure 3‑1: Location of the Horseshoe-Raven Property in Saskatchewan, Canada

12

Figure 3‑2: Land Tenure Map of the Horseshoe-Raven Property

14

Figure 4‑1: Typical Landscape in the Horseshoe-Raven Property Area

18

Figure 6‑1: Regional Geology Setting

24

Figure 6‑2: Horseshoe-Raven Local Area Stratigraphy

25

Figure 6‑3: Geological Sketch Map of the Athabasca Basin. The eastern Athabasca Basin is defined as that part of the basin east of the Snowbird tectonic zone and is shown in reference to the major basement domains and stratigraphy of the Athabasca Basin, after Card et al. 2007, Portella and Annesley (2000), Ramaekers et al. (2007) and Thomas et al. (2002).

26

Figure 6‑4: A) Idealized cross-section through the eastern Cree Lake zone, suggesting the possible structural relationship between Archean basement and Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary cover during the early stages of Hudsonian deformation (after Tran, 2001); B) Geological cross-section through the Athabasca Basin (after Ramaekers, 1990; Ramaekers et al. 2007). For location see Figure 6-3.

27

Figure 6‑5: Horseshoe-Raven Property Local Geology

31

Figure 6‑6: Types of Unconformity-Type Uranium Deposits

39

Figure 7‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Drillhole Collars

42

Figure 7‑2: Recent Historical Drilling on the Horseshoe-Raven Property

45

Figure 8‑1: Logarithmic Plot of Dry Bulk Density versus Uranium Grade in Corresponding Geochemical Samples

79

Figure 8‑2: Quantile - Quantile Plot of Laboratory Bulk Density Replicated for Batches Submitted for all Seasons Prior to September 2008

79

Figure 8‑3: Quantile - Quantile Plot of Laboratory Bulk Density Replicated for Batches Submitted between September 2008 and June 2009

80

Figure 8‑4: Control Chart for Reference Material CG51509* analyzed for Uranium at SRC

84

Figure 8‑5: Control Chart for Reference Material CAR110 analyzed for Uranium at SRC

85

Figure 8‑6: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-2a analyzed for %U3O8 at SRC

85

Figure 8‑7: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-3* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

86

Figure 8‑8: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-4a* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

86

Figure 8‑9: Control Chart for Reference Material UEX08* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

87

Figure 8‑10: Control Chart for Reference Material UEX02* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

87

Figure 8‑11: XY Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium at SRC 2009

89

Figure 8‑12: RPD Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium at SRC 2009

89

Figure 8‑13: XY Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium SRC 2011

90

Figure 8‑14: RPD Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium SRC 2011

90

Figure 11‑1: Horseshoe Wireframe Plan View (Looking Down)

100

Figure 11‑2: Horseshoe Wireframe Isometric View (Looking NNE)

100

Figure 11‑3: Raven Wireframe Plan View (Looking Down)

101

 

iv

 

Figure 11‑4: Raven Wireframe Isometric View (Looking NNE)

101

Figure 11‑5: Horseshoe Density vs U3O8

102

Figure 11‑6: Raven Density vs U3O8

103

Figure 11‑7: Log Probability Plot for Horseshoe Composite and Trimmed Assays

105

Figure 11‑8: Log Probability Plot for Raven Composite and Trimmed Assays

106

Figure 11‑9: Horseshoe Visual Check of Drillhole Grades against Block Grades (Section Orientation of 335°)

110

Figure 11‑10: Raven Visual Check of Drillhole Grades against Block Grades (Section Orientation of 345°)

111

Figure 11‑11: Horseshoe Swath Plot in the X Direction

112

Figure 11‑12: Raven Swath Plot in the X Direction

112

 

v

 

LIST OF TABLES Page #

Table 1‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates

6

Table 1‑2: Grade Sensitivity Analysis Using Global Block Model Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various U3O8 Cut-Off Grades

7

Table 3‑1: Mineral Tenure Information for the Horseshoe-Raven Property

13

Table 5‑1: Historical Drilling by Other Companies on the Horseshoe-Raven Property

20

Table 5‑2: 2022 Resource Estimate

21

Table 7‑1: Summary of Drilling on the Horseshoe-Raven Property

43

Table 7‑2: Summary of Drilling by UEX on the Horseshoe-Raven Project

46

Table 7‑3: Assay Results Mid-2009 through 2012

48

Table 7‑4: UEX Lithology Legend

69

Table 8‑1: Horseshoe Bulk Density (g/cm3) Statistics Grouped by Lithology

77

Table 8‑2: Raven Bulk Density (g/cm3) Statistics Grouped by Lithology

78

Table 8‑3: Average Dry Bulk Densities (g/cm3) by Grade Bins

78

Table 8‑4: Number of Samples for Each Deposit by Year

81

Table 8‑5: Summary of the Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period 2005 to September 2008 (Baldwin, 2009)

82

Table 8‑6: Summary of the Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period September 2008 to June 2009 (Baldwin, 2009)

83

Table 8‑7: Summary of Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period July 2009 to 2011

84

Table 9‑1: Raven Collars, Comparison between QP's GPS and UEX Database

92

Table 9‑2: Independent Samples taken by Golder at Horseshoe and Raven

94

Table 11‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Exploration Drillholes

98

Table 11‑2: Horseshoe Density Statistics

102

Table 11‑3: Raven Density Statistics

104

Table 11‑4: Basic Statistics for Mineralized Wireframes at Horseshoe and Raven

106

Table 11‑5: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Block Model Specifications

107

Table 11‑6: Search Ellipse Parameters for Horseshoe and Raven Estimation

107

Table 11‑7: Estimation Parameters for Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

108

Table 11‑8: Volume Estimated per Pass for Each Deposit

109

Table 11‑9: Wireframe Volume vs Block Model Volume

109

Table 11‑10: Cut-Off Grade Determination

115

Table 11‑11: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates

115

Table 11‑12: Global Block Model Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various U3O8 Cut-Off Grades

116

Table 23‑1: Cost Break Down of Metallurgical Drill Program

130

 

vi

     

 

1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

1.1

Introduction

 

The Horseshoe-Raven Property (the “Property”) is in the Wollaston Lake area of Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 695 kilometres (“km”) north of Saskatoon, southwest of Wollaston Lake. The Property is located approximately four km south of the uranium mill at Rabbit Lake and 431 km north of the town of La Ronge. The Property is 100% owned by UEX Corporation (“UEX”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uranium Energy Corporation (“UEC” or the “Company”), and is 4,486 hectares comprised of one mineral claim as of the effective date of this Technical Report Summary, to which UEX has title.

 

The Property is in the eastern Athabasca uranium district, adjacent to several current and past producing uranium deposits on the Rabbit Lake property of Cameco Corporation (“Cameco”), and the McClean Lake property operated by Orano Canada Inc. (“Orano”). The Property is accessible year-round by Highway 905, a maintained all-weather gravel road, and by maintained access and mine roads to the Rabbit Lake and McClean Lake mining operations, which pass through the Property. Infrastructure is well developed in the local area, with two operating uranium ore processing facilities, Rabbit Lake and McClean Lake, located four km northeast and 22 km northwest of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits, respectively. The principal hydroelectric transmission lines that service both facilities also pass through the property, over the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits.

 

This Technical Report Summary (the “TRS”) has been prepared for UEC by Mr. Nathan Barsi (UEX’s District Geologist), Mr. Chris Hamel (UEX’s VP Exploration and the Company’s Vice President Exploration, Canada) and Mr. Roger Lemaitre (UEX’s former President and CEO), pursuant to Regulation S-K Subpart 1300, “Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants” (“S‑K 1300”). This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached concerning the Initial Assessment (“IA”) to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Property. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Property.

 

UEX became a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC on August 19, 2022. Much of the technical work reported herein was completed prior to the acquisition of UEX by UEC. Thus, while the TRS will include statements such as “UEX completed”, or “UEX provided”, the reader is cautioned that when UEX is mentioned it should be interpreted that such work was completed prior to the completion of the acquisition.

 

1.2

Property Description and Ownership

 

The Property is in the Wollaston Lake area of Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 695 km north of Saskatoon, southwest of Wollaston Lake. The Property measures approximately 4,486 hectares comprising one mineral claim as of the effective date of the TRS, to which UEX has title.

 

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 Property 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.

 

1

 

UEC’s wholly-owned subsidiary, UEX, holds a 100% interest in the Property, subject to standard royalties to the Government of Saskatchewan.

 

Access to the Property is via Highway 905, a well-maintained gravel road accessible year-round that passes through the central portion of the Property and over the west end of the Raven Deposit. Year-round access is possible by truck. The topography of the area is relatively flat characterized by undulating glacial moraine, outwash, and lacustrine plains.

 

1.3

History

 

The Property 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 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).

 

1.4

Geology and Mineralization

 

The Property 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 Property 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 Property lies within one of them, the Wollaston Domain. Lithologies and foliation of the Wollaston Domain rocks of the Property 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.

 

2

 

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 m and occurs at depths between 100 m and 450 m 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 m southwest of the Horseshoe Deposit and has been defined over a strike 1000 m and ranges between 100 m and 300 m 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.

 

1.5

Exploration

 

After acquiring the claims comprising the Property in 2002, UEX continued to explore various targets on the Property, utilizing a combination of airborne and ground electromagnetic (“EM”), magnetic, radiometric resistivity and gravity geophysical methods in more grassroots target areas to identify drilling targets, or direct follow-up drilling in areas where previous drilling had intersected alteration or mineralization.

 

UEX also initiated a re-evaluation of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits due to rising uranium prices. In 2005, drilling tested mineralization in selected areas of both deposits to test mineralization continuity between the widely-spaced historical holes drilled by Gulf. The success of that program led to subsequent drilling programs between 2006 and 2009, in which 376 diamond drillholes totaling 119,400 m were drilled at Horseshoe and 243 drillholes totaling 65,600 m were drilled at Raven. These programs not only established continuity of mineralization between the historical Gulf drilling, but expanded the deposit footprints into areas not historically drilled by Gulf.

 

Additional drilling was completed in the summer of 2009 and 2011, bringing the total drillholes for Horseshoe to 404 (128,179.8 m) and 311 drillholes (82,205.8 m) for Raven. The results of these holes were incorporated into the existing database and used to update the resource estimates, which are discussed in this TRS.

 

3

 

1.6

Development and Operations

 

There is no permanent infrastructure or capacity to conduct mining operations on the Property.

 

1.7

Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

 

All samples from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 drilling programs were submitted by ground courier to the Saskatchewan Research Council (“SRC”) in Saskatoon. SRC is accredited to the ISO 17025 standard by the Standards Council of Canada for a number of specific test procedures, including U3O8 analysis and specific gravity.

 

Chris Hamel, P.Geo. (APEGS#12985), co-author and Qualified Person (“QP”) of this TRS undertook the analysis of analytical control data for the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. In the opinion of the QP, the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures for all assay data are suitable for use in mineral resource estimation.

 

1.8

Data Verification

 

Exploration work completed by UEX in 2009 and 2011 was conducted using documented procedures and protocols involving extensive exploration data verifications and validation. During drilling, UEX geologists implemented industry-standard best practices designed to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the exploration data.

 

Mr. Nathan Barsi, P.Geo (UEX District Geologist) and Mr. Chris Hamel, P.Geo. (UEX Vice President, Exploration) visited the site from June 9 to June 17, 2021, to review and verify this historical work. All relevant information required for this TRS and resource model were reviewed by the QPs (core logging, sampling, database management) and the QPs are confident in the validity of the data provided within.

 

1.9

Metallurgy

 

Preliminary metallurgy was completed in 2009. Based on the test work process, uranium recoveries are estimated to be 95%. Leach tests confirmed that the Horseshoe and Raven mineralization is easily leached under relatively mild atmospheric leach conditions.

 

In 2016, UEX conducted additional metallurgical testing of Horseshoe and Raven mineralization with the objective of evaluating the potential benefit of heap leach extraction in lieu of toll milling. The testing program was conducted at SGS Lakefield Laboratories and was successful at demonstrating the potential of heap leaching. UEC is encouraged by the results of the test work and will be conducting further investigations into heap leaching at Horseshoe and Raven in the future.

 

1.10

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

 

The resource estimation work was completed by Mr. Nathan Barsi, P.Geo. (APEGS #15012) and Mr. Roger Lemaitre P.Eng., P.Geo. (APEGS #10647) who, along with Chris Hamel, are appropriate QPs as defined under S-K 1300. The mineral resource model prepared by a QP considers 715 core boreholes (210,385 m) drilled by UEX during the period between 2005 to 2009 and 2011. The mineral resources reported herein were estimated using an inverse distance squared/block modelling approach informed from core borehole data constrained within uranium mineralization wireframes.

 

4

 

The geological model of the mineralization represents distinct irregularly shaped pods that are mappable continuously from borehole to borehole. The solid used to constrain the block model was defined using a traditional wireframe interpretation constructed from explicit modelling and sectional interpretation of the drilling data using a 0.02% U3O8 threshold. Using this threshold, a wireframe was constructed that defined the margins and continuity of the uranium mineralization at Horseshoe and Raven. Assays were composited to one m prior to construction of wireframes. Constructing a singular wireframe envelope for both deposits supersede the previous interpretation of 28 subzones for the Horseshoe Deposit and the 16 subzones from the Raven Deposit.

 

Upon completion of the wireframes, the assay sample database was trimmed to samples that only fall within the mineralized wireframe. Basic statistics, histograms and cumulative probability plots for each deposit were applied to determine appropriate capping grades. The Horseshoe Deposit grade was capped at 10%, while Raven was capped at 1.88%.

 

The resource estimate followed the block size criteria set forth in the 2009 N.I. 43-101 Horseshoe-Raven Mineral Resource Technical Report (the “2009 Report”) as a starting point, with a block size of five by five by 2.5 m for the mineralized wireframe. The blocks were visually checked by a QP in both two-dimensional (“2D”) and three-dimensional (“3D”), and it was deemed appropriate to use the existing block criteria as referenced above. Sub-cells, at 0.25 m resolution, were used to respect the geology of the modelled wireframe. Sub-cells were assigned the same grade as the parent cell. The block model was rotated on the Z-axis to honor the orientation of the mineralization.

 

Grade estimation used an inverse distance weighting squared estimation algorithm and three passes informed by the capped and trimmed to the uranium wireframe assay values. Validation checks confirm that the block estimates are a reasonable representation of the informing data set.

 

The QPs are satisfied that the geological modelling honors the current geological information and knowledge. The location of the samples and the assay data are sufficiently reliable to support resource evaluation. The sampling information was acquired by core drilling with pierce points between seven metres and 30 m apart, but generally at 10 m across section and 25 m along strike. The QPs are confident that they have modelled the overall spatial location of the uranium mineralization and that it is representative of the controls. Preliminary metallurgical data has been collected and has been disclosed above in the relevant section. The QPs consider all block estimates within the mineralized lenses to satisfy the Committee for Mineral Resources International Reporting Standards (“CRIRSCO”) classification criteria for an Indicated Mineral Resource.

 

The cut-off grade (“COG”) used to determine resources was calculated to be 0.05% U3O8 by a QP.

 

5

 

A QP determined COG by considering a cut-and-fill underground mining method for the two deposits. The limitations associated with typical cut-and-fill mining processes require that all rock present within a mineralized zone be mined and removed from the mining stope, regardless of whether or not that portion of rock is mineralized, partially mineralized or is considered to be waste rock. Thus, the cost to mine mineralized rock is equivalent to the cost of mining waste rock. In a cut-and-fill underground mining scenario, waste rock must be removed.

 

Processing, water treatment, general and administrative costs, along with mining and milling recoveries using heap leach extraction, were estimated by a QP for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. The uranium price of US$75/lb U3O8 was used and is considered reasonable given the range of spot uranium prices reported by industry price expert TradeTech between September 15, 2023 and this TRS’ effective date of March 1, 2024. An exchange rate of C$1.00 to US$0.73 was used.

 

As the cost of mining waste rock and mineralized rock are the same in cut-and-fill underground extraction, marginal COGs are determined exclusively from the processing, water treatment and general and administrative costs.

 

The marginal COG was determined using the formula:

 

COG =     Processing+Water Treat+G&A+ Mining  Cost per tonne
Uranium Price (in CAD$ per t) x total recovery

 

Criteria related to calculating COG are presented in Table 11-10. In the opinion of the QPs, the resource evaluation reported in Table 1-1 is a reasonable representation of the uranium mineralization at the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits.

 

Table 11: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates

 

Horseshoe Deposit Uranium Resource*

Deposit

Category

Quantity

(Tonnes)

Average Grade U3O8 (%)

Total lb. U3O8

Horseshoe

Indicated

4,982,500

0.215

23,594,000

Raven Deposit Uranium Resources*

Deposit

Category

Quantity

(Tonnes)

Average Grade U3O8 (%)

Total lb. U3O8

Raven

Indicated

5,370,000

0.117

13,832,400

*Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Resources were estimated using a COG of 0.05% U3O8

 

The mineral resource model is relatively sensitive to the selection of the reporting uranium COG. To illustrate this sensitivity, the quantities and grade estimates are presented in Table 1-2 at various COGs. The reader is cautioned that the figures presented in this table should not be misconstrued with a Mineral Resource Statement. The tables are only presented to show the sensitivity of the block model estimate to the selection of U3O8 COG.

 

6

 

Table 12: Grade Sensitivity Analysis Using Global Block Model Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various U3O8 Cut-Off Grades

 

Horseshoe Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Cut-Off

Indicated Blocks

Grade

Volume / Quantity

 

Grade

U3O8

Volume

Tonnage

 

U3O8

(%)

(m3)

(tonnes)

 

(%)

0.01

4,113,990

10,202,696

 

0.119

0.02

3,415,704

8,470,945

 

0.140

0.05

2,009,077

4,982,512

 

0.215

0.10

1,196,033

2,966,088

 

0.313

0.15

866,315

2,148,462

 

0.386

0.20

628,722

1,559,230

 

0.466

0.25

468,775

1,162,562

 

0.548

0.30

372,190

923,032

 

0.620

0.35

300,907

746,250

 

0.689

0.40

238,923

592,530

 

0.771

Raven Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Cut-Off

Indicated Blocks

Grade

Volume / Quantity

 

Grade

U3O8

Volume

Tonnage

 

U3O8

(%)

(m3)

(tonnes)

 

(%)

0.01

5,013,261

12,432,888

 

0.066

0.02

4,117,590

10,211,623

 

0.077

0.05

2,165,334

5,370,028

 

0.117

0.10

867,706

2,151,912

 

0.186

0.15

439,339

1,089,560

 

0.250

0.20

244,018

605,165

 

0.312

0.25

149,652

371,138

 

0.368

0.30

93,338

231,479

 

0.424

0.35

60,029

148,873

 

0.481

0.40

40,251

99,822

 

0.534

 

The sensitivity analysis indicates that a large portion of the resource for the deposits are of a lower grade.

 

1.11

Recovery Methods

 

In 2016, UEX conducted additional metallurgical testing of Horseshoe and Raven uranium mineralization with the objective of evaluating the potential benefit of heap leach extraction in lieu of toll milling. The testing program was conducted at SGS Lakefield Laboratories and was successful at demonstrating the potential of heap leaching. UEX is encouraged by the results of the test work and will be conducting further investigations into heap leaching at Horseshoe and Raven in the future.

 

7

 

1.12

Adjacent Properties

 

There are no applicable adjacent properties to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits.

 

1.13

Permitting Requirements

 

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 (“SMEGAC”) 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”).

 

1.14

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The two wireframes constructed by a QP were developed using the former authors’ subzones for each deposit as a guide. The alternate section definition and the distribution of the drillholes and assays not previously incorporated into the geological interpretation resulted in the majority of the subzones being truncated by the new wireframes interpreted by that QP.

 

The Horseshoe Deposit is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 23,594,000 lbs U3O8 with an average grade of 0.215% U3O8 at a COG of 0.05% U3O8. The Raven Deposit is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 13,832,400 lbs U3O8, with an average grade of 0.117% U3O8 at a COG of 0.05% U3O8. No inferred resources have been estimated for either deposit.

 

This results in the Horseshoe deposit’s contained uranium in indicated resources in this estimate decreased by approximately 1.5%, but the average grade increased by approximately 9% at a COG of 0.05% U3O8 when compared to the global tonnage of the resource reported in the 2009 Report. This decrease is likely attributed to the wireframes in 28 subzones in the 2009 estimate being very thin and vein-like in their original construction.

 

A QP completed a conventional inverse distance squared interpolation approach to estimate the updated mineral resource for the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. Mineral resource estimates were constrained within geological defined wireframes based on available information.

 

The QPs are confident in the modelling of the overall spatial location of the uranium mineralization and that it is representative of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. The QPs consider all block estimates within the mineralized wireframe to satisfy the classification criteria for Indicated Mineral Resources.

 

Based on the geological setting, character of the uranium mineralization delineated and exploration results to date, the QPs do not recommend any future exploration work within the immediate vicinity of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits on the Property.

 

The QPs propose that a study be initiated to determine the potential economics and viability of mining the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. The resource estimate presented in this TRS could be used to determine whether the projects warrant advancement towards a pre-feasibility study. Completing this assessment is estimated to cost CAD $150,000 - $200,000.

 

8

 

As part of this assessment, it is recommended that UEX undertake an additional sampling program to supplement the summer 2009 to 2011 exploration programs. The field duplicate data from that period could not be easily segregated and validated from the assay database. The QPs are confident that duplicate samples were taken, but an additional sample program would eliminate any doubt of the validity of the data from the 2009 to 2011 program and eliminate any future but very minor QA/QC concerns over this subpopulation, which comprises only 7.88% of the total sample database. It is recommended to take approximately 500 new samples across both deposits, as this would represent approximately 2% of the sample population to date. The majority of the costs associated with an additional sample program would be analytical costs as the sample pulps from the original assay samples may still be available from the laboratory. If the samples are available, the estimated cost of a check sampling program would be CAD $25,000. If the pulps are not available, the cost would increase by approximately 33%, as new samples would have to be collected from the historical drill core the next time an exploration program is active at the Raven camp where the core is stored. This would cost approximately CAD $35,000.

 

Preliminary metallurgy was completed for a 2011 project report completed for UEX long before UEX’s acquisition by UEC. UEX completed additional metallurgical work in 2015, focusing on the viability of using uranium heap leach recovery. It is recommended that UEX advance the heap leach metallurgical testing to the next phase by completing additional compositing of representative samples from the Horseshoe and Raven deposits to continue developing the parameters for recovering the mineralized material in a sellable product. A recommend minimum of six tonnes of material is required for this work. The cost of completing this work would be approximately CAD $2,350,000.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

9

 

 

2.

INTRODUCTION

 

The Property is a development-stage project located in Saskatchewan, Canada. UEX owns 100% of the Property and operates the Property. UEX is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC, who is the registrant (the “Registrant”) and responsible for commissioning this TRS.

 

This TRS is an IA of the Property and includes a Mineral Resource Estimate for the Property on the Property. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached concerning the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Property. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Property. Mineral resources were completed according to the CRIRSCO classification guidelines.

 

2.1

Work Program

 

The Mineral Resource Estimate reported herein is an internal effort by UEC personnel that include the historical drillholes that were completed after the July 2009 Mineral Resource. The exploration database was compiled and maintained by UEX. The geological model and outlines for the uranium mineralization were constructed by a QP following the previous technical report’s recommendation (Palmer and Fielder, 2009) to create a singular wireframe for each deposit using a threshold grade of 0.02% U3O8. In the opinion of the QPs, the geological model is a reasonable representation of the distribution of the targeted mineralization at the current level of sampling. The geostatistical analysis and grade model was completed by a QP during the months of June 2021 through October 2021.

 

The Mineral Resource Estimate reported herein was prepared in conformity with the CRIRSCO classification criteria for an Indicated Mineral Resource and to the requirements of S‑K 1300.

 

The technical report was assembled at UEX’s regional office in Saskatoon during the period of May 2021 through October 2022, and revised in March 2024.

 

2.2

Basis of the Technical Report

 

This TRS is based on information collected by UEX during the 2009, 2011 and 2012 drilling campaigns performed between July 4 to September 17, 2009, January 16 to April 15, 2011, July 4 to October 20, 2011 and February 2 to February 27, 2012, and on historical information collected by UEX during exploration programs. The QPs have no reason to doubt the reliability of the information. Other information was obtained from the public domain. This Report is based on the following sources of information:

 

Inspection of the Property area, including outcrop and drill core;

 

Historical exploration data collected by UEX; and

 

Additional information from public domain sources.

 

2.3

Qualifications of Authors and UEX Team

 

Compilation of this TRS was completed by Christopher Hamel (APEGS#12985), Nathan Barsi, P.Geo. (APEGS#15012) and Roger Lemaitre P.Eng., P.Geo. (APEGS#10647) from UEX. The responsibility for the analytical control data analysis was assumed by Chris Hamel, P.Geo. (APEGS#12985) from UEX. All aspects of land status, dispositions and claims were completed by Susan Biss (APEGS#24643) and responsibility is assumed by Mr. Barsi. By virtue of their education, membership to a recognized professional association and relevant work experience, Mr. Hamel. Mr. Barsi and Mr. Lemaitre are each considered to be a QP as defined by S-K 1300.

 

10

 

2.4

Site Visit

 

Nathan Barsi, P.Geo and Chris Hamel, P.Geo., visited the Property from June 9 to 17, 2021 as Senior Geologist and Exploration Manager, respectively. While there, the QPs reviewed drill core and cross sections through both Horseshoe and Raven deposits, resurveyed historical drill collars for accuracy, observed local geology in outcrop and checked on historical sampling intervals. Roger Lemaitre last visited the Property to inspect core and outcrop related to the Horseshoe and Raven, Deposits on July 23 through July 26, 2019, wherein Mr. Lemaitre was able to examine, along with the UEX technical team, the key features of the Horseshoe-Raven deposit geology and mineralizing processes in drill core. Mr. Lemaitre was the project lead and supervised the drill programs on the Property in 2002 through 2005.

 

2.5

Previous Reports

 

This TRS is a revision to the report on the Property to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that had an effective date of October 31, 2022. The Property has previously been reported upon in Canada.

 

2.6

Key Definitions

 

For clarity, certain key entities that are referred to throughout this document are defined herewith.

 

UEX Corporation (UEX): registered owner of the Horseshoe and Raven uranium deposits located in the Athabasca Basin of Northern Saskatchewan. Prior to August 19, 2022, UEX was a Canadian publicly-listed company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and subject to Canadian National Instrument 43-101 regulations. On August 19, 2022, UEX became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uranium Energy Corp.

 

Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC” or the “Company) is a NYSE, American-listed company based in Corpus Christie, Texas that owns several uranium projects, mines and processing facilities in the United States and has been the owner of UEX since August 19, 2022. UEC is the registrant to whom this IA has been prepared.

 

2.7

Declaration

 

The QPs’ opinions contained herein and effective March 1, 2024 is based on information collected by UEX throughout the course of UEX’s exploration programs.

 

The information in turn reflects various technical and economic conditions at the time of writing this TRS. Given the nature of the mining business, these conditions can change significantly over relatively short periods of time. This TRS includes technical information that requires subsequent calculations to derive subtotals, totals and weighted averages. Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently may introduce a margin of error. Where these occur, the QPs do not consider them to be material.

 

11

 

3.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

 

The Property is in the Wollaston Lake area of Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 695 km north of Saskatoon, southwest of Wollaston Lake. The Property is located within the eastern Athabasca, approximately four km south of the uranium mill at Rabbit Lake, and 431 km north of the town of La Ronge. The centre of the Property is located at approximately 103°46’00” degrees longitude west and 58°08”10” degrees latitude north (Figure 31).

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b01.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 31: Location of the Horseshoe-Raven Property in Saskatchewan, Canada

 

12

 

3.1

Mineral Tenure

 

The Property is 100% owned by UEX/UEC and is 4,486 hectares comprised of one mineral claim as of the effective date of the TRS (Figure 3-2). The mineral rights exclude surface rights, which belong to the Government of Saskatchewan. Previously, the Horseshoe-Raven claim was part of the larger Hidden Bay property. In the first quarter of 2017, mineral claim S-106962 was separated from the Hidden Bay property to form the Property. The majority of the Property boundaries are surrounded by the 100% UEC owned Hidden Bay property.

 

Under Saskatchewan law, mineral claims or cells are map staked through an online registry. The map-designated coordinates of the cells are the legal limits of said claims, the physical limits can be verified by consulting the Government’s MARS website. The QPs were able to conduct a review of the mineral title of the Horseshoe-Raven mineral dispositions online using the publicly accessible Province of Saskatchewan’s MARS.

 

Annual assessment work and claim age is tabulated in Table 3-1. None of the dispositions are subject to any royalties, back in rights or encumbrances. No mining or waste disposal has occurred on the Property and, consequently, the Property is not subject to any liabilities due to previous mining activities. The only other encumbrances on the Property are the standard royalties to the Government of Saskatchewan.

 

Table 31: Mineral Tenure Information for the Horseshoe-Raven Property

 

Disposition

Number

Record

Date

Area

(Ha)

Annual

Assessment ($/Ha)

Total Annual

Assessment ($)

Work Due /

Lapse Date

S-106962

12/1/1977

4,486

25

$112,150

2/28/2041

Total

 

4,486

 

$112,150

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

13

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b02.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 32: Land Tenure Map of the Horseshoe-Raven Property

 

14

 

3.2

Mining Rights in Saskatchewan

 

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. The mineral disposition for the Property 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.

 

3.3

Underlying Agreements

 

On behalf of UEX, the mineral claim that comprises the Property was investigated as part of a title opinion on September 7, 2021 by Robertson Stromberg, a Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based law firm. Robertson Stromberg concluded that the claim is in good standing, is owned by UEX, and that as of September 7, 2021, there were no encumbrances, charges, security interests or instruments recorded against the claims.

 

3.4

Permits and Authorization

 

Mineral exploration on land administered by the Ministry of Environment requires that surface disturbance permits be obtained before any work is performed. The SMEGAC has developed the Mineral Exploration Guidelines for Saskatchewan to mitigate environmental impacts from industry activity and facilitate governmental approval for such activities (SMEGAC, 2016). Applications to conduct exploration work need only to address the relevant topics of those listed in the guidelines. The types of activities are listed under the guide’s BMP. Given the historical nature of the exploration data used for the basis of this TRS and the changeover of staff at UEX, the QPs do not have any reason to believe that permits were not obtained for the historical work.

 

3.5

Environmental Considerations

 

The Property, with the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits, is a mineral exploration project. The exploration work completed thus far has been limited primarily to drilling, geophysical surveys, mineral resource estimates and the establishment of a work camp with a subsequent surface lease.

 

The only known liability on the site is the temporary camp facilities. Once the camp is no longer useful, these will be removed from the site along with the septic field that is part of the present camp infrastructure.

 

15

 

4

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

 

4.1

Accessibility

 

The Property site is accessible by Highway 905, a well-maintained gravel road accessible year-round that passes through the central portion of the Property and over the west end of the Raven Deposit. Year-round access is possible by truck and all-terrain vehicles. Helicopters can also land at camp if necessary.

 

Two airstrips in the area, the Rabbit Lake airstrip and the Points North Landing airstrip, are serviced by several air carriers which provide scheduled flights to major population centres in Saskatchewan for mining operations, fishing and hunting lodges and road maintenance crews.

 

4.2

Local Resources and Infrastructure

 

Power (hydroelectric) and telephone lines to the mine sites link the Property area to the Saskatchewan power grid and telephone system. Abundant fresh water is available from the numerous lake and rivers in the area and is not a constraining factor for exploration operations. All infrastructure currently on the Property is semi-permanent. A surface lease is currently in good standing until 2023.

 

La Ronge, Saskatchewan is approximately 441 km south of the Property accessible by road and is the main source for groceries, fuel, materials and medical services. Additional resources not available in La Ronge may be sourced from the cities of Prince Albert and Saskatoon. An airfield owned by the Points North Group of Companies is located 24 km west northwest of the Raven camp and offers freighting services for exploration and mining activities in the eastern part of the Athabasca basin. They also offer shipment of products and services to Prince Albert and Saskatoon.

 

The Rabbit Lake mill facility, located on the adjacent Rabbit Lake property, is a fully functional uranium ore processing facility owned and operated by Cameco that is located adjacent to the Horseshoe Raven property four km northeast of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. A second mill facility, the Jeb Mill, operated by Orano, is located 22 km to the northwest of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. As the Property is located adjacent to existing mines and infrastructure that have operated since the 1970s, there is sufficient skilled mining personnel, supply chains and services required to operate exploration and possible future mining operations on the Property.

 

Given the size of the Property, the QPs have no reason to believe that there would not be sufficient room for any future necessary surface infrastructure required to support potential mining operations with facilities for mine waste, processing and process waste management.

 

In Saskatchewan, surface rights are granted after the application for a mining surface lease, this process is transparent and is handled by the provincial government.

 

16

 

4.3

Climate

 

The Property is located within the Athabasca sedimentary basin region, coincident with the Athabasca Plain ecoregion and Boreal Shield Ecozone. The climate is characterized by short and cool summers with a maximum temperature of 30 degrees Celsius, and cold and long winters with a temperature low of negative 40 degrees Celsius. During the summer solstice, the period of daylight lasts nearly 18.5 hours. Winter season can start in late October and continue until May.

 

Precipitation varies during the year, reaching an average of 40 centimeters annually and is characterized by snowfall in the winter months and moderate rainfall in the summer months. Maximum precipitation occurs during the summer months of July to September.

 

Exploration activities can be carried out year-round. However, it is generally accepted practice in the province to demobilize for spring break up and also for freeze up in the fall.

 

4.4

Physiography

 

The Athabasca sedimentary basin region is characterized by variable uplands and low-lying terrain with many lakes and wetlands where peatlands and bogs are common. Vegetation is typical of the Boreal Forest, including areas dominated by black spruce forests and feather mosses. Within the forests, Jack pines commonly occur on thin-soiled uplands and tamaracks on poorly drained lowlands (Figure 4-1).

 

The Athabasca Plain ecoregion has developed on sedimentary rocks of the Athabasca Group. Bedrock rarely outcrops and is generally overlain by hummocky deposits of glacial till, glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial sediments. The topography of the area is relatively flat, characterized by undulating glacial moraine, outwash and lacustrine plains. The elevation range of the Athabasca Plain is from 485 m to 640 m. Drumlins, eskers and meltwater channels have a typical local relief of 30 m to 60 m and contribute to the rolling expression of the terrain dominated by sandy glacial sediment.

 

Over 40 species of mammals are found in the ecozone and dominantly include caribou, moose, black bear, grey wolf, red fox, red squirrel, lynx, beaver, otter, snowshoe hare, marten, mink and shrew. The bird species common to the ecozone include the raven, grey jay, spruce grouse, chickadee, woodpecker, bald eagle, osprey and ptarmigan. Fish species common to the area include the lake trout, whitefish, northern pike, walleye, longnose sucker, white sucker, burbot and arctic grayling.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

17

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b03.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 41: Typical Landscape in the Horseshoe-Raven Property Area

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

18

 

5

HISTORY

 

5.1

Property Ownership

 

Attention for uranium exploration was first focused on the Athabasca Sandstone of Northern Saskatchewan in 1967, when New Continental Oil Limited (“NCOL”) flew an airborne radiometric survey over the basin. Five permits were optioned in the Wollaston Lake area from NCOL in 1968 by Gulf Oil Canada Limited (later Gulf) who began investigating anomalies by prospecting, mapping, geophysical reconnaissance surveys and diamond drilling. The initial uranium discovery was made in 1968 at Rabbit Lake. The Rabbit Lake discovery led to extensive exploration on the Gulf permits. From 1969 until 1980, several deposits, including the Collins A, Collins B, Collins D, Eagle North and Eagle South deposits were discovered on the adjacent Rabbit Lake property. Subsequent to that, the Property was discovered and, later, the West Bear Uranium Deposit was made on what is today the nearby West Bear property. Jones (1980) documented the events leading to the discovery of the Collins Bay deposits that are closely associated with the Collins Bay thrust fault (Rhys, 2002).

 

Eldorado Resources Limited (“Eldorado”) acquired Gulf in October 1982. Eldorado then merged with the SMDC in 1988 to form Cameco. Previously, the Hidden Bay property was part of the lands comprising the historic Rabbit Lake property. Cameco divided the Rabbit Lake property into two parts, one consisting of the current mining property covering all the leases and active mining operations, and the consisting of all lands outside the current active operations. The second part became known as the Hidden Bay property, which at that time included the current day Property. Cameco transferred the Hidden Bay properties to UEX through an agreement reached with Pioneer in 2001. Cameco retained 100% ownership of the Rabbit Lake property lands occupied by the current mining operation. Cameco continued to oversee exploration for UEX on the Hidden Bay property between 2002 and 2005 under an exploration management service agreement. In the fall of 2005, UEX took over full operatorship.

 

Following the transfer of land from Cameco in 2002, UEX has acquired and added new dispositions to the Hidden Bay property. UEX separated the Raven and Horseshoe area and the West Bear area into independent UEX properties known as the Horseshoe-Raven Property (circa Q1, 2017) and the West Bear Property (circa 2018). UEX was subsequently acquired by UEC on August 19, 2022.

 

5.2

Exploration and Development History

 

Previous operators have employed a number of exploration techniques to explore the Property since the late 1960s (Table 5-1). Geophysical techniques and surveys include airborne time domain surveys EM, magnetics and radiometrics, while ground surveys have included VLF EM, horizontal loop (“HLEM”), larger loop EM in a number of configurations, DC Resistivity and gravity data collection. Soil and radon sampling have also been performed, including track etch cups and radon in-water surveys.

 

Due to its proximity to producing mines and the identification of several deposits, the Property has been subject to numerous exploration programs since discovery of the Rabbit Lake Deposit in 1968. A review of the details of all the programs conducted on the area of the Property would be too exhaustive to be relevant to this TRS so, instead, the methods employed, significant discoveries made and summary details of the different types of programs that were completed are outlined below. The reader is referred to compilation reports by Andrade (1983a, 1983b) and Studer (1984) for further details on work completed up until 1983 on the Property and references to earlier work. Reports by Studer and Gudjurgis (1985), Studer (1986, 1987 and 1989), Studer and Nimeck (1989), Ogryzlo (1984, 1985, 1987a, 1987b, 1988), Forand and Nimeck (1992), Forand, Nimeck and Wasyluik (1994), Forand (1995 and 1999), Powell (1996) and Foster et al (1997) document work programs conducted between 1983 and 1998 and provide references to further work also conducted during those years. No exploration was carried out on the Property between 1999 and 2002.

 

19

 

The Horseshoe-Raven 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 ore grade 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).

 

Table 51: Historical Drilling by Other Companies on the Horseshoe-Raven Property

 

Type

     

Meters*

 

Year

Total

DDH

RC

Sonic

Total

DDH

RC

Sonic

Company

1972

15

15

   

2,701

2,701

   

Gulf

1973

26

26

   

6,593

6,593

   

Gulf

1974

141

141

   

32,331

32,331

   

Gulf

1975

84

84

   

21,763

21,763

   

Gulf

1976

156

32

124

 

9,402

7,861

1,540

 

Gulf

1977

11

11

   

2,159

2,159

   

Gulf

1978

39

3

36

 

1,233

655

578

 

Gulf

1984

1

1

   

82

82

   

Eldorado

1985

7

7

   

542

542

   

Eldorado

Total

480

320

160

 

76,805

74,687

2,118

   

 

5.3

Early Uranium Exploration (1968 to 2002)

 

The location and methods of exploration applied on the Property have varied with the differing geological target models, exploration priorities and the new technologies developed since discovery of the Rabbit Lake Deposit in 1968. Initial exploration programs in the area were based on the basement‐hosted Rabbit Lake Deposit model, which involved the search for the coincidence of gravity and magnetic lows associated with the large, intense alteration zone and associated faulting at that deposit. These programs employed a multiple parameter search methodology (Whitford, 1971), employing: (i) initial airborne gamma ray spectrometric, EM, gravity and magnetic surveys conducted in the late 1960s; (ii) ground geological and geophysical checks of the airborne radiometric anomalies; (iii) surface prospecting, scintillometer and geochemical reconnaissance surveys, including radon in-water surveys; and (iv) follow‐up overburden and diamond drilling. Most of the Hidden Bay property was subject to these methods during the initial years of exploration, particularly in areas of exposed basement rocks to the southeast, where the potential for basement‐hosted Rabbit Lake type deposits was deemed greatest. These methods were used extensively by Gulf up until 1976, when discoveries elsewhere in the Athabasca Basin, particularly the Key Lake Deposit, where the spatial association between a string of deposits developed at the intersection between the sub‐Athabasca unconformity with graphitic gneiss‐hosted faults were recognized. The recognition of the probable genetic role of graphitic gneiss and associated faults in deposit localization shifted the emphasis to the use of ground-based EM surveys, such as HLEM, as the principal first pass geophysical survey in target areas. These EM surveys were used to detect conductive graphitic lithologies beneath overburden and the Athabasca sandstone. EM surveys still form the principal geophysical exploration tool, although the technologies currently used differ from the initial programs (e.g., fixed and moving loop) and have led to the targeting of many programs that have ultimately resulted in many new discoveries in the region during follow‐up drilling of anomalies.

 

20

 

Principal target areas for diamond drilling in the areas on and surrounding the Property targeted systematic drilling of major faults with known associated mineralization, including the Rabbit Lake, Telephone, Seal and Wolf Lake Faults, and concentrated areas of drilling in geologically and geochemically prospective areas (e.g., Vixen Lake‐Dragon Lake). Most diamond drilling campaigns have been initially targeted based on ground geophysical surveys and follow‐up to reverse circulation drilling anomalies. Reverse circulation drilling in 646 drillholes (9,062 m total) was conducted in several programs completed principally between 1976 and 1982 as a grid‐based testing of overburden and sandstone covering portions of central and northern parts of the Property. These programs aided in the definition of the location and depth of the Athabasca unconformity and allowed evaluation of geological and geochemical environments and located uranium anomalies in overburden and bedrock (Rhys, 2002).

 

5.4

Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

 

A previous mineral resource estimate was published in January 2023 with an effective date of October 31, 2022. The mineral estimate previously reported was 4,982,500 tonnes grading 0.215% U3O8 for 23,594,000 Lb U3O8 Indicated in the Horseshoe Deposit and 5,370,000 tonnes grading 0.117% U3O8 for 13,832,400 Lb U3O8 as referenced in Table 5‑2.

 

Table 52: 2022 Resource Estimate

 

Horseshoe Deposit Uranium Resource*

Deposit

Category

Quantity

(Tonnes)

Average Grade U3O8 (%)

Total lb. U3O8

Horseshoe

Indicated

4,982,500

0.215

23,594,000

Raven Deposit Uranium Resources*

Deposit

Category

Quantity

(Tonnes)

Average Grade U3O8 (%)

Total lb. U3O8

Raven

Indicated

5,370,000

0.117

13,832,400

*Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Resources were estimated using a COG of 0.05% U3O8

 

. UEX completed previous mineral resources estimates for the Property under the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 in 2009, 2011 and 2021.

 

21

 

5.5

Historical Production

 

There has been no production completed on this Property to date.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

22

 

6.

GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

 

6.1

Regional Geology

 

The Property is 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 (Figure 61).

 

The basement rocks of the Property (Figure 6‑2) are within the Cree Lake zone of the Early Proterozoic Trans-Hudson orogenic belt. The Cree Lake zone is composed of Archean gneiss and overlying Early Proterozoic or Archean supracrustal rocks (Bickford et al., 1994), both of which are affected by amphibolite to locally, granulite facies metamorphism. The Cree Lake zone is further subdivided into three transitional lithotectonic domains, of which the Property lies within the Wollaston Domain. The central belt, the Mudjatik domain, is composed primarily of Archean granitic gneiss, often as domal bodies, which are separated by discontinuous zones of migmatitic, pelitic gneiss and mafic granulite (Lewry and Sibbald, 1980; Sibbald, 1983). The Wollaston Domain to the east is composed of a basal sequence of biotite-quartz-feldspar +/- graphite pelitic gneiss, which overlies domes of Archean granitoid gneiss in the Mudjatik domain and which is contiguous with pelitic gneiss sequences in the Mudjatik Domain (Wallis, 1971). The basal pelitic gneiss is structurally overlain successively by:

 

i.

massive to weakly foliated meta-arkose, and

 

ii.

quartzite with interlayered amphibolite and calcareous meta-arkose (Wallis, 1971; Sibbald, 1983).

 

The age of the Wollaston Group is poorly constrained. Zircons from various paragneiss units that yield ages between 2550-2700 Ma establish a maximum age of the group, but these dates may represent detrital zircons derived from an older source (Annesley et al., 1996). A minimum age is given by 1840-1850 Ma granitic sills and bodies that intrude the sequence (Figure 6‑1, Figure 6‑2, Figure 6‑3, Figure 6‑4, & Figure 6‑5).

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

23

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b04.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 61: Regional Geology Setting

 

24

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b05.jpg.ashx

Figure 62: Horseshoe-Raven Local Area Stratigraphy

 

25

 

At least two major phases of syn-metamorphic deformation affect rocks in the Wollaston and Mudjatik domains. Early, layer-parallel gneissosity (S1) is widespread and is the first recognizable structural fabric in the area (Wallis, 1971). However, no associated major folds have been identified with this event (Sibbald, 1983). This early fabric is overprinted and transposed by northeast-trending penetrative foliation (S2) that is axial planar to upright, tight folds having variably northeast and southwest plunging axes (Wallis, 1971).

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b06.jpg.ashx

 

 

Figure 63: Geological Sketch Map of the Athabasca Basin. The eastern Athabasca Basin is defined as that part of the basin east of the Snowbird tectonic zone and is shown in reference to the major basement domains and stratigraphy of the Athabasca Basin, after Card et al. 2007, Portella and Annesley (2000), Ramaekers et al. (2007) and Thomas et al. (2002).

 

The Mudjatik and Wollaston domains are affected by amphibolite to locally granulite facies metamorphism (M1) that accompanied D1 deformation, defining the main thermotectonic pulse of the Hudsonian orogeny. U-Pb zircon and monazite age dating indicates Hudsonian peak metamorphism occurred between approximately 1830-1800 Ma in the Wollaston and Mudjatik domains (Annesley et al., 1996). It was accompanied by the intrusion of grey, commonly porphyritic granite sills and by subsequent anatectic K-feldspar-quartz-biotite pegmatite sills (Annesley et al., 1996). A second metamorphic pulse may have accompanied D2 deformation between 1775-1795 Ma.

 

To the west of the Property, the folded Archean to Early Proterozoic metamorphic sequence is unconformably overlain by flat-lying to gently inclined quartz-rich sandstone of the Athabasca Group. U-Pb dates of authigenic apatite cement and Rb-Sr dating of the paleoweathered zone at the base of the sandstone suggest a depositional age of between 1600-1700 Ma (Cumming et al., 1987).

 

26

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b07.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 64: A) Idealized cross-section through the eastern Cree Lake zone, suggesting the possible structural relationship between Archean basement and Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary cover during the early stages of Hudsonian deformation (after Tran, 2001); B) Geological cross-section through the Athabasca Basin (after Ramaekers, 1990; Ramaekers et al. 2007). For location see Figure 6-3.

 

Two dominant, post-metamorphic fault orientations occur in the region (Wallis, 1971). Concordant northeast-trending, semi-brittle and brittle reverse faults occur throughout the region. North-south trending, sinistral strike slip faults which represent western splays and parallel structures of the major Tabbernor fault system are also common.

 

6.2

Geology of the Horseshoe-Raven Property: Distribution of Lithologies

 

Lithologies and foliation of the Wollaston Domain rocks of the Property 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 the Property.

 

27

 

6.3

Pre-Athabasca Lithologies on the Hidden Bay Property: Wollaston Group

 

A consistent sequence of gneiss and schist is developed in the Wollaston Group outward from granitic domes in the region. Primary sedimentary structures have generally been obliterated by regional metamorphism, but rare compositional grading of graphite and biotite-garnet rich lamina that may represent relict graded bedding face away from the Collins Bay Dome and suggest that the sequence is upright (Rhys, 2002).

 

6.3.1

Lower Pelitic Gneiss

 

Lowermost lithologies of the Wollaston Group in the Property area comprise metapelitic gneiss and interlayered meta-arkose that surround, and directly overlie, the Collins Bay and McClean Lake domes (Sibbald, 1983). It is composed of biotite-quartz-feldspar +/- garnet +/- cordierite +/- graphite +/- sillimanite metapelitic gneiss and schist, with subordinate bands of graphite schist and calc-silicate units. Interlayers of fine- to medium-grained, weakly foliated biotite meta-arkose are often abundant. The lower pelitic sequence is variable in thickness; its apparent thickness in the area of the Property is greater than one km, and in some areas greater than three km, although structural repetition due to internal folding may significantly accentuate that thickness. Although it may occur throughout the sequence, graphite gneiss is particularly abundant in lower parts of the unit, particularly in its basal 50 m, where gneiss containing >5% disseminated fine-grained, and foliated graphite is common. Discontinuous calcsilicate and carbonate units occur throughout the pelitic gneiss unit.

 

6.3.2

Meta-Arkose Unit

 

Massive to weakly foliated biotite-quartz-feldspar meta-arkose and calcareous meta-arkose overlies and interfingers with the lower pelitic unit of the Wollaston Group (Sibbald, 1983). Thickness of the unit varies along strike; it has an apparent thickness of one to four km in the area of the Property. The meta-arkose unit forms a northeast-trending aeromagnetic high due to the presence of disseminated magnetite and pyrrhotite.

 

Meta-arkose consists of granoblastic intergrowths of medium- to fine-grained plagioclase, microcline, quartz, biotite and hornblende. Diopside, hornblende and calcite/dolomite are abundant in compositional layers locally, and disseminated pyrite, magnetite, pyrrhotite and locally chalcopyrite are common accessory minerals. Alignment of biotite defines foliation. The unit is commonly homogenous and lacks well-developed gneissosity, although gross compositional layering is common.

 

Meta-arkose is frequently replaced by pervasive pale green to pale pink or white albitepyroxene-amphibole-quartz alteration, previously termed “plagioclasite” (Sibbald, 1983; Appleyard, 1984). Large areas of stratabound to locally discordant, massive albite-rich lithologies occur in meta-arkose north of the Rabbit Lake fault near the Rabbit Lake pit and to the northeast and southwest for up to several kilometers. This alteration style is often manifested in biotite meta-arkose as a series of coalescing, to pervasive irregular, anastomosing replacement veinlets and stringers of albite that are cored by diopside and hornblende (Appleyard, 1984). The veinlets coalesce to form massive domains of polygonal, granoblastic medium-grained albite with coarse disseminated grains and local stringers of diopside. The plagioclasite may have formed due to metasomatic interaction of meta-arkose units with adjacent carbonate and possible evaporite units to the south during peak metamorphism (Appleyard, 1984). Plagioclasite units show a spatial relationship to some uranium deposits (e.g. Rabbit Lake), but this may be an indirect relationship since the mineralization may instead be preferentially localized in calc-silicate and carbonate units to which the plagioclasite is spatially related.

 

28

 

6.3.3

Carbonate and Calc-Silicate Units at the top of the Meta-Arkose Sequence

 

At the top of the meta-arkose sequence to the north of the Property at the Rabbit Lake deposit, and for several kilometers east and west along strike, impure dolomitic marble forms a continuous 20 to 180 m thick unit near the top of the meta-arkose sequence. The marble is pale grey to white or pink in color, and commonly contains disseminated, or compositional layers of pyroxene, amphibole, serpentine, scapolite and graphite. Above the marble unit, several hundred meters of interlayered meta-arkose and calc-silicate cap the meta-arkose unit in the Rabbit Lake pit area and form a transition from the meta-arkose sequence to the overlying Hidden Bay assemblage. Dolomitic marble with associated calc-silicates is also present in the Property area in the same stratigraphic position as at Rabbit Lake (Wallis, 1971).

 

6.3.4

Hidden Bay Assemblage

 

The Hidden Bay Assemblage (Wallis, 1971; quartzite-amphibolite unit of Sibbald, 1983) is the host rocks for the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits and forms the uppermost portions of the Wollaston Group. The unit is characterized by sillimanite quartzite, calcareous meta-arkose/quartzite and amphibolite, with interlayered pelitic gneiss near its base. It occurs south of the Rabbit Lake deposit and is probably >1.5 km in true thickness (Sibbald, 1983). The Hidden Bay Assemblage in the study area is composed of, from bottom to top (Sibbald, 1983; Wallis, 1971): (i) a basal member of interlayered meta-arkose and pyroxene-amphibole-biotite +/- dolomite +/- scapolite calc-silicate, several hundred meters thick, the “hanging wall gneiss” of the Rabbit Lake pit (Hoeve and Sibbald, 1978), (ii) biotite-quartz-feldspar gneiss, in part graphitic, with interleaved biotite-sillimanite gneiss that is approximately 500 m thick, and (iii) approximately one km or more of sillimanite-biotite-feldspar bearing massive, fine- to medium-grained quartzite interlayered with amphibolite that is up to several hundred meters thick near the base of the quartzite unit and with pale green, laminated, diopside-bearing calcareous meta-arkose higher in the sequence (Figure 6‑5).

 

6.3.5

Granitic Rocks and Other Igneous Lithologies in the Region

 

Igneous rocks in the region include possible Archean domes and several generations of granite and pegmatite sills, dykes and stocks that intrude the Wollaston Group.

 

6.3.6

The Collins Bay and McClean Lake Domes: Possible Archean Basement

 

North of the Property, the McClean Lake and Collins Bay domes mark the transition from the Wollaston to the Mudjatik domains. They are composed of massive, grey biotite granite to tonalite that is medium- to fine-grained and generally equigranular. K-feldspar and/or irregularly shaped to round, ragged quartz phenocrysts are locally present. 10-15% fine-grained biotite flakes and approximately 20-25% quartz are ubiquitous. The intrusions may be foliated within 10 to 50 m of their contacts, with foliation defined by the alignment of biotite grains. Garnet is a local constituent, and sillimanite-rich patches and blebs are common near contacts. Regional aeromagnetic maps indicate spatial variations in the magnetic signature of the Collins Bay Dome that suggest the presence of more than one intrusive phase. The core of the dome forms a broad positive magnetic anomaly while parts of its margins are magnetically indistinguishable from the surrounding gneiss sequence. Annesley et al. (1995, 1996) report Archean U-Pb zircon ages for tonalitic gneiss on the margins of the McClean Lake dome.

 

29

 

6.3.7

Granite Sills and Dykes in the Wollaston Group

 

Sills of equigranular, medium-grained grey to white biotite granite occur throughout the Wollaston Group. They commonly form leucosomes and sills less than 10 m thick in pelitic gneiss, but they may obtain a thickness of more than 100 m. K-feldspar and pink to red garnet locally occur as phenocrysts. Samples collected from several granite sills in the area have yielded U-Pb zircon dates ranging between 1804-1815 Ma (T. Krogh in Annesley et al., 1995).

 

6.3.8

Granitic Gneiss in Quartzite of Hidden Bay Assemblage

 

South of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits, several sill-like bodies of biotite-bearing granitic or quartz monzonite gneiss that are up to several hundred meters thick occur in quartzite. These bodies have been dated at 2620 +/- 9 Ma by U-Pb zircon methods (Annesley and Madore, 1991). Their Archean age has prompted Annesley and Madore (1991) and Hubregtse and Duncan (1991) to interpret these lithologies as an Archean granite that forms the basement to the Wollaston Group. However, these bodies occur in the Hidden Bay Assemblage, the highest inferred stratigraphic level of the Wollaston Group, and would thus require both reinterpretation and revision of the entire Wollaston Group stratigraphy and the presence of complex tectonic interleaving. Alternatively, (i) the granite gneiss may represent a recrystallized metasedimentary unit (Wallis, 1971) and thus the age may be from detrital zircons, (ii) the zircons may represent xenocrysts in a younger intrusion, or (iii) the granite bodies may intrude the Wollaston Group, and if so, provide a minimum Archean age for the group.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

30

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b08.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 65: Horseshoe-Raven Property Local Geology

 

31

 

6.3.9

Pegmatite Sills and Dykes

 

Coarse-grained K-feldspar-quartz-biotite +/- tourmaline (schorl) +/- garnet pegmatite sills and dykes are common throughout the Wollaston group, especially in the lower portions of the sequence. Sills are typically 0.3 m to 20 m wide. The largest pegmatite body recognized to date in the area is 200 m thick and several hundred meters long; it occurs in lowermost parts of the Wollaston Group at the Eagle Point mine (Rhys, 1999), where it is host to much of the mineralization. At least four generations of pegmatite occur in the region, ranging from pre- and syn-metamorphic, syn-D2 sills, to less abundant late dykes. Pegmatite bodies in the area are locally radioactive and often contain minor quantities of U and Th-bearing minerals.

 

6.3.10

Post-Metamorphic Sediments: Athabasca Sandstone

 

West and north of the Property is the quartz sandstone and conglomerate of the Athabasca Group that unconformably overlies the metamorphosed basement rocks and, except where disrupted by faulting effects, dips gently to the west as the basin thickens. The eastern boundary of the basin is erosional but is in part influenced by post-Athabasca faulting. Several outliers occur in the Hidden Bay property area (Ramaekers, 1983). U-Pb dates of 1650-1700 Ma obtained from apatite cement in the Athabasca Group by Cumming and Krstic (1992) provide a minimum age for the inception of sedimentation in the Athabasca Basin.

 

The Athabasca Group is composed mainly of orthoquartzite with a clay-rich matrix and a variable hematite content. Beds of quartz clast conglomerate occur frequently. Four marine transgressive sequences, overlying one thick fluvial regressive wedge (Manitou Falls Formation) are recognized in the Athabasca Group (Ramaekers, 1983). Diagenetic effects include quartz overgrowths on and minor pressure solution of the detrital quartz grains (Ramaekers ,1976). Some clay may be detrital, but clay minerals have replaced framework grains of biotite and feldspar. Diagenetic interstitial clays are usually composed of a mixture of dickite, illite and kaolinite (Hoeve and Quirt, 1985). Purple hematite impregnates the matrix through much of the sequence, often forming bands, and red and purple leisegang rings.

 

6.3.11

 Paleoweathering/Saprolite at the Top of the Basement Rocks

 

Widespread argillic alteration occurs in basement metamorphic rocks beneath the Athabasca sandstone that lies to the east and north of the Property. Thickness is variable, but typically ranges from 10 m to 40 m. This is limited at the Property, as the paleo-unconformity has been eroded and only the lower parts of the paleoweathering profile can be intermittently observed. The alteration is similar in geochemistry, mineralogy and zoning to that observed today in lateritic profiles, and consequently, has been commonly interpreted as a saprolitic (paleoweathering) profile related to pre-Athabasca erosion of the gneiss sequence (e.g. Hoeve and Sibbald, 1978). Alternatively, it could be related to the reaction of oxidized diagenetic fluids in the Athabasca sandstone with underlying basement rocks, or a superposition of both processes (D. Rhys et al., 2008). This sub-Athabasca alteration zone is referred to as “paleoweathering alteration” here, even though a post-Athabasca timing is possible. Argillic alteration associated with uranium mineralization is superimposed on this alteration.

 

The “paleoweathering” alteration often displays a vertical zonation in mineralogy and texture. At the top of the alteration profile, in basement rocks immediately beneath the unconformity, a white zone of intense kaolinite alteration is commonly developed within zero to five metres below the unconformity, followed downward by a hematitic, oxidized red zone, containing kaolinite +/- illite, which in turn gradationally overlies a reduced green zone containing illite and Fe-Mg trichlorite, which then grades into fresh rock at depth (Quirt, 1990). Graphite is often completely to partially depleted in the oxidized, generally kaolinite-bearing red zone, and metamorphic minerals are clay altered with chlorite, illite and kaolinite.

 

32

 

6.4

Structural Setting of the Horseshoe-Raven Property

 

6.4.1

Penetrative Deformation and Folding

 

Rocks on the Property are affected by at least two significant phases of Hudsonian penetrative deformation (D1 and D2) that are manifested as widespread penetrative tectonic fabrics. No strain asymmetry (i.e. rotational shear strain) can be determined from drill core or outcrop observations of D1 or D2 planar and linear fabrics that would indicate the presence of syn-Hudsonian shear zones in the Property area. Younger features include at one or more generations of phase of open folds (D3, D4?) and semi-brittle to brittle faults.

 

6.4.2

D1 Deformation

 

The earliest recognizable deformation is manifested by ubiquitous gneissic compositional layering (S1) and a parallel shape fabric defined by alignment of peak metamorphic minerals (Wallis, 1971; Sibbald, 1983). S1 foliation strikes northeast with moderate southeast dips, and is parallel to, and in part defined by lithologies including compositional layers and granitic leucosomes. S1 is defined by unstrained peak metamorphic minerals but is also overgrown by porphyroblasts of garnet and cordierite, which contain inclusion trails aligned parallel to S1 (Wallis, 1971; Rhys, 1998). These relationships suggest that M1 peak metamorphism was synchronous with, but outlasted, D1 deformation and the formation of S1 foliation (Wallis, 1971). No major folds associated with the S1 foliation were positively identified in the study area. However, tight to isoclinal minor F1 folds are common in the drill core, suggesting the presence of larger F1 folds to which these are parasitic.

 

6.4.3

D2 Deformation

 

D2 deformation is manifested by megascopic and minor folds (F2 folds), which have significantly influenced the map patterns of lithologies in the area, and by the development of S2 foliation, which is axial planar to F2 folds of S1/gneissosity and lithologies. S2 is inhomogenously developed and varies from an intense foliation that overprints and transposes S1 to a spaced cleavage that is only developed in the hinge zones of F2 folds. Where it is intense, S2 transposes S1 and consequently the two foliations are locally coplanar and indistinguishable. In some units, S2 also forms a spaced crenulation cleavage that is defined by re-oriented domains of S1 and by the alignment of new unstrained metamorphic minerals. S2 commonly wraps around garnet, cordierite, amphibole and pyroxene porphyroblasts and biotite and sillimanite porphyroblasts are commonly crenulated by minor F2 folds. These relationships indicate that D2 occurred after the earliest recognizable amphibolite grade (M1) metamorphic peak that accompanied the formation of S1. The presence of biotite porphyroblasts aligned parallel to S2 locally occurring in pressure shadows adjacent to garnet, cordierite, pyroxene and pyrite porphyroblasts and in D2 fold hinges, overgrowing earlier metamorphic assemblages and S1, suggests that a pulse of probable amphibolite-grade metamorphism (M2) accompanied D2. A mineral lineation (L2) may be developed at the intersection of S1 and S2, defined by the alignment of long axes of amphiboles, biotite, elliptical cordierite porphyroblasts and sillimanite bundles. It is often parallel to F2 fold axes (Rhys, 2002).

 

33

 

D2 fabrics and folds are developed inhomogeneously in both intensity and orientation. Near Wollaston Lake, minor F2 folds have subvertical to steep east-dipping dipping axial planes and fold axes generally plunge to the northeast. To the southwest, in the vicinity of the Horseshoe-Raven deposit, F2 axial planes and local S2 axial planar cleavage are generally shallower, and generally dip moderately to the east. This latter area is dominated by a series of inclined to overturned megascopic folds with southeasterly dipping axial planes that have wavelengths of 0.3-2 km and shallow northeast plunging fold axes that form the major map patterns in the Hidden Bay Assemblage. At a regional scale, D2 folds are noncylindrical, exhibit domal outlines and fold axes that have variable northeast and southwest plunges. Elliptical D2 folds are in part localized around granite domes, but variable fold axis plunges also occur in other areas. The parallelism of L2 elongation lineation with D2 fold axes suggests that significant stretching was accomplished parallel to the fold axes during folding, suggesting that the D2 folds may represent sheath-type folds (Rhys, 2002).

 

6.5

Mineralization

 

Uranium mineralization in the Athabasca Basin is generally of Helikian age. Geochronological studies have determined that most deposits were formed in a restricted time interval between 1330-1380 Ma (Cumming and Krstic, 1992), and as early as 1590 Ma at the Millennium Deposit and 1521 Ma at the McArthur River Mine with ages of remobilization near 1350 Ma. The deposits generally occur at the unconformity between the lowermost Athabasca Group and the underlying crystalline basement rocks. They are commonly localized to the intersection of faults and the unconformity, or at a paleotopographic basement ridge.

 

Two major types of unconformity-related uranium orebody types have been identified in the Athabasca Basin. The first is polymetallic mineralization (uranium + Ni, Co, Cu, Mo, Zn, Pb, and As) mainly within the Athabasca Group sandstones, at the unconformity and locally upwards along steeply dipping faults (“perched mineralization”). Deposits of this type are associated with a paleotopographic ridge of basement rocks, often controlled by strike-slip faults (Cigar Lake Mine, Midwest Deposit). The second major type is a monomineralic mineralization (uranium oxides) structurally controlled by reverse faults affecting sandstone and basement (McArthur River Mine, Sue C Deposits).

 

Deposits within the Athabasca Basin are typically surrounded by alteration haloes that in the sandstones is dominated by silicification, hematization, precipitation of drusy quartz and argillization (illitization and chloritization) with massive quartz dissolution and intense fracturing; and in the basement, hydrothermal alteration consisting of illitization, chloritization and the development of dravite, which is superimposed upon and commonly obliterates the previous retrograde and regolithic alterations.

 

Post-Athabasca tectonic events have resulted in structural disruptions in the Athabasca Group and the Wollaston Group stratigraphy. These events are accompanied by hydrothermal alteration and associated uranium mineralization in both the Athabasca sandstone and basement. Primary targets for uranium mineralization are faulted graphitic zones in the metasedimentary basement that have been subjected to post-Athabasca reactivation, as well as in structurally disrupted sandstone and along the unconformity. Structural reactivation allowed for channeling of significant volumes of oxidized uraniferous fluids through a reduced environment, especially along, and proximal to packages of graphitic pelitic rocks. This allowed for the deposition of uranium at an oxidization-reduction front. Within the Property area, these post-Athabasca events have a north-east, north and north-west trend (Rhys, 2002).

 

34

 

6.6

Local Geology of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

 

6.6.1

Host Lithologies to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

 

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 (Figure 6‑5). While no Athabasca Sandstone is present above the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits since it has been eroded from the local area, sandstone outliers that occur to the southeast of the deposits and the local presence of paleoweathering in some drillholes south of the deposit area suggest that the sub-Athabasca unconformity was present just above the current surface.

 

6.6.2

Structural Setting - Metamorphic Structural Architecture

 

Lithologies in the Horseshoe and Raven areas outline several significant, upright open D2 (F2) folds in the local area (Figure 6‑5). These folds have steep to moderate, southeasterly dipping axial planes and horizontal to shallow northeast plunging fold axes. A D2 timing is indicated since the folds affect both primary lithologic layering as well as lithology parallel S1 penetrative foliation. A spaced, vertical to southeast dipping S2 foliation is axial planar to the folds and locally crenulates older S1 foliation. No older, D1 folds were identified and, if they are present, they are similarly to be isoclinal and difficult to recognize but could have caused lateral and vertical thickness variations in host lithologies.

 

Principal folds in the immediate deposit areas include the Horseshoe anticline and adjacent Raven syncline. The Horseshoe anticline is cored by amphibolites south of the Raven Deposit and plunges to the northeast, where arkosic quartzite occurs in the hinge area in the Horseshoe Deposit (Figure 6‑5). Similarly, to other D2 folds in the area, this fold is non-cylindrical and varies in plunge, shallowing to the northeast, where it plunges very shallowly to sub horizontally to the northeast in the Horseshoe Deposit area. The adjacent Raven syncline, with its axial trace 250 m to 550 m northwest of the Horseshoe anticline, has a nearly horizontal fold axis and is cored along its length by arkosic quartzite forming the top of the local metamorphic stratigraphy. Uranium mineralization in both the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits is elongate parallel to the trend and plunge of these folds and at Raven preferentially exploits the core of the syncline, while at Horseshoe, mineralization extends between these two folds obliquely crossing the folded sequence.

 

Few significant offsets of lithologies occur in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit areas and outside of clay alteration zones associated with uranium mineralization, lithologies are competent and generally lack any significant faulting.

 

6.6.3

Mineralization

 

Based upon the recommendations of the authors of the 2009 Report, the Horseshoe and Raven deposits were wireframed using a cut-off of 0.02% U3O8. The new wireframe shells encompass all of the subzones that were originally utilized for the 2009 Report for both the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. Using a lower cut off for the wireframe has resulted in the subzones being contained within the newly modeled ore shell. The mineralization at the Horseshoe Deposit has been defined over a strike length of approximately 800 m and occurs at depths between 100 m to 450 m 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 zones of dilation developed along bedding.

 

35

 

The Raven Deposit has been defined since 2005, by drilling for and by UEX, over a strike length of approximately 1000 m. Mineralization is developed mainly at consistent depths of between 100 m and 300 m below surface. The uranium mineralization is an elongate and east-northeast trending zone. Minor zones may extend upward to within a few tens of metres of surface, but these are not consistently present along the length of the deposit as it is currently defined by drilling. Mineralization is localized along the trace of the Raven syncline, particularly along the southeastern limb of the fold, and is developed extending downward from the base of the folded calc-arkose unit into the underlying quartzite and arkosic quartzite with no significant plunge.

 

Similar to Horseshoe, mineralization at Raven occurs in hematitic altered areas, which surround a steep to moderate southeast dipping zone of clay alteration, which obliquely crosses the southeastern, dominantly shallow northwest dipping limb of the Raven syncline. The structural position of the mineralization is consequently the same as Horseshoe with respect to the folded metamorphic stratigraphy. The clay alteration zone also shallows in dip to the east through the deposit, although it does not attain the shallow dips of the eastern Horseshoe clay alteration zone. It may also be controlled by pre- or syn-alteration/mineralization faulting, as evidenced by clay gouge seams up dip from the projection of the principal clay zone. Potential for offset lithologies across the clay zone at Raven is not as pronounced as it is at Horseshoe, with lithologic contacts often showing little or no significant deflection across the trace of the clay zone.

 

Uranium mineralization in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits occurs along an east-northeast trending zone of illite-Mg-chlorite clay alteration that is developed over at least 2.5 km strike length extending along the southeast flank of the Raven syncline. Mineralization in each deposit surrounds, or is developed along, the generally southeast dipping clay alteration zone in multiple, generally shallow dipping lenses of disseminated and vein-like pitchblende-uranophane-boltwoodite mineralization that is associated with red-brown hematite alteration.

 

The two deposits are separated by approximately 0.5 km, laterally between which clay alteration is continuous and often intense, but in which widely-spaced historical holes have intersected only anomalous radioactivity.

 

6.7

Athabasca Uranium Deposits

 

The Property is within the eastern Athabasca uranium district, one of the most prolific uranium producing districts in the world. UEX’s Raven and Horseshoe Deposits are situated on the Property that is adjacent to the Hidden Bay property. There are a number of deposits in the area surrounding the Property. UEX’s West Bear property to the south hosts both the West Bear Uranium Deposit and the West Bear Cobalt-Nickel Deposit. There are five past or currently producing mines to the north of the Property on the adjacent Rabbit Lake property (Rabbit Lake, A-zone, B-zone, D-zone, and Eagle Point). North of the adjacent Hidden Bay property are the Sue and JEB deposits on the McClean Lake property (Jefferson et al., 2007). Production is on hiatus at the Rabbit Lake property, and has ceased at the McClean Lake operation, with the mill currently processing ore from the Cigar Lake Operation.

 

36

 

These deposits named above collectively comprise different varieties of the unconformity associated uranium deposit type described by Jefferson et al. (2007), Ruzicka (1996) and previous workers. All are spatially related to the sub-Athabasca unconformity in the region, and are generally interpreted to result from interaction of oxidized diagenetic-hydrothermal fluids with either reduced basement rocks as is the case at the Property, and/or with reduced hydrothermal fluids along faults extending upward toward the unconformity in underlying basement rocks beneath the unconformity (e.g. Hoeve and Quirt, 1985). The common occurrence of uranium mineralization in the area, and associated alteration that overprints the regional signature of the Athabasca sandstone, indicates a post-Athabasca (<1,700 Ma) timing for uranium mineralization in the region. U-Pb age dates obtained from uraninite mineralization in deposits throughout the Athabasca Basin support a principal phase of mineralization between 1,600-1,500 Ma with a potential second event between 1,460-1,350 Ma and potential later periods of reworking indicated by younger ages (Fayek et al., 2002; Alexandre et al., 2003; Cumming and Krstic, 1992).

 

Uranium deposits in the area form three different, although commonly spatially related, types of unconformity type uranium deposits (Figure 6‑6).

 

6.7.1

Sandstone-Hosted Deposits

 

Sandstone-hosted deposits developed at, or just above, the Athabasca unconformity in Athabasca sandstone along the trace of north-east trending faults. These deposits occur in sandstone in the footwall wedge to graphite-bearing graphitic gneiss overthrust on Athabasca sandstone (e.g. Collins Bay A, B and D-zones), or in gradational drops/humps in the unconformity above graphite-rich lithologies and faults (e.g. Sue A/B West Bear, McClean Lake). They are generally associated with non-calcareous graphitic and biotite gneiss. Mineralization occurs in pods and disseminations in intense hematite-clay-chlorite alteration, locally overprinting spatially associated breccias and zones of intense clay alteration that sit directly above mineralization in sandstone. Common structural sites include bends and steps in fault systems, or five to 20 m humps in the unconformity that may reflect the interaction of graphitic shear zones with faults of different orientations. These deposits are sometimes called complex deposits due to the poly-minerallic nature of the ore (i.e. U +/- Ni, Co, As, Pb) and are characterized by assemblages of Ni and Ni-Co arsenides and sulpharsenides that accompany uranium mineralization.

 

6.7.2

Basement-Hosted Deposits

 

Basement-hosted deposits within or surrounding fault zones in predominantly non-calcareous gneiss. These deposits are exemplified by Eagle Point and Sue C/CQ, which are composed of veins, disseminations and pods that link or replace faults in or near graphitic bearing gneiss. Veins frequently occur in extensional fractures that may link individual faults (Sue CQ, Telephone zone), or occur in en-echelon steps in faults (Eagle Point). Unlike unconformity deposits described above, these deposits typically lack arsenide and sulpharsenide minerals in mineralized zones. Mineralization is composed of discrete pitchblende veins, planar replacements of fine-grained nodular pitchblende + clays, or undulating pitchblende/uraninite-bearing redox fronts surrounding clay veins and faults. A variation on this deposit type occurs at Horseshoe-Raven, where uranium mineralization occurs in hematitic redox fronts and veins surrounding large, semi-tabular clay alteration zones that are cored by probable faults. Horseshoe and Raven differ, however, from other basement deposits in the region in that they lack spatially associated graphitic gneiss units or carbonaceous fault zones, and consequently the average grade of the deposits is lower than its peers in the Athabasca Basin, but still comparable to average uranium deposit grades worldwide.

 

37

 

Basement-hosted deposits associated with hydrothermal breccias in calcareous gneiss adjacent to northeast-trending faults. The only example of an orebody of this type in the area is the Rabbit Lake deposit and the largest basement-hosted unconformity deposits in the Alligator River district of northern Australia are closely comparable. The Rabbit Lake deposit occurs perched above the Rabbit Lake Fault at its intersection with the North-South Fault, which is part of the Dragon Lake Tabbernor-type fault system. Mineralization occurs on the margins of a large hydrothermal, chlorite-matrix breccia body that affects dolomitic marble and adjacent lithologies, and that may have formed during dissolution collapse of the carbonate, forming a highly permeable zone. High- grade mineralization is superimposed on the northeastern margins of the breccia and associated silicification/dravitization along the trace of the North-South Fault.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

38

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b09.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 66: Types of Unconformity-Type Uranium Deposits

 

Schematic cross section through the Sue zones, McClean Lake property showing two different styles of uranium mineralization. View is to the north, from Baudemont et al., (1993). The diagram illustrates the spatial association of basement (B-type) and unconformity (A-type) mineralization on parallel mineralized trends and the distribution of associated argillic alteration. Mineralization is developed in graphitic gneiss units that contain concordant faults.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

39

 

7.

EXPLORATION

 

Exploration conducted on the Horseshoe-Raven claim and the surrounding Hidden Bay property by Cameco for UEX between 2002 and 2005 under the exploration management service agreement and UEX as the operator after 2005, consisted of mainly diamond drilling and various geophysical surveys. Diamond drilling in the Horseshoe and Raven area during these periods is documented in Section 10.

 

Other forms of exploration conducted by, or on behalf of, UEX include several types of ground and airborne geophysical surveys, which are summarized below, and ground geochemical (soil) surveys, using conventional and partial extraction (MMI) techniques and reconnaissance surveys that were conducted to the south of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits and to the northwest in the Vixen Lake area (Kos, 2004).

 

7.1

Geophysics in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area

 

Several airborne and ground geophysical surveys that have been conducted since UEX acquired the Hidden Bay property cover all or parts of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit areas. These include:

 

VTEM airborne EM surveys that were conducted between 2004 and 2006 over most of the Property area by Geotech Ltd. of Aurora, Ontario (Irvine, 2004; Cristall, 2005; Witherly, 2007; Cameron and Eriks, 2008b), which cover the Horseshoe and Raven areas.

 

Airborne radiometric and magnetic surveys were conducted in June 2008 by Geo Data Solutions Inc. of Laval, Quebec, which cover much of the Hidden Bay property. More detailed, northwest trending and 50 m spaced flight lines were conducted over the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit areas to aid in the identification of magnetic and radiometric patterns that could reflect both near-surface projection of mineralization and/or prospective faults potentially hosting mineralization.

 

A RESOLVE airborne EM and magnetic survey was conducted over selected parts of the Property by Fugro Airborne Surveys Corporation of Mississauga, Ontario, including Horseshoe-Raven and West Bear, in 2005 (Cameron and Eriks, 2008a). This outlined in particular the distribution of folded graphitic gneiss, which occurs to the southwest of the Raven Deposit and that could focus faulting that may control uranium mineralization.

 

A widely-spaced ground EM (Moving Loop) survey was conducted across the Horseshoe and Raven area in February – March 2002 by Quantec Geoscience Inc. of Porcupine, Ontario (Goldak and Powell, 2003). Like the RESOLVE survey, this identified EM targets in the local area mainly associated with graphitic gneiss to the south and west outside of the immediate area of the deposits.

 

These surveys have provided further insight into the geological setting of the deposits, including identification of the location of potentially controlling faults and folding of favourable host lithologies (e.g. graphitic gneiss and competent quartzite-rich host rocks near faults) that may influence the position of mineralization.

 

40

 

In addition to the geophysical surveys summarized above, which were mainly of a regional nature, a detailed direct current resistivity (induced polarization) survey was carried out over the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits as well as the surrounding area by Peter E. Walcott and Associates Limited between October and December 2006 (Walcott and Walcott, 2008). The survey was conducted along 16 lines at an azimuth of 160° spaced at 200 m over and extending beyond areas of known uranium mineralization at Horseshoe and Raven. Measurements of apparent resistivity were made along these lines using the pole-dipole technique employing a 100 m dipole and taking one-half to one-tenth separation readings at half spacing intervals.

 

Airborne radiometric and magnetic surveys were conducted in June 2008 by Geo Data Solutions Inc. of Laval, Quebec, which cover much of the Hidden Bay and Horseshoe-Raven properties. More detailed, northwest trending and 50 m spaced flight lines were conducted over the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit areas to aid in the identification of magnetic and radiometric patterns that could reflect both near-surface projection of mineralization and/or prospective faults potentially hosting mineralization.

 

7.2

Drilling in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area

 

Drilling on the Property dates to the 1970s and was undertaken in a number of campaigns until mid-2009 (Figure 71). All the historical drillholes targeted uranium mineralization and prospects. Between 1973 and 2009, a total of 951 diamond drilling boreholes (263,388 m) and 160 reverse circulation boreholes (2,118 m) were drilled through the Property by, Gulf, Eldorado, Cameco, and UEX, summarized in Table 71. From mid-2009 to 2012, UEX drilled 105 diamond drillholes for 28,315 m.

 

Exploration/resource drilling completed at the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits post-2009 will be expanded upon below along with comments where necessary about the historical procedures that were followed on the Property at that time.

 

A review of the procedures, described below, respecting the core sizes, and procedures for logging and recording of core recoveries are considered standard industry practices and provide an acceptable basis for the geological and geotechnical interpretation of the deposits leading to the estimation of mineral resources and economic evaluation of the deposits. The QPs have no reason to believe that the listed procedures were not followed. The QPs interviewed one of the geotechnicians that worked on the Property during this period to gain an understanding of the processes and procedures followed by the UEX field team during these programs, which corresponded to the procedures and descriptions outlined below. The QPs believe that the historical data is accurate for the purposes of this TRS.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

41

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b10.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 71: Horseshoe and Raven Drillhole Collars

 

42

 

Table 71: Summary of Drilling on the Horseshoe-Raven Property

 

    Type   Meters*  

Year

Total

DDH

RC

Sonic

Total

DDH

RC

Sonic

Company

1972

15

15

   

2,701

2,701

   

Gulf

1973

26

26

   

6,593

6,593

   

Gulf

1974

141

141

   

32,331

32,331

   

Gulf

1975

84

84

   

21,763

21,763

   

Gulf

1976

156

32

124

 

9,402

7,861

1,541

 

Gulf

1977

11

11

   

2,159

2,159

   

Gulf

1978

39

3

36

 

1,233

655

578

 

Gulf

1984

1

1

   

82

82

   

Eldorado

1985

7

7

   

542

542

   

Eldorado

2002

3

3

   

1,350

1,350

   

Cameco**

2003

1

1

   

314

314

   

Cameco**

2004

4

4

   

648

648

   

Cameco**

2005

44

44

   

12,811

12,811

   

UEX

2006

27

27

   

8,617

8,617

   

UEX

2007

210

210

   

67,777

67,777

   

UEX

2008

232

232

   

63,261

63,261

   

UEX

2009

110

110

   

33,923

33,923

   

UEX

2009***

19

19

   

5,406

5,406

   

UEX

2011

76

76

   

20,011

20,011

   

UEX

2012

10

10

   

2,898

2,898

   

UEX

Total

1,216

1,056

160

 

293,821

291,702

2,119

   

* Rounded to the nearest metre

** Cameco Operated on behalf of UEX

***After cut-off for July 2009 Resource report

 

7.2.1

Historical Drilling by Gulf in the Horseshoe and Raven Area

 

After initial discovery of the Raven Deposit, Gulf drilled a total of 53,329 m in 212 diamond drillholes over the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits between 1972 and 1978 (note Table 71 tabulates totals for the whole Property, not just the deposit). Drillhole spacing of the Gulf holes is variable across the deposits, but generally varies from 30 m to 90 m and averages approximately 60 m in areas of mineralization. Historical collar locations of the Gulf drillholes are presented in Figure 7‑1. The Gulf drilling data has not been used in this resource estimate.

 

Eldorado, Cameco and UEX drilled a total of 639 boreholes for a total of 189,325 m through and around the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. Some of these holes were regional tests to assess for other pods of mineralization given their favourable geology, structure and geophysical signature. As of April 2009, the drillholes to that date comprised the basis for the database for the 2009 Palmer and Fielder Horseshoe and Raven Mineral Resource estimates.

 

43

 

7.3

Drilling (Mid-2009 – 2012)

 

During the summer of 2009 after the updated mineral resource estimate was published, 19 drillholes totaling 5,406 m were completed to test targets peripheral to the Horseshoe and Raven deposits for possible extension of mineralization and to assess nearby geophysical and geological targets (Table 7‑2). Winter drilling in 2011 was 13 drillholes for 3,553.6 m to test for additional uranium targets adjacent to the known Horseshoe and Raven deposits. Drilling in the summer of 2011 consisted of mainly definition and step-out drilling in the Raven deposit and several infill drillholes at the Horseshoe Deposit for a total of 16,457 m in 63 drillholes. Drilling in the winter of 2012 (Figure 7‑2) targeted a regional conductor package south of the deposits with 10 holes for 2,898 m.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

44

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b11.jpg.ashx

Figure 72: Recent Historical Drilling on the Horseshoe-Raven Property

 

45

 

Table 72: Summary of Drilling by UEX on the Horseshoe-Raven Project

 

Borehole ID

Azimuth

Dip

Length

(m)

Easting*

(m)

Northing*

(m)

Elevation

(m)

Year

HU-359

305

-45

300.0

573861.0

6447179.0

439.0

2009

HU-360

305

-45

300.0

574161.0

6447471.0

440.0

2009

HU-361

305

-77

270.0

574532.2

6447161.5

438.0

2009

HU-362

90

-45

291.0

574642.0

6446778.0

429.0

2009

HU-363

305

-63

639.0

574779.8

6446803.8

426.0

2009

HU-364

309

-46

537.0

574288.3

6446496.3

425.0

2009

HU-365

305

-45

399.0

573992.0

6446067.5

422.0

2009

HU-366

125

-45

324.0

574355.7

6446069.1

422.0

2009

HU-367

305

-65

489.5

574355.7

6446069.1

422.0

2009

RU-217

350

-65

81.0

573326.0

6446327.0

428.0

2009

RU-218

350

-90

72.0

573326.2

6446326.8

428.0

2009

RU-219

350

-65

81.0

573295.7

6446321.4

430.0

2009

RU-220

195

-90

72.0

573295.7

6446321.0

430.0

2009

RU-221

350

-65

81.0

573355.8

6446300.0

426.0

2009

RU-222

350

-90

72.0

573268.0

6446300.0

430.0

2009

RU-223

350

-72

411.0

573235.2

6446293.0

431.0

2009

RU-224

350

-58

549.0

573012.0

6446063.0

431.0

2009

RU-225

350

-51

222.0

572386.0

6446140.0

464.0

2009

RU-226

350

-74

219.0

572429.0

6446241.0

465.0

2009

VU-001

305

-52

400.0

571641.0

6446864.0

436.0

2009

VU-002

305

-45

366.0

571687.0

6447121.0

436.0

2009

VU-003

305

-60

549.0

571370.0

6446775.0

436.0

2009

VU-004

305

-61

391.0

571125.0

6446701.0

436.0

2009

HR-001

305

-48

299.0

573651.5

6446977.7

438.0

2011

HR-002

305

-47

300.0

572439.5

6447179.8

475.0

2011

HR-003

305

-47

299.0

571473.5

6446417.0

458.0

2011

HR-004

125

-45

388.0

571270.7

6446339.0

452.0

2011

HR-005

305

-49

90.6

575330.4

6445170.0

409.0

2011

HR-006

305

-45

309.0

575322.6

6445174.0

408.0

2011

HR-007

125

-45

313.0

570921.6

6446188.8

447.0

2011

HR-008

125

-50

67.0

570820.0

6445940.0

452.0

2011

HR-009

125

-60

69.0

570820.0

6445940.0

452.0

2011

HR-010

305

-60

122.0

570500.6

6445852.7

439.0

2011

HR-011

305

-75

464.0

570482.4

6445867.9

438.0

2011

HR-012

305

-70

411.0

570095.2

6445671.0

437.0

2011

HR-013

305

-70

422.0

570547.0

6446061.8

437.0

2011

HU-368

0

-60

270.0

573963.6

6446655.8

428.0

2011

HU-369

300

-60

231.0

574223.9

6446811.8

432.0

2011

HU-370

42

-61

381.0

574111.5

6446864.5

431.0

2011

HU-371

330

-80

393.0

574435.7

6446801.3

427.0

2011

HU-372

90

-57

402.0

574472.0

6446928.4

431.0

2011

HU-373

305

-90

30.0

573893.7

6446334.3

427.0

2011

RU-227

353

-90

321.0

573381.4

6446459.8

431.0

2011

RU-228

353

-60

291.0

573333.8

6446538.0

432.0

2011

RU-229

353

-60

270.0

573482.9

6446604.1

433.0

2011

RU-230

353

-60

222.0

573417.3

6446588.5

436.0

2011

RU-231

313

-60

219.0

573535.2

6446660.2

439.0

2011

RU-232

317

-60

291.0

573615.7

6446654.1

428.0

2011

RU-233

353

-50

291.0

573331.5

6446565.2

434.0

2011

RU-234

353

-60

291.0

573335.7

6446516.6

432.0

2011

RU-235

313

-60

282.0

573572.3

6446622.4

431.0

2011

  

46

 

Borehole ID

Azimuth

Dip

Length

(m)

Easting*

(m)

Northing*

(m)

Elevation

(m)

Year

RU-236

353

-60

294.0

573338.2

6446490.4

431.0

2011

RU-237

313

-60

336.0

573622.5

6446578.6

427.0

2011

RU-238

353

-60

282.0

573437.9

6446528.9

432.0

2011

RU-239

0

-60

270.0

573489.0

6446540.4

432.0

2011

RU-240

313

-60

328.0

573666.6

6446527.8

426.0

2011

RU-241

353

-60

330.0

573512.8

6446473.8

428.0

2011

RU-242

316

-70

317.0

573711.3

6446638.4

427.0

2011

RU-243

351

-73

270.0

573307.8

6446470.4

430.0

2011

RU-244

352

-65

249.0

573307.8

6446470.4

430.0

2011

RU-245

313

-60

252.0

573720.8

6446715.0

428.0

2011

RU-246

353

-60

252.0

573260.4

6446420.8

432.0

2011

RU-247

2

-56

162.0

573047.8

6446441.2

448.0

2011

RU-248

0

-54

261.0

573290.0

6446426.5

433.0

2011

RU-249

340

-61

150.0

572686.6

6446378.8

460.0

2011

RU-250

353

-64

222.0

573214.9

6446480.7

434.0

2011

RU-251

338

-73

339.0

572776.3

6446267.0

451.0

2011

RU-252

348

-68

222.0

673186.7

6446475.1

436.0

2011

RU-253

340

-62

339.0

572736.3

6446230.9

450.0

2011

RU-254

359

-86

300.0

573018.8

6446371.9

444.0

2011

RU-255

352

-59

351.0

572626.0

6446218.2

457.0

2011

RU-256

353

-84

300.0

572988.9

6446383.5

447.0

2011

RU-257

354

-67

180.0

572829.7

6446387.8

455.0

2011

RU-258

351

-73

297.0

573347.7

6446476.5

431.0

2011

RU-259

351

-60

282.0

573347.7

6446477.1

431.0

2011

RU-260

351

-56

321.0

572591.9

6446213.8

459.0

2011

RU-261

285

-50

306.0

572825.3

6446351.7

450.0

2011

RU-262

56

-57

351.0

572942.3

6446490.0

456.0

2011

RU-263

172

-58

201.0

572986.9

6446373.6

446.0

2011

RU-264

350

-70

150.0

573041.6

6446411.0

447.0

2011

RU-265

0

-74

159.0

573328.0

6446471.4

430.0

2011

RU-266

351

-90

54.0

572856.3

6446788.7

473.0

2011

RU-267

351

-90

45.0

572637.5

6445755.9

453.0

2011

RU-268

355

-59

347.0

572530.1

6446191.6

460.0

2011

RU-269

351

-90

201.0

573565.5

6446118.1

422.0

2011

RU-270

351

-90

30.0

573562.4

6446126.4

423.0

2011

RU-271

351

-90

201.0

573348.0

6446027.9

420.0

2011

RU-272

360

-64

342.0

572870.3

6446277.3

444.0

2011

RU-273

353

-85

282.0

573260.4

6446420.8

432.0

2011

RU-274

5

-77

276.0

573046.7

6446412.4

446.0

2011

RU-275

339

-75

309.0

572811.4

6446316.3

449.0

2011

RU-276

336

-83

291.0

572829.7

6446387.8

455.0

2011

RU-277

353

-77

318.0

572874.3

6446342.2

449.0

2011

RU-278

336

-67

216.0

572829.7

6446387.8

455.0

2011

RU-279

354

-67

210.0

572867.5

6446386.9

453.0

2011

RU-280

180

-86

318.0

572921.5

6446404.3

451.0

2011

RU-281

348

-75

237.0

572890.5

6446381.4

450.0

2011

RU-282

350

-72

318.0

572549.6

6446293.9

462.0

2011

RU-283

349

-77

204.0

572919.4

6446418.5

452.0

2011

HR-014

313.1

-72

288.0

574205.7

6444616.0

288.0

2012

HR-015

310.9

-72

288.0

574359.8

6444749.0

288.0

2012

HR-016

315.0

-72

291.0

574907.0

6445340.0

291.0

2012

HR-017

307.4

-72

291.0

575152.3

6445676.0

291.0

2012

HR-018

302.9

-74

291.0

575302.2

6445803.0

291.0

2012

 

47

 

Borehole ID

Azimuth

Dip

Length

(m)

Easting*

(m)

Northing*

(m)

Elevation

(m)

Year

HR-019

302.8

-72

291.0

575532.4

6445841.0

291.0

2012

HR-020

305.7

-72

291.0

575060.4

6445465.0

291.0

2012

HR-021

304.9

-72

286.5

574885.8

6445057.0

286.5

2012

HR-022

295.8

-72

289.4

574659.5

6445005.0

289.4

2012

HR-023

305.0

-70

291.0

574380.6

6445036.0

291.0

2012

Total

   

30,025**

       

 *  The North American Datum of 1983, zone 13N.

** Rounded up

 

Representative uranium assay results from the drilling campaigns after the July 2009 Resource report are summarized in Table 7‑3. These programs when drilled on the deposit confirmed continuity of mineralization or bounded mineralization down dip. Where mineralization was confirmed, it was determined that it would add incremental pounds to the deposits (Eriks and Hasegawa, 2014).

 

Table 73: Assay Results Mid-2009 through 2012

 

 

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID

From*

To*

Length*

%U3O8

From

To

Length

%U3O8

HO-001

241.6

248.9

7.3

0.067

-

-

-

-

HO-002

246.5

250.0

3.5

0.114

-

-

-

-

HO-003

224.3

229.9

5.6

0.095

-

-

-

-

 

233.2

239.8

6.6

0.551

-

-

-

-

HO-004

184.1

201.5

17.4

0.332

-

-

-

-

 

222.3

230.6

8.3

0.377

-

-

-

-

HO-006

243.5

246.5

3.0

0.117

-

-

-

-

HO-007

232.5

237.9

5.4

0.255

-

-

-

-

HO-008

118.7

120.4

1.7

0.137

-

-

-

-

 

199.1

226.0

26.9

0.096

-

-

-

-

HO-009

149.9

153.1

3.2

2.557

-

-

-

-

HO-014

174.9

179.9

5.0

0.101

-

-

-

-

 

204.6

205.9

1.3

0.206

-

-

-

-

HO-015

150.3

160.9

10.6

0.109

-

-

-

-

 

168.3

174.5

6.2

0.102

-

-

-

-

 

186.6

200.0

13.4

0.305

-

-

-

-

HO-016

209.0

220.2

11.2

0.162

-

-

-

-

 

233.2

236.0

2.8

0.105

-

-

-

-

HS-001

159.4

183.5

24.1

0.015

-

-

-

-

 

228.0

231.6

3.6

0.076

-

-

-

-

 

239.3

249.9

10.6

0.014

-

-

-

-

 

258.5

260.6

2.1

0.177

-

-

-

-

HU-006

166.9

183.3

16.4

0.25

-

-

-

-

HU-007

163.6

175.7

12.1

0.39

-

-

-

-

HU-008

155.9

178.5

22.6

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

184.5

188.0

3.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-009

190.9

192.0

1.1

0.2

-

-

-

-

HU-010

111.0

114.0

3.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

261.2

263.0

1.8

0.08

-

-

-

-

HU-011

240.7

243.6

2.9

0.19

-

-

-

-

 

253.3

258.5

5.2

0.72

-

-

-

-

HU-012

179.0

191.7

12.7

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

196.3

199.5

3.2

0.13

-

-

-

-

HU-013

239.0

242.6

3.6

0.34

-

-

-

-

  

48

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

HU-014

168.7

169.5

0.8

0.28

-

-

-

-

 

179.9

181.7

1.8

0.38

-

-

-

-

 

207.9

209.6

1.7

0.13

-

-

-

-

HU-015

180.0

194.2

14.2

0.52

-

-

-

-

HU-016

199.6

213.9

14.3

3.97

201.5

213.9

12.4

4.53

         

204.8

208.2

3.4

10.3

         

204.8

205.4

0.6

22.17

HU-018

109.1

116.6

7.8

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

245.1

261.2

10.6

0.17

-

-

-

-

HU-019

93.9

95.6

1.7

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

205.7

210.0

4.3

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

220.5

221.4

0.9

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

225.8

229.6

3.8

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

252.7

253.8

1.1

0.53

-

-

-

-

 

259.0

261.7

2.7

0.48

-

-

-

-

 

276.0

279.5

3.5

0.29

-

-

-

-

 

284.5

285.5

1.0

0.23

-

-

-

-

HU-020

279.7

297.6

17.9

0.26

-

-

-

-

 

301.0

301.7

0.7

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-021

310.0

313.0

3.0

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

318.7

320.5

1.8

0.11

-

-

-

-

HU-022

208.5

247.5

39.0

0.41

-

-

-

-

 

257.6

258.2

0.6

0.31

-

-

-

-

 

325.2

325.6

0.3

0.33

-

-

-

-

HU-023

174.0

176.8

2.8

0.17

-

-

-

-

HU-024

307.5

343.8

35.2

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-025

166.5

173.3

6.8

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

209.1

210.3

1.2

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-026

317.2

318.0

0.9

0.14

-

-

-

-

HU-027

309.6

311.7

2.1

0.34

-

-

-

-

HU-028

185.6

201.6

16.0

0.32

191.8

193.4

1.6

2.55

         

192.7

193.1

0.4

5.31

HU-029

188.0

194.0

6.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

205.7

209.3

3.6

0.06

-

-

-

-

HU-030

188.0

198.5

10.5

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

246.9

247.9

1.1

1.02

-

-

-

-

HU-032

193.8

200.6

6.8

0.58

-

-

-

-

HU-033

177.0

194.0

17.0

0.49

190.3

193.4

3.1

1.9

         

193.0

193.4

0.4

5.93

HU-034

170.7

187.2

16.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

HU-036

223.5

226.1

2.6

1.08

-

-

-

-

 

238.0

246.5

8.5

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-037

181.0

194.4

13.4

0.74

181.0

184.9

3.9

1.97

         

184.3

184.9

0.6

5.27

 

211.3

212.3

1.0

0.79

-

-

-

-

HU-038

199.5

219.8

20.3

0.37

199.5

200.5

1.0

3.9

HU-039

136.9

139.4

2.5

0.29

-

-

-

-

 

150.6

163.4

12.8

0.63

162.8

163.4

0.6

7.55

 

204.5

205.9

1.4

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-040

236.3

238.3

2.0

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

262.0

272.4

10.4

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

290.5

304.4

13.9

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-041

183.5

190.3

6.8

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

212.8

214.0

1.2

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-043

156.6

161.4

4.8

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

179.4

189.7

10.3

1.49

183.8

187.1

3.3

4.27

 

49

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
         

184.2

184.7

0.5

10.59

 

240.9

243.6

2.7

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

260.8

262.4

1.6

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

297.9

298.4

0.5

0.19

-

-

-

-

HU-044

158.3

159.0

0.7

0.43

-

-

-

-

 

178.3

179.4

1.1

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

207.0

235.9

28.9

0.21

220.1

226.0

5.9

0.67

 

253.5

268.7

15.2

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-045

163.0

164.3

1.3

0.3

-

-

-

-

 

172.0

191.0

19.0

0.58

172.0

172.8

0.8

1.94

         

175.4

179.7

4.3

0.9

         

190.0

191.0

1.0

2.72

HU-046

117.9

119.0

1.1

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

151.4

153.4

2.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

207.7

208.6

0.9

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

234.1

234.4

0.3

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

237.9

239.3

1.4

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

242.1

243.5

1.4

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

254.3

267.4

13.1

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

272.2

273.1

0.9

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-047

247.0

249.0

2.0

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

279.0

294.0

15.0

0.23

-

-

-

-

HU-048

110.6

111.8

1.2

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

127.5

129.3

1.8

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

135.2

139.7

4.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

154.5

157.6

3.1

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

253.9

256.5

2.6

0.39

-

-

-

-

HU-049

180.9

197.3

16.4

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-050

274.7

276.4

1.7

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

297.7

322.3

24.6

0.38

306.6

321.1

14.5

0.56

HU-051

175.0

198.0

23.0

0.31

197.0

197.5

0.5

5.66

HU-052

228.9

253.3

24.4

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

258.5

259.5

1.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

HU-053

131.2

132.5

1.3

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

152.7

154.0

1.3

0.15

-

-

-

-

HU-054

249.0

254.7

5.8

0.3

-

-

-

-

 

265.9

267.4

1.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

273.3

287.0

13.7

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

300.3

308.8

8.5

0.18

-

-

-

-

HU-056

137.5

139.5

2.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

161.8

170.3

8.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

221.8

228.3

6.5

0.4

-

-

-

-

HU-057

135.0

140.0

5.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

163.0

165.0

2.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-058

254.9

260.1

5.2

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

264.0

264.7

0.7

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

267.6

269.2

1.6

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

307.0

322.4

15.4

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-060

119.3

120.1

0.8

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-061

156.9

183.5

26.6

0.5

162.5

173.9

11.4

0.99

HU-062

250.8

252.6

1.8

0.45

-

-

-

-

 

269.1

284.0

14.9

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

299.2

304.1

4.9

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

323.7

330.2

6.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

338.2

340.7

2.5

0.13

-

-

-

-

HU-063

322.4

383.3

60.9

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

50

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

HU-065

281.0

292.0

11.0

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

312.4

314.0

1.6

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

331.3

331.9

0.6

0.34

-

-

-

-

 

402.6

420.3

17.7

0.61

407.1

420.3

13.2

0.8

         

408.4

413.6

5.2

1.58

HU-066

151.0

171.0

20.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-067

264.5

275.0

10.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

300.0

301.0

1.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

325.0

328.0

3.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

363.0

369.5

6.5

0.11

-

-

-

-

HU-068

181.2

184.3

3.1

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

239.0

240.6

1.6

0.35

-

-

-

-

HU-069

421.0

421.3

0.3

0.19

-

-

-

-

HU-070

111.2

111.6

0.4

0.23

-

-

-

-

 

116.1

117.3

1.2

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

120.4

123.8

3.4

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

131.0

133.0

2.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

217.3

223.6

6.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

HU-071

245.6

246.5

0.9

0.3

-

-

-

-

 

278.3

280.5

2.2

0.23

-

-

-

-

HU-072

285.0

288.0

3.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

326.5

328.0

1.5

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

333.1

344.0

10.9

0.43

-

-

-

-

 

401.0

410.4

9.4

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-075

257.5

259.0

1.5

0.47

-

-

-

-

HU-080

153.3

154.0

0.7

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-081

265.1

267.0

1.9

0.51

-

-

-

-

 

279.8

280.2

0.4

0.33

-

-

-

-

 

315.0

324.8

9.8

0.5

-

-

-

-

 

334.0

343.0

9.0

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

401.0

407.0

6.0

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

411.0

412.0

1.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

HU-083

163.0

164.0

1.0

0.32

-

-

-

-

 

170.5

173.2

2.7

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

177.4

177.7

0.3

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

182.5

186.6

4.1

0.8

183.0

183.4

0.4

4.37

HU-084

178.8

193.3

14.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

197.0

198.0

1.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

HU-085

264.0

266.0

2.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

288.0

326.5

38.5

0.21

304.9

314.5

9.6

0.35

 

333.5

335.0

1.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-087

279.0

280.0

1.0

0.6

-

-

-

-

HU-088

207.3

207.8

0.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

209.3

210.0

0.7

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

220.6

232.6

12.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

264.4

269.8

5.4

0.26

-

-

-

-

 

286.3

289.1

2.8

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

291.4

294.7

3.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

297.1

335.3

38.2

0.22

323.5

330.8

7.3

0.55

HU-089

201.3

213.4

12.1

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

243.2

243.6

0.4

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

251.0

256.0

5.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

263.8

270.0

6.2

0.37

-

-

-

-

HU-090

149.0

151.0

2.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

310.5

314.0

3.5

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-091

173.3

174.5

1.2

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

51

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

187.0

194.0

7.0

0.39

-

-

-

-

 

221.0

223.1

2.1

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-092

162.0

164.0

2.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

215.0

227.0

12.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

243.0

245.5

2.5

0.28

-

-

-

-

 

289.0

291.0

2.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

HU-093

179.6

202.6

23.0

0.83

180.9

181.4

0.5

10.26

         

196.6

197.6

1.0

4.86

HU-094

249.0

254.6

5.6

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

259.2

274.0

14.8

0.09

260.5

262.5

2.0

0.28

 

293.7

295.4

1.7

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-095

217.6

221.8

4.2

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

224.7

226.0

1.3

0.92

-

-

-

-

HU-096

140.6

142.0

1.4

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

172.0

174.0

2.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

181.6

186.0

4.4

0.13

-

-

-

-

HU-097

99.5

107.0

7.5

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

119.0

121.0

2.0

0.24

-

-

-

-

 

141.0

141.8

0.8

0.19

-

-

-

-

HU-098

194.0

219.4

25.4

0.22

209.5

219.4

9.9

0.41

 

236.7

243.5

6.8

0.4

236.7

258.0

21.3

0.19

HU-099

182.3

190.6

8.3

1.86

185.1

188.2

3.1

4.2

HU-100

153.0

184.5

31.5

0.35

162.8

164.0

1.2

3.45

         

171.4

173.0

1.6

2.13

 

194.0

196.0

2.0

0.27

-

-

-

-

HU-101

162.1

184.4

22.3

0.82

169.0

171.3

2.3

1.91

         

176.0

178.2

2.2

3.87

HU-102

196.5

203.5

7.0

0.91

-

-

-

-

 

223.0

244.0

21.0

0.68

229.0

234.5

5.5

1.57

 

256.0

264.0

8.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-103

231.0

236.6

5.6

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

275.0

278.0

3.0

0.39

-

-

-

-

 

300.0

307.0

7.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

320.6

332.0

11.4

0.37

-

-

-

-

HU-104

136.8

138.8

2.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

140.3

141.8

1.5

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

147.8

149.6

1.8

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

151.6

169.5

17.9

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

177.3

178.4

1.1

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

196.3

200.6

4.3

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-105

135.0

141.0

6.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

152.5

154.0

1.5

0.22

-

-

-

-

 

236.0

237.9

1.9

0.08

-

-

-

-

HU-106

180.8

185.1

4.3

2.2

-

-

-

-

 

211.5

213.7

2.2

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-107

296.0

327.0

31.0

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

352.4

353.3

0.9

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-108

251.8

266.8

15.0

0.32

-

-

-

-

 

317.8

319.8

2.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

HU-109

272.8

274.8

2.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

277.6

328.0

50.4

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

286.0

298.6

12.6

0.34

-

-

-

-

 

363.0

373.0

10.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

HU-110

172.0

173.5

1.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

186.0

189.0

3.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

266.0

267.5

1.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

  

52

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

275.5

276.5

1.0

0.37

-

-

-

-

HU-111

163.5

183.9

20.4

0.36

179.2

183.9

4.7

1.27

 

204.6

206.7

2.1

0.42

-

-

-

-

HU-112

237.0

238.0

1.0

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

242.8

258.9

16.1

0.31

-

-

-

-

HU-113

256.5

271.9

15.4

0.73

256.5

259.0

2.5

1.78

         

266.4

271.9

5.5

1.2

         

270.2

271.6

1.4

3.33

HU-114

225.8

227.5

1.7

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

230.2

235.5

5.3

0.28

-

-

-

-

HU-115

299.7

302.0

2.3

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-114

311.4

312.9

1.5

0.08

-

-

-

-

HU-116

139.7

140.3

0.6

0.26

-

-

-

-

 

304.7

310.0

5.3

0.2

-

-

-

-

HU-117

264.7

329.7

65.0

0.16

264.7

266.2

1.5

0.59

         

273.2

286.8

13.6

0.27

         

319.4

327.0

7.6

0.37

HU-118

170.9

187.0

16.1

0.34

180.2

187.0

6.8

0.68

 

192.0

195.0

3.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

HU-119

246.0

248.3

2.3

0.22

-

-

-

-

 

273.3

274.2

0.9

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

290.0

346.4

56.4

0.22

291.8

302.3

10.5

0.36

HU-120

131.6

132.8

1.2

0.39

-

-

-

-

 

172.2

174.7

2.5

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

178.2

179.0

0.8

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

194.6

195.9

1.3

0.23

-

-

-

-

 

207.1

207.5

0.4

0.3

-

-

-

-

HU-121

266.0

269.0

3.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-121

345.0

347.3

2.3

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-122

199.4

199.9

0.5

0.25

-

-

-

-

HU-123

285.0

317.0

32.0

0.26

296.7

308.6

11.9

0.51

HU-124

208.2

208.7

0.5

0.25

-

-

-

-

HU-126

190.5

213.6

23.1

0.65

199.9

205.0

5.2

1.89

HU-129

187.2

190.4

3.2

0.36

-

-

-

-

HU-130

288.9

304.9

16.0

0.64

298.4

304.1

5.7

1.15

HU-131

252.5

269.5

17.0

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

277.0

279.0

2.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

290.0

290.6

0.6

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

300.0

307.0

7.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-132

272.6

274.6

2.0

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

290.0

291.3

1.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

314.7

319.3

4.6

0.14

-

-

-

-

HU-133

254.2

298.0

43.8

0.28

-

-

-

-

HU-134

136.4

138.2

1.8

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

211.0

213.4

2.4

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

225.0

226.8

1.8

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

243.9

281.5

37.6

0.65

248.6

280.3

31.7

0.75

         

272.2

278.3

6.1

3

HU-135

278.0

278.6

0.6

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

286.9

299.4

12.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

358.0

361.5

3.5

0.05

-

-

-

-

HU-136

257.5

279.0

21.5

0.27

257.5

262.0

4.5

0.75

 

295.0

296.0

1.0

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

302.5

313.0

10.5

0.36

-

-

-

-

 

325.0

326.0

1.0

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-137

225.8

231.7

5.9

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

53

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

259.3

260.7

1.4

0.67

-

-

-

-

HU-138

266.7

269.6

2.9

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

282.9

310.0

27.1

0.34

289.5

295.8

6.3

0.98

 

333.6

335.3

1.7

0.06

-

-

-

-

HU-139

187.2

191.9

4.7

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

200.6

212.0

11.4

0.32

-

-

-

-

HU-140

179.0

187.2

8.2

0.2

-

-

-

-

HU-143

319.5

321.8

2.3

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

327.3

329.0

1.7

0.4

-

-

-

-

HU-144

136.8

138.5

1.7

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

238.6

276.0

37.4

0.47

253.0

259.2

6.2

1.08

         

268.9

276.0

7.1

1

HU-145

157.6

167.6

10.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

196.0

201.3

5.3

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-146

148.4

156.5

8.1

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

207.8

214.8

7.0

0.17

-

-

-

-

HU-147

276.0

277.1

1.1

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

281.1

303.3

22.2

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-150

233.8

239.7

5.9

0.26

-

-

-

-

 

250.6

260.0

9.4

0.18

-

-

-

-

HU-151

107.8

109.5

1.7

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

132.8

134.5

1.7

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

225.9

236.0

10.1

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

257.5

262.0

4.5

0.31

-

-

-

-

 

273.0

273.9

0.9

0.14

-

-

-

-

HU-152

244.8

247.3

2.5

0.28

-

-

-

-

HU-153

153.7

156.7

3.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

281.0

299.0

18.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

311.9

315.5

3.6

0.26

-

-

-

-

 

331.1

333.9

2.8

0.44

-

-

-

-

HU-155

307.0

322.5

15.5

0.19

-

-

-

-

HU-156

168.8

187.0

18.2

1.01

-

-

-

-

HU-157

285.5

320.4

34.9

0.13

-

-

-

-

HU-158

257.1

265.7

8.6

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

306.6

330.0

23.4

0.34

317.2

317.7

0.5

3.83

HU-159

389.6

390.6

1.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

HU-160

270.0

280.9

10.9

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

287.5

293.0

5.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

313.4

314.5

1.1

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

440.5

443.2

2.7

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

452.5

463.2

10.7

0.14

-

-

-

-

HU-161

130.0

131.5

1.5

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

247.7

249.0

1.3

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

279.0

292.8

13.8

0.45

287.8

288.7

0.9

5.19

HU-162

131.3

133.8

2.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

220.7

221.8

1.1

0.4

-

-

-

-

HU-163

301.0

302.7

1.7

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

326.5

348.0

21.5

0.29

329.5

337.2

7.7

0.58

HU-164

155.4

164.0

8.6

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

245.2

247.0

1.8

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

263.0

266.5

3.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

276.5

284.0

7.9

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-166

291.5

303.0

11.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

319.0

325.0

6.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

HU-167

243.0

244.0

1.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

HU-168

286.6

335.8

49.2

0.12

286.6

293.0

6.4

0.24

   

54

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

HU-169

320.5

326.5

6.0

0.3

-

-

-

-

HU-170

309.8

312.6

2.8

0.42

-

-

-

-

HU-171

235.3

236.9

1.6

0.33

-

-

-

-

 

309.8

333.9

24.1

0.31

-

-

-

-

HU-173

243.0

250.8

7.8

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

258.2

258.7

0.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

271.0

273.3

2.3

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

287.0

296.6

9.6

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

305.0

309.5

4.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

319.6

329.0

9.4

0.08

-

-

-

-

HU-175

116.3

120.5

4.2

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

136.0

137.0

1.0

0.19

-

-

-

-

 

183.3

185.4

2.1

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

211.5

230.0

18.5

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

252.1

276.4

24.3

0.25

252.1

255.4

3.3

0.66

         

267.2

268.7

1.5

1.35

HU-177

400.4

402.5

2.1

0.09

-

-

-

-

HU-178

130.8

131.6

0.8

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

275.2

276.3

1.1

0.19

-

-

-

-

 

281.5

291.3

9.8

0.35

288.7

290.3

1.6

1.02

HU-180

216.0

217.4

1.4

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

220.8

221.7

0.9

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

244.1

252.4

8.3

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

261.0

279.6

18.6

0.32

-

-

-

-

HU-182

172.7

183.0

10.3

0.87

-

-

-

-

HU-183

106.9

112.7

5.8

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

115.9

117.0

1.1

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

240.9

243.0

2.1

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

269.3

275.3

6.0

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-184

181.5

195.8

14.3

0.28

-

-

-

-

HU-185

182.4

186.7

4.3

0.31

-

-

-

-

HU-188

166.2

173.3

7.1

0.25

-

-

-

-

HU-189

164.5

166.0

1.5

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

176.9

188.0

11.1

0.18

-

-

-

-

HU-190

96.2

97.7

1.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

120.5

127.1

6.6

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

192.5

194.1

1.6

0.19

-

-

-

-

HU-192

166.0

167.0

1.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

192.5

194.5

2.0

0.2

-

-

-

-

HU-193

176.0

176.8

0.8

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

200.1

201.9

1.8

0.78

-

-

-

-

HU-193

206.5

207.2

0.7

0.45

-

-

-

-

HU-194

146.0

149.0

3.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

153.0

156.5

3.5

0.6

-

-

-

-

 

179.0

180.5

1.5

0.49

-

-

-

-

HU-195

195.7

196.6

0.9

0.43

-

-

-

-

HU-197

135.0

138.2

3.2

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-198

155.0

157.0

2.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

166.8

168.5

1.7

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

209.8

210.4

0.6

0.73

-

-

-

-

HU-199

111.8

125.0

13.2

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

205.8

206.7

0.9

0.38

-

-

-

-

HU-200

99.5

100.0

0.5

0.65

-

-

-

-

 

140.0

142.0

2.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

221.7

230.2

8.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

HU-201

214.7

216.0

1.3

0.19

-

-

-

-

  

55

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

HU-205

167.9

168.8

0.9

0.54

-

-

-

-

HU-208

243.7

248.0

4.3

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

288.5

302.1

13.6

0.23

-

-

-

-

HU-209

210.5

211.3

0.8

2.81

-

-

-

-

HU-212

137.0

138.5

1.5

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

211.0

212.6

1.6

0.39

-

-

-

-

 

243.0

245.6

2.6

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

252.8

272.4

19.6

0.34

-

-

-

-

HU-213

135.8

136.9

1.1

0.17

-

-

-

-

HU-214

131.2

132.2

1.0

0.64

-

-

-

-

 

137.9

139.5

1.6

0.87

-

-

-

-

 

171.3

173.0

1.7

0.18

-

-

-

-

HU-216

122.0

123.4

1.4

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

237.0

245.2

8.2

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

257.0

259.0

2.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

274.6

285.0

10.4

0.22

-

-

-

-

 

320.0

320.6

0.6

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-217

187.4

205.5

18.1

0.29

-

-

-

-

HU-220

122.0

156.0

34.0

0.27

-

-

-

-

HU-221

134.9

137.0

2.1

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

278.5

281.5

3.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

286.7

307.6

20.9

0.16

-

-

-

-

HU-223

104.5

131.1

26.6

0.23

-

-

-

-

HU-225

155.7

162.8

7.1

0.39

-

-

-

-

 

183.3

184.2

0.9

0.77

-

-

-

-

HU-226

185.8

189.3

3.5

0.36

-

-

-

-

HU-228

132.0

135.0

3.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

142.0

143.0

1.0

0.21

-

-

-

-

HU-232

184.0

184.8

0.8

0.36

-

-

-

-

 

204.5

207.2

2.7

0.37

-

-

-

-

HU-235

167.0

185.0

18.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-240

120.4

123.0

2.6

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

191.0

194.2

3.2

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

200.0

205.4

5.4

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

211.3

212.0

0.7

0.69

-

-

-

-

HU-242

192.0

193.8

1.8

2.84

-

-

-

-

HU-246

236.8

237.6

0.8

0.42

-

-

-

-

HU-247

131.7

134.0

2.3

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

175.0

177.0

2.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

206.6

216.2

9.6

0.81

-

-

-

-

HU-249

199.0

200.3

1.3

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

206.0

207.5

1.5

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

215.7

216.3

0.6

0.65

-

-

-

-

HU-252

224.3

225.5

1.2

0.07

-

-

-

-

HU-254

199.5

203.3

3.8

0.81

-

-

-

-

HU-257

208.3

209.7

1.4

0.7

-

-

-

-

 

290.4

291.5

1.1

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

296.4

296.9

0.5

0.38

-

-

-

-

 

318.3

319.5

1.2

0.1

-

-

-

-

HU-259

322.7

323.9

1.2

0.46

-

-

-

-

 

340.2

340.7

0.5

0.3

-

-

-

-

HU-269

128.6

129.2

0.6

0.499

-

-

-

-

HU-270

173.5

179.1

5.6

0.358

178.7

179.1

0.4

4.197

HU-281

211.9

213.2

1.3

0.234

-

-

-

-

HU-282

166.7

174.3

7.6

0.885

172.6

174.3

1.7

3.048

HU-283

296.2

297.1

0.9

0.629

-

-

-

-

 

56

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

HU-284

133.5

171.2

37.7

0.073

155.4

157.4

2.0

0.378

 

183.2

185.0

1.8

0.081

-

-

-

-

HU-286

189.0

196.3

7.3

0.457

191.0

192.0

1.0

1.58

 

207.0

207.6

0.6

0.506

-

-

-

-

HU-287

160.7

162.4

1.7

0.094

-

-

-

-

 

255.0

258.0

3.0

0.058

-

-

-

-

 

285.0

285.7

0.7

0.391

-

-

-

-

HU-288

178.0

186.0

8.0

0.229

-

-

-

-

HU-289

232.0

239.7

7.7

0.58

232.0

233.9

1.9

1.492

 

315.9

317.5

1.6

0.196

-

-

-

-

 

350.1

373.1

23.0

0.567

354.9

358.7

3.8

1.28

         

355.8

356.5

0.7

4.598

         

369.1

372.8

3.7

1.903

         

369.6

370.2

0.6

5.706

HU-291

143.8

178.0

34.2

0.225

-

-

-

-

 

172.4

178.0

5.6

0.395

-

-

-

-

HU-292

276.5

277.5

1.0

0.117

-

-

-

-

 

331.5

332.0

0.5

1.486

-

-

-

-

HU-294

212.7

214.4

1.7

0.088

-

-

-

-

HU-295

154.5

155.5

1.0

0.134

-

-

-

-

 

174.6

179.0

4.4

0.129

-

-

-

-

 

287.0

287.4

0.4

1.191

-

-

-

-

 

296.4

296.8

0.4

0.495

-

-

-

-

HU-296

191.2

195.0

3.8

0.108

-

-

-

-

HU-297

274.5

276.1

1.6

0.358

-

-

-

-

 

281.9

285.0

3.1

0.055

-

-

-

-

 

292.4

294.0

1.6

0.198

-

-

-

-

 

308.1

333.1

25.0

0.176

-

-

-

-

 

339.5

344.0

4.5

0.135

-

-

-

-

HU-298

346.2

347.5

1.3

1.493

-

-

-

-

 

374.0

377.0

3.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

392.5

397.2

4.7

0.178

-

-

-

-

HU-300

303.8

305.6

1.8

0.085

-

-

-

-

 

313.6

314.9

1.3

0.147

-

-

-

-

HU-301

153.2

191.0

37.8

0.098

186.9

189.2

2.3

0.792

HU-302

342.5

384.0

41.5

0.258

342.5

345.5

3.0

0.814

         

357.9

358.6

0.7

3.985

         

377.0

384.0

7.0

0.449

 

413.5

414.5

1.0

0.154

-

-

-

-

HU-304

158.9

164.0

5.1

0.068

-

-

-

-

 

184.0

185.8

1.8

0.092

-

-

-

-

HU-305

224.0

225.5

1.5

0.111

-

-

-

-

 

261.5

266.5

5.0

0.089

-

-

-

-

HU-306

94.0

99.0

5.0

0.105

-

-

-

-

 

133.0

140.5

7.5

0.104

-

-

-

-

 

218.0

219.0

1.0

0.137

-

-

-

-

HU-307

152.6

154.7

2.1

0.111

-

-

-

-

 

166.7

168.3

1.6

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

177.1

189.0

11.9

0.055

-

-

-

-

HU-308

126.3

167.0

41.2

0.066

-

-

-

-

 

267.0

284.3

17.3

0.078

-

-

-

-

HU-310

317.8

325.6

7.8

0.073

-

-

-

-

 

341.0

352.0

11.0

0.089

-

-

-

-

 

363.0

364.0

1.0

0.22

-

-

-

-

HU-311

166.6

181.6

15.0

0.082

-

-

-

-

 

254.1

256.0

1.9

0.366

-

-

-

-

  

57

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

HU-314

110.3

116.0

5.7

0.111

-

-

-

-

 

166.0

169.0

3.0

0.067

-

-

-

-

 

177.0

179.0

2.0

0.061

-

-

-

-

HU-315

300.0

303.0

3.0

0.093

-

-

-

-

 

323.7

325.0

1.3

0.079

-

-

-

-

 

377.6

378.2

0.6

0.656

-

-

-

-

HU-316

168.0

176.0

8.0

0.187

-

-

-

-

 

225.0

225.4

0.4

0.406

-

-

-

-

 

248.5

249.5

1.0

0.291

-

-

-

-

 

289.2

291.0

1.8

0.067

-

-

-

-

HU-317

145.0

146.0

1.0

0.212

-

-

-

-

 

157.6

157.9

0.3

0.891

-

-

-

-

 

174.7

181.7

7.0

0.071

-

-

-

-

HU-319

214.0

216.4

2.4

0.106

-

-

-

-

HU-320

385.0

386.0

1.0

0.111

-

-

-

-

HU-321

151.0

172.0

21.0

0.068

-

-

-

-

HU-323

211.0

213.0

2.0

0.107

-

-

-

-

HU-324

179.6

180.2

0.6

0.248

-

-

-

-

 

362.5

363.7

1.2

0.315

-

-

-

-

 

379.6

399.2

19.6

0.22

396.1

399.2

3.1

1.089

HU-327

273.4

275.2

1.8

0.084

-

-

-

-

HU-328

357.0

358.0

1.0

0.413

-

-

-

-

 

361.0

362.0

1.0

0.146

-

-

-

-

 

396.9

397.8

0.9

0.151

-

-

-

-

HU-329

33.0

33.7

0.7

0.613

-

-

-

-

 

41.0

43.1

2.1

0.23

-

-

-

-

HU-330

344.5

345.2

0.7

0.443

-

-

-

-

HU-331

295.5

321.0

25.5

0.192

295.5

297.0

1.5

1.517

HU-332

265.0

268.0

3.0

0.096

-

-

-

-

 

277.4

278.0

0.6

0.198

-

-

-

-

HU-333

138.0

140.2

2.2

0.077

-

-

-

-

 

147.0

156.0

9.0

0.068

-

-

-

-

 

168.5

175.5

7.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

186.5

196.5

10.0

0.051

-

-

-

-

HU-334

185.0

188.0

3.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

HU-337

102.0

104.0

2.0

0.055

-

-

-

-

HU-339

45.4

46.4

1.0

0.354

-

-

-

-

HU-341

216.0

218.0

2.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

HU-343

203.7

208.0

4.3

0.134

-

-

-

-

 

223.0

225.0

2.0

0.059

-

-

-

-

HU-345

180.0

182.0

2.0

0.058

-

-

-

-

HU-347

107.0

109.0

2.0

0.118

-

-

-

-

 

180.0

185.0

5.0

0.064

-

-

-

-

HU-348

143.5

147.0

3.5

0.077

-

-

-

-

HU-349

108.9

111.3

2.4

0.115

-

-

-

-

 

162.0

166.3

4.3

0.144

-

-

-

-

 

213.9

215.4

1.5

0.199

-

-

-

-

 

253.4

256.6

3.2

0.687

-

-

-

-

 

264.6

265.6

1.0

0.153

-

-

-

-

 

274.6

276.0

1.4

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

303.0

308.6

5.6

0.183

-

-

-

-

 

332.6

334.9

2.3

0.053

-

-

-

-

 

348.0

349.0

1.0

0.108

-

-

-

-

 

355.0

356.8

1.8

0.244

-

-

-

-

 

372.5

376.0

3.5

0.061

-

-

-

-

 

387.0

390.0

3.0

0.196

-

-

-

-

 

433.0

438.0

5.0

0.076

-

-

-

-

 

58

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

476.0

503.0

27.0

0.068

-

-

-

-

HU-350

178.5

189.5

11.0

0.078

-

-

-

-

HU-361

71.0

72.0

1.0

0.032

-

-

-

-

 

120.0

124.0

4.0

0.076

-

-

-

-

 

133.0

136.0

3.0

0.107

-

-

-

-

 

133.4

135.5

2.1

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

220.5

223.0

2.5

0.034

-

-

-

-

HU-365

271.0

272.0

1.0

0.023

-

-

-

-

HU-368

176.0

188.0

12.0

0.177

184.0

188.0

4.0

0.279

 

213.0

227.0

14.0

0.054

-

-

-

-

 

232.0

233.0

1.0

0.123

-

-

-

-

 

240.0

245.0

5.0

0.182

-

-

-

-

 

259.5

263.0

3.5

0.072

-

-

-

-

HU-369

206.5

208.5

2.0

0.352

-

-

-

-

HU-370

318.0

319.0

1.0

0.104

-

-

-

-

 

332.0

364.0

32.0

0.098

-

-

-

-

 

332.5

340.0

7.5

0.199

-

-

-

-

HU-371

273.5

285.0

11.5

0.055

-

-

-

-

 

299.5

302.0

2.5

0.092

-

-

-

-

 

319.0

330.0

11.0

0.495

321.0

325.0

4.0

1.143

         

321.5

322.5

1.0

3.295

RU-001

84.0

88.8

4.8

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

114.8

170.0

55.2

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-002

89.3

91.5

2.2

0.8

-

-

-

-

 

106.4

106.8

0.4

2.13

-

-

-

-

 

124.9

139.5

14.6

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

143.5

144.3

0.8

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

148.0

149.6

1.6

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

205.4

210.7

5.3

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

222.7

231.7

9.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-003

197.8

218.0

20.2

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-004

107.0

134.0

27.0

0.16

109.2

113.0

3.8

0.49

         

130.0

133.5

3.5

0.39

 

138.0

140.0

2.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-005

97.6

99.0

1.4

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

224.9

238.2

13.3

0.25

-

-

-

-

RU-007

94.4

95.4

1.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

111.0

117.0

6.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

220.4

224.2

3.8

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

232.0

236.6

4.6

0.11

-

-

-

-

RU-009

185.0

193.0

8.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-010

151.3

158.3

7.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

RU-011

63.2

64.2

1.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

70.2

72.2

2.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

155.2

157.7

2.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-012

104.9

150.5

45.6

0.09

117.2

117.8

0.6

1.8

 

200.0

228.5

28.5

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-013

191.2

193.2

2.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

213.7

216.3

2.6

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

287.1

287.7

0.6

0.18

-

-

-

-

RU-014

129.0

134.6

5.6

0.45

-

-

-

-

 

192.0

194.0

2.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-015

78.2

79.0

0.8

0.22

-

-

-

-

 

95.0

95.6

0.6

0.19

-

-

-

-

 

100.6

136.8

36.2

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

59

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

148.1

150.4

2.3

0.19

-

-

-

-

 

161.0

164.0

3.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

197.0

200.0

3.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

228.0

236.3

8.3

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

240.3

244.0

3.7

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-016

163.2

165.1

1.9

0.24

-

-

-

-

RU-017

214.4

220.8

6.4

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

231.0

235.5

4.5

0.36

-

-

-

-

RU-018

79.7

81.4

1.7

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

104.9

105.9

1.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-020

121.2

129.6

8.4

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

188.6

194.6

6.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-021

193.0

194.0

1.0

0.56

-

-

-

-

 

199.0

200.0

1.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-022

150.4

156.0

5.6

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

195.9

199.0

3.1

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

203.5

205.0

1.5

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

214.4

215.0

0.6

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-023

222.0

226.1

4.1

0.51

225.3

226.1

0.8

1.73

RU-024

95.7

97.2

1.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

101.5

102.0

0.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

109.0

129.0

20.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

183.3

222.0

38.7

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-025

151.4

185.0

33.6

0.1

152.1

152.9

0.8

0.99

 

226.6

231.5

4.9

0.15

-

-

-

-

RU-026

116.8

122.0

5.2

2.98

118.5

120.0

1.5

7.99

         

119.5

120.0

0.5

19.45

 

134.5

138.0

3.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

151.0

152.0

1.0

0.18

-

-

-

-

RU-027

73.2

73.4

0.2

0.96

-

-

-

-

 

102.6

112.1

9.5

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

217.7

227.6

9.9

0.05

-

-

-

-

RU-028

219.5

221.5

2.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-029

112.1

125.4

13.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

188.0

193.8

5.8

0.14

-

-

-

-

RU-030

87.5

90.0

2.5

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

136.4

136.7

0.3

0.67

-

-

-

-

RU-031

162.7

164.1

1.4

0.17

-

-

-

-

RU-032

184.5

186.0

1.5

0.84

-

-

-

-

RU-033

105.7

107.3

1.6

0.52

-

-

-

-

RU-035

104.0

106.0

2.0

0.77

-

-

-

-

 

151.5

153.1

1.6

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

195.2

199.1

3.9

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

218.0

219.0

1.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

RU-036

106.5

113.0

6.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

118.0

155.5

37.5

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

258.0

260.0

2.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-037

97.4

103.5

6.1

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

132.0

135.0

3.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-038

121.5

122.5

1.0

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

127.0

128.5

1.5

0.43

-

-

-

-

 

163.3

164.5

1.2

1.23

-

-

-

-

RU-039

93.2

97.8

4.6

0.14

-

-

-

-

RU-040

91.5

93.5

2.0

0.28

-

-

-

-

RU-041

138.8

144.5

5.7

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

197.7

199.0

1.3

0.64

-

-

-

-

 

60

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

212.0

218.8

6.8

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-042

108.5

112.5

4.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

120.5

121.5

1.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

162.0

178.5

16.5

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

291.5

297.0

5.5

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

303.0

303.5

0.5

0.23

-

-

-

-

RU-043

104.8

106.7

1.9

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

213.6

221.3

7.7

0.43

-

-

-

-

 

214.1

216.6

2.8

0.76

-

-

-

-

RU-045

125.6

128.0

2.4

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-047

105.5

129.5

24.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

141.5

153.0

11.5

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

184.0

187.5

3.5

0.46

-

-

-

-

 

254.0

256.0

2.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

266.0

273.0

7.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-048

113.5

151.5

38.0

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

132.0

139.5

7.5

0.42

-

-

-

-

 

164.5

168.5

4.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

177.5

188.5

11.0

0.14

-

-

-

-

RU-051

95.3

96.3

1.0

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

111.3

121.3

10.0

0.34

118.1

120.1

2.0

0.9

RU-052

118.0

120.0

2.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

125.5

130.5

5.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-054

252.5

257.4

4.9

0.17

-

-

-

-

RU-055

108.0

111.0

3.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

195.0

205.0

10.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-056

218.0

224.0

6.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-057

172.0

174.0

2.0

0.19

-

-

-

-

RU-058

103.0

125.5

22.5

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

143.0

147.0

4.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

167.0

189.5

22.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-060

71.0

71.5

0.5

0.36

-

-

-

-

 

141.4

150.0

8.6

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

164.5

166.1

1.6

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-063

206.0

208.5

2.5

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

212.0

213.0

1.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

231.7

234.6

2.9

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

242.7

243.6

0.9

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

246.0

253.0

7.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-064

139.1

140.5

1.4

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

142.6

143.9

1.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

145.9

153.4

7.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

158.0

163.0

5.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

187.9

204.3

16.4

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-065

209.0

213.0

4.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

218.7

223.0

4.3

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-067

153.7

155.7

2.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

188.0

195.5

7.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-068

108.0

130.2

22.2

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

207.2

210.0

2.8

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-069

205.0

205.5

0.5

0.39

-

-

-

-

RU-070

179.1

180.1

1.0

0.53

-

-

-

-

 

194.5

199.2

4.7

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

225.5

226.7

1.2

0.21

-

-

-

-

RU-071

63.0

64.0

1.0

0.54

-

-

-

-

 

113.0

114.0

1.0

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

61

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

121.0

141.0

20.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

146.0

147.0

1.0

0.2

-

-

-

-

 

167.0

178.0

11.0

0.3

-

-

-

-

 

185.0

186.0

1.0

0.35

-

-

-

-

RU-072

164.1

165.3

1.2

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

182.5

186.4

3.9

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

192.5

194.2

1.7

0.23

-

-

-

-

RU-073

162.3

165.1

2.8

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-075

121.0

143.0

22.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

160.0

161.0

1.0

0.19

-

-

-

-

 

169.0

184.5

15.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

268.3

269.0

0.7

0.19

-

-

-

-

RU-076

62.7

64.0

1.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

127.0

128.6

1.6

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

148.0

149.1

1.1

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

154.4

156.2

1.8

0.26

-

-

-

-

RU-077

93.0

101.0

8.0

0.21

-

-

-

-

RU-078

106.3

111.6

5.3

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

197.0

199.8

2.8

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-079

117.7

120.5

2.8

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

133.0

137.0

4.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

141.8

144.5

2.7

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

160.0

169.0

9.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

188.0

196.0

8.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

223.0

225.0

2.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-080

129.9

132.5

2.6

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

216.3

219.6

3.3

0.21

-

-

-

-

RU-081

32.1

33.1

1.0

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

110.4

113.6

3.2

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

129.5

133.5

4.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-083

123.0

132.0

9.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-084

93.5

96.9

3.4

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

102.0

109.8

7.8

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

127.9

128.9

1.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

157.2

165.3

8.1

0.22

-

-

-

-

RU-087

98.0

111.5

13.5

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

133.0

138.0

5.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

237.0

245.5

8.5

0.21

-

-

-

-

RU-090

42.0

44.1

2.1

0.33

-

-

-

-

 

68.6

69.1

0.5

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

120.4

122.7

2.3

0.36

-

-

-

-

 

131.6

132.7

1.1

0.27

-

-

-

-

RU-091

152.5

167.0

14.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

187.0

198.0

11.0

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

210.0

220.0

10.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-092

186.3

186.6

0.3

0.86

-

-

-

-

 

194.0

198.3

4.3

0.39

-

-

-

-

 

209.4

212.6

3.2

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

217.6

222.3

4.7

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-093

65.3

67.3

2.0

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

103.7

117.8

14.1

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-094

87.6

88.2

0.6

0.26

-

-

-

-

 

97.5

100.5

3.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

113.0

118.5

5.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

125.0

126.5

1.5

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

137.0

146.5

9.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

62

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

227.0

228.5

1.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

241.0

245.0

4.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

260.0

263.0

3.0

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-095

117.0

154.3

37.3

0.38

120.4

129.8

9.4

0.82

 

160.8

162.2

1.4

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

185.4

186.1

0.7

0.4

-

-

-

-

RU-096

183.0

185.0

2.0

0.16

-

-

-

-

 

188.0

191.0

3.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-097

58.8

61.6

2.8

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

178.6

181.5

2.9

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-098

93.9

95.2

1.3

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

124.4

125.0

0.6

0.17

-

-

-

-

RU-099

107.0

108.5

1.5

0.32

-

-

-

-

 

158.4

179.0

20.6

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-100

89.7

92.5

2.8

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

234.3

241.8

7.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-103

117.5

125.0

7.5

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

157.0

164.0

7.0

0.51

-

-

-

-

 

193.5

194.0

0.5

0.31

-

-

-

-

 

206.5

208.0

1.5

0.16

-

-

-

-

RU-104

79.0

80.9

1.9

1.04

-

-

-

-

RU-105

226.1

236.2

10.1

0.24

-

-

-

-

 

244.2

250.9

6.7

0.18

-

-

-

-

RU-109

131.7

143.0

11.3

0.31

-

-

-

-

RU-113

101.3

102.6

1.3

0.18

-

-

-

-

 

150.8

151.5

0.7

0.17

-

-

-

-

RU-115

226.0

231.2

5.2

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

254.0

258.7

4.7

0.19

-

-

-

-

RU-116

78.7

79.4

0.7

0.21

-

-

-

-

RU-118

117.1

136.9

19.8

0.52

-

-

-

-

RU-120

151.9

153.2

1.3

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

159.9

165.7

5.8

0.08

-

-

-

-

 

174.3

176.1

1.8

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

182.7

191.5

8.8

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

203.4

203.9

0.5

0.29

-

-

-

-

RU-121

308.2

315.2

7.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-122

88.8

92.2

3.4

0.15

-

-

-

-

RU-123

129.1

133.8

4.7

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

280.6

304.0

23.4

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-125

143.3

146.0

2.7

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

156.0

156.8

0.8

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

259.3

260.4

1.1

0.47

-

-

-

-

 

279.9

281.0

1.1

0.28

-

-

-

-

RU-126

153.0

155.7

2.7

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

170.9

178.0

7.1

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

313.0

314.0

1.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

RU-128

271.0

272.8

1.8

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

275.4

279.7

4.3

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

287.3

288.4

1.1

0.27

-

-

-

-

 

305.0

308.0

3.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

322.3

322.9

0.6

0.26

-

-

-

-

RU-130

106.0

119.1

10.9

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

136.7

137.2

0.5

1.29

-

-

-

-

 

144.6

149.0

4.4

0.16

-

-

-

-

RU-132

91.0

105.0

14.0

0.21

-

-

-

-

 

116.4

119.0

2.6

1.76

-

-

-

-

 

63

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

RU-135

70.5

71.5

1.0

0.3

-

-

-

-

 

91.0

94.5

3.5

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

99.5

100.5

1.0

0.17

-

-

-

-

 

123.0

131.0

8.0

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

145.0

150.0

5.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

RU-136

144.0

147.0

3.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

153.0

155.0

2.0

0.13

-

-

-

-

 

232.0

233.3

1.3

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-138

198.9

200.6

1.7

0.11

-

-

-

-

RU-139

70.0

74.0

4.0

0.64

-

-

-

-

 

101.0

103.0

2.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

 

109.0

112.0

3.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

127.0

128.0

1.0

0.68

-

-

-

-

RU-141

80.0

88.0

8.0

0.08

-

-

-

-

RU-142

203.6

207.0

3.4

0.18

-

-

-

-

RU-143

57.5

64.7

7.2

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

71.0

77.6

6.6

0.15

-

-

-

-

 

87.0

94.2

7.2

0.07

-

-

-

-

 

99.0

103.8

4.8

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

208.8

233.3

24.5

0.21

-

-

-

-

RU-144

113.5

114.0

0.5

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

118.5

119.0

0.5

0.07

-

-

-

-

RU-146

106.5

108.0

1.5

0.09

-

-

-

-

 

132.0

134.0

2.0

0.71

-

-

-

-

RU-150

187.5

189.0

1.5

0.17

-

-

-

-

RU-152

209.5

210.5

1.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-156

68.4

69.4

1.0

0.19

-

-

-

-

RU-157

115.0

139.1

24.1

0.24

-

-

-

-

RU-159

251.9

258.9

7.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

RU-160

110.0

119.0

9.0

0.05

-

-

-

-

RU-161

232.3

237.3

5.0

0.133

-

-

-

-

 

260.4

261.5

1.1

0.343

-

-

-

-

 

270.4

271.5

1.1

0.276

-

-

-

-

RU-162

140.7

143.0

2.3

0.092

-

-

-

-

 

221.3

223.0

1.7

0.103

-

-

-

-

 

231.7

234.0

2.3

0.748

-

-

-

-

RU-163

137.3

145.0

7.7

0.09

-

-

-

-

RU-164

115.8

121.2

5.4

0.222

-

-

-

-

 

132.0

133.5

1.5

0.065

-

-

-

-

RU-167

296.2

298.0

1.8

0.06

-

-

-

-

 

309.0

313.0

4.0

0.068

-

-

-

-

 

321.4

322.3

0.9

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-168

93.0

94.0

1.0

0.195

-

-

-

-

 

102.0

103.0

1.0

0.115

-

-

-

-

 

252.5

253.5

1.0

0.098

-

-

-

-

 

275.8

282.4

6.6

0.166

275.8

276.1

0.3

2.24

RU-169

163.0

169.2

6.2

0.191

-

-

-

-

 

187.8

190.0

2.2

0.079

-

-

-

-

 

201.0

219.4

18.4

0.425

214.3

217.4

3.1

1.095

RU-170

188.8

190.7

1.9

0.098

-

-

-

-

 

204.4

205.4

1.0

0.105

-

-

-

-

RU-171

149.0

151.0

2.0

0.072

-

-

-

-

 

157.0

158.2

1.2

0.098

-

-

-

-

 

215.0

218.0

3.0

0.241

-

-

-

-

 

225.9

226.5

0.6

0.362

-

-

-

-

RU-172

73.0

76.0

3.0

0.063

-

-

-

-

 

64

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8
 

88.0

111.0

23.0

0.141

-

-

-

-

 

209.0

217.0

8.0

0.083

-

-

-

-

RU-174

96.5

98.0

1.5

0.117

-

-

-

-

 

106.5

108.0

1.5

0.199

-

-

-

-

 

243.0

251.0

8.0

0.084

-

-

-

-

RU-175

144.7

174.7

30.0

0.108

-

-

-

-

RU-177

216.0

244.0

28.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-179

105.0

108.5

3.5

0.072

-

-

-

-

 

146.0

149.0

3.0

0.132

-

-

-

-

 

171.0

194.0

23.0

0.169

-

-

-

-

 

221.0

228.0

7.0

0.298

-

-

-

-

 

240.0

243.5

3.5

0.074

-

-

-

-

RU-181

286.2

303.0

16.8

0.085

-

-

-

-

RU-182

185.0

187.0

2.0

0.078

-

-

-

-

 

212.4

223.0

10.6

0.066

-

-

-

-

RU-185

173.5

174.5

1.0

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

189.0

191.5

2.5

0.232

-

-

-

-

 

347.5

354.0

6.5

0.082

-

-

-

-

RU-186

134.5

138.5

4.0

0.046

-

-

-

-

RU-187

63.8

75.0

11.2

0.212

63.8

68.1

4.3

0.483

 

99.0

114.0

15.0

0.087

-

-

-

-

 

133.0

137.0

4.0

0.067

-

-

-

-

 

165.0

172.0

7.0

0.119

-

-

-

-

 

195.0

203.0

8.0

0.096

-

-

-

-

RU-189

165.4

167.0

1.6

0.277

-

-

-

-

RU-191

212.0

214.0

2.0

0.053

-

-

-

-

RU-192

123.5

127.0

3.5

0.147

-

-

-

-

 

158.5

183.5

25.0

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-193

165.0

166.8

1.8

0.115

-

-

-

-

RU-194

225.0

227.0

2.0

0.122

-

-

-

-

 

258.0

260.5

2.5

0.046

-

-

-

-

RU-195

145.0

146.0

1.0

0.204

-

-

-

-

 

165.5

168.0

2.5

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

190.5

192.0

1.5

0.8

-

-

-

-

 

202.0

220.5

18.5

0.052

-

-

-

-

RU-197

132.0

144.0

12.0

0.138

-

-

-

-

 

206.0

208.0

2.0

0.215

-

-

-

-

RU-199

177.0

180.0

3.0

0.068

-

-

-

-

 

189.8

190.3

0.5

0.733

-

-

-

-

RU-200

311.0

315.8

4.8

0.081

-

-

-

-

RU-202

96.5

98.0

1.5

0.152

-

-

-

-

 

117.0

118.0

1.0

0.161

-

-

-

-

RU-206

149.0

151.0

2.0

0.054

-

-

-

-

 

232.2

242.5

10.3

0.228

233.4

237.1

3.7

0.474

 

295.5

300.0

4.5

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-207

260.8

288.0

27.2

0.062

-

-

-

-

RU-209

153.0

155.0

2.0

0.059

-

-

-

-

 

228.5

231.5

3.0

0.075

-

-

-

-

RU-211

163.0

164.0

1.0

0.695

-

-

-

-

 

188.5

189.5

1.0

0.1

-

-

-

-

 

199.0

208.0

9.0

0.064

-

-

-

-

RU-213

109.3

116.0

6.7

0.038

-

-

-

-

 

220.5

221.0

0.5

0.364

-

-

-

-

RU-219

45.0

48.0

3.0

0.035

46.0

47.0

1.0

0.087

RU-225

179.5

180.5

1.0

0.061

-

-

-

-

 

183.4

192.6

9.2

0.062

187.2

191.6

4.4

0.107

 

65

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

RU-226

112.0

113.0

1.0

0.04

-

-

-

-

 

138.4

143.0

4.6

0.12

-

-

-

-

RU-228

116.5

117.5

1.0

0.119

-

-

-

-

 

156.0

158.5

2.5

0.081

-

-

-

-

RU-234

170.0

171.5

1.5

0.081

-

-

-

-

 

209.0

210.0

1.0

0.149

-

-

-

-

RU-237

217.6

218.9

1.3

1.053

-

-

-

-

RU-239

120.0

122.5

2.5

0.081

-

-

-

-

RU-243

108.0

125.5

17.5

0.274

111.0

114.5

3.5

0.631

RU-246

117.0

137.5

20.5

0.445

118.5

121.6

3.1

0.761

         

128.0

137.5

9.5

0.666

         

131.0

133.1

2.1

1.676

RU-248

127.9

145.5

17.6

0.414

141.5

145.0

3.5

0.937

RU-251

248.5

249.0

0.5

0.282

-

-

-

-

 

301.7

303.0

1.3

0.127

-

-

-

-

RU-252

181.0

184.0

3.0

1.492

-

-

-

-

RU-254

96.0

114.5

18.5

0.119

104.3

107.5

3.2

0.579

 

132.0

153.0

21.0

0.125

137.0

143.0

6.0

0.196

 

209.5

214.0

4.5

0.158

-

-

-

-

 

259.4

260.0

0.6

0.182

-

-

-

-

RU-255

293.8

294.5

0.7

0.159

-

-

-

-

RU-256

99.8

105.0

5.2

0.34

99.8

102.0

2.2

0.602

 

220.0

231.0

11.0

0.111

-

-

-

-

RU-260

238.0

249.0

11.0

0.23

243.0

249.0

6.0

0.383

RU-261

254.0

257.5

3.5

0.055

-

-

-

-

 

264.5

276.0

11.5

0.091

-

-

-

-

 

294.5

297.0

2.5

0.128

-

-

-

-

RU-262

114.5

116.5

2.0

0.106

-

-

-

-

 

126.5

136.0

9.5

0.05

-

-

-

-

 

269.0

284.0

15.0

0.128

-

-

-

-

 

282.5

284.0

1.5

0.838

-

-

-

-

RU-268

150.0

153.0

3.0

0.108

-

-

-

-

 

306.5

307.0

0.5

0.245

-

-

-

-

RU-272

188.5

189.0

0.5

0.262

-

-

-

-

 

279.0

286.6

7.6

0.125

-

-

-

-

 

297.0

301.0

4.0

0.073

-

-

-

-

RU-273

88.5

92.5

4.0

0.063

-

-

-

-

 

153.0

155.0

2.0

0.055

-

-

-

-

 

169.0

171.0

2.0

0.062

-

-

-

-

RU-274

106.5

115.0

8.5

0.049

-

-

-

-

 

202.0

214.0

12.0

0.06

-

-

-

-

RU-275

263.0

276.0

13.0

0.097

-

-

-

-

RU-276

211.5

225.0

13.5

0.226

211.5

214.0

2.5

0.552

         

223.0

225.0

2.0

0.812

RU-277

258.0

265.0

7.0

0.117

-

-

-

-

 

283.0

286.5

3.5

0.058

-

-

-

-

RU-279

82.0

106.0

24.0

0.206

86.5

92.5

6.0

0.37

         

101.0

106.0

5.0

0.345

RU-280

135.0

137.0

2.0

0.131

-

-

-

-

RU-281

64.5

66.0

1.5

1.538

65.0

65.5

0.5

3.26

 

176.0

178.0

2.0

0.108

-

-

-

-

RU-282

202.0

209.0

7.0

0.07

-

-

-

-

RV-001

115.1

118.8

3.7

0.181

-

-

-

-

RV-002

144.9

146.8

1.9

0.086

-

-

-

-

RV-004

236.7

238.4

1.7

0.109

-

-

-

-

RV-005

283.2

286.2

3.0

0.083

-

-

-

-

 

66

 

         

Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower

Grades Intersections

Borehole ID From* To* Length* %U3O8 From To Length %U3O8

RV-006

39.0

39.2

0.2

1.29

-

-

-

-

 

45.9

46.2

0.3

0.64

-

-

-

-

 

105.4

106.0

0.6

0.219

-

-

-

-

RV-007

72.8

74.6

1.8

0.079

-

-

-

-

 

81.2

82.3

1.1

0.391

-

-

-

-

 

281.5

283.5

2.0

0.059

-

-

-

-

 

292.2

306.4

14.2

0.16

-

-

-

-

RV-008

211.5

212.4

0.9

0.347

-

-

-

-

 

216.5

218.0

1.5

0.137

-

-

-

-

 

235.6

239.5

3.9

0.084

-

-

-

-

RV-011

97.5

125.4

25.6

0.142

-

-

-

-

 

142.1

148.0

5.9

0.179

-

-

-

-

RV-012

131.8

133.4

1.6

0.132

-

-

-

-

 

150.8

151.7

0.9

0.197

-

-

-

-

RV-016

149.9

150.4

0.5

0.36

-

-

-

-

RV-017

177.3

178.7

1.4

0.14

-

-

-

-

 

200.1

200.6

0.5

1.27

-

-

-

-

RV-018

181.6

182.7

1.1

0.188

-

-

-

-

RV-019

224.0

236.2

12.2

0.187

-

-

-

-

RV-020

234.7

243.0

8.3

0.229

-

-

-

-

 

250.3

251.3

1.0

0.111

-

-

-

-

RV-021

273.2

279.1

5.9

0.101

-

-

-

-

RV-023

91.1

94.5

3.4

0.117

-

-

-

-

RV-024

148.1

149.4

1.3

0.11

-

-

-

-

 

169.6

171.1

1.5

0.138

-

-

-

-

 

185.0

192.0

7.0

0.274

-

-

-

-

 

203.3

207.2

3.9

0.262

-

-

-

-

RV-025

114.9

116.6

1.7

0.217

-

-

-

-

 

154.5

164.0

9.5

0.062

-

-

-

-

 

206.9

225.0

17.9

0.118

-

-

-

-

RV-026

177.3

180.2

2.9

0.061

-

-

-

-

 

197.7

200.5

2.8

0.25

-

-

-

-

 

215.7

224.0

8.3

0.126

-

-

-

-

 

238.0

255.4

17.4

0.13

-

-

-

-

RV-027

251.0

252.6

1.6

0.136

-

-

-

-

 

262.1

264.4

2.3

0.118

-

-

-

-

 

7.4

Core Handling, Drillhole Surveys and Logistical Considerations during the Mid-2009 – 2012 Drilling Programs

 

The summer 2009 drilling program in the Horseshoe and Raven areas were performed by Driftwood Diamond Drilling Ltd. of Smithers, B.C., Canada. The 2011 winter drill program was completed by Lantech Drilling Services Inc. of Dieppe, New Brunswick, while the summer program was completed by Graham Brothers Drilling Ltd (“Graham Brothers”), of Fosston, Saskatchewan. Drilling in the winter of 2012 was completed by Graham Brothers. Drill programs were typically run with two rigs operating on a full-time basis during the summer-fall (June to November) and winter (January to April) seasons.

 

All of the drilling during these programs has been with NQ size core (48 mm core diameter).

 

67

 

 

7.4.1

Drillhole Field Locations and Surveys

 

After completion of drilling, the drillhole collar locations are marked in the field with two metre high wooden pickets, which are visible in all seasons. The pickets are labelled with a permanent aluminum tag with the hole name, dip, azimuth and depth and clearly flagged with high visibility flagging tape.

 

Proposed hole collars are located in the field by chaining along grid lines from existing collars or located by a hand-held GPS unit. The proposed and completed collars are surveyed internally by UEX personnel with a hand-held Thales ProMark™3 GPS for preliminary interpretations. Independent checks have been completed on collar locations twice using Tri-City Surveys Ltd. (“Tri-City”), of Kindersley, Saskatchewan. Tri-City used a 5800/Trimble R8 Model 2 hand-held GPS with GNSS. Tri-City also relocated and surveyed the 2005 Cameco drillhole collars. The UEX and Tri-City collar readings are compared and, if any significant differences are noted, the Tri-City reading is re-surveyed; otherwise, it is adopted as the final collar reading.

 

Horseshoe and Raven were drilled on two separate, local project drilling grids. The Raven grid is rotated approximately 10° clockwise from the UTM WGS 84 (Zone 13) grid north and the Horseshoe grid is rotated approximately 35° anti-clockwise from the UTM WGS 84 (Zone 13) grid north. Surveying, however, is conducted in UTM grids.

 

LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), an optical remote sensing technology used primarily for typical digital terrain modelling (“DTM”), was flown over the Horseshoe-Raven and West Bear portions of the Hidden Bay property in August 2007, by LiDAR Services International of Calgary, Alberta. The LiDAR survey was performed to accurately determine the surface landforms in the Property areas and forms a cross check to the digital elevations of the surveyed drillhole collars. A surface DTM was created from the LiDAR and the collar locations were verified in Datamine. Drillhole collars with greater than one metre elevation difference were reviewed.

 

7.4.2

Downhole Surveys

 

Downhole surveys were routinely collected on all holes using the Reflex EZ-Shot® tool at approximately every 25 m to 50 m downhole spacing in the 2006-2009 drilling at Horseshoe and Raven and were also collected during the 2005 drilling program, which was managed by Cameco (Lemaitre and Herman, 2006). Reflex EZ- Shot® is an electronic single shot instrument that measures six parameters in one single shot reading azimuth, inclination, magnetic tool face angle, gravity roll angle, magnetic field strength and temperature. These readings are transcribed onto a paper ticket book. Azimuth was recorded in magnetic north and then adjusted to true north with a correction factor of 10.2° of current magnetic declination added to the measured azimuth. This data was then entered in the drill logging database, with corrections if required. On some occasions, the magnetic field was outside of tolerance, and in this case, the measurement was ignored. The error rate where the azimuth had to be removed was 0.57% of all surveys and 0.3% of surveys had transcription errors which were resolved by UEX. Data is exported from the drill logging database and then imported into Datamine, where the drillholes are viewed in plan and section for accuracy.

 

7.4.3

Drill Core Handling Procedures

 

At the drill rig, core is removed from the core barrel by the drillers and placed directly in wooden core boxes that are a standard 1.5 m long and a nominal 4.5 m capacity. Individual drill runs are identified with small wooden blocks, where the depth (metres) is recorded. Diamond drill core is transported at the end of each drill shift to an enclosed core-handling facility at the Raven camp on the Property. In general, the core handling procedures at the drill site are carried out to industry standard.

 

68

 

7.4.4

Core Recovery

 

Every hole is measured from the start of the hole to the bottom to determine core recovery or block marking errors and for reference metre marks. Core recovery is determined by measuring the recovered core length and dividing this by the downhole drilled interval. Core loss is recorded routinely both on the core boxes and during core logging.

 

The QPs have reviewed core loss over all mineralized domains. Core recoveries through the mineralized subzones in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits are generally very high, with 100% recovery common, even in mineralized intervals. Significant core loss has occurred mainly in the proximal non-mineralized clay alteration haloes to the deposit and in the oxidized zone below the overburden. Overall core recovery for the drillhole database is approximately 97%.

 

7.4.5

Drill Core Logging

 

All of the surface holes were geologically logged and sampled by UEX field personnel. All holes were logged in accordance with the UEX legend (Table 7‑4) and geological logging procedure. Geological logging includes the detailed recording of lithology, alteration, mineralization, structure, veining and core recovery. Upon completion of logging a hole, the data is reviewed on a set of working cross-sections for dynamic interpretation of the geology and mineralization. The logging was completed under the guidance of the site senior geologist at the time. Logging data was entered in digitally into Lagger 3D Exploration (“Lagger”), developed by North Face Software, on laptop computers. Lagger can enter and edit drillhole and sample data and has a custom library of UEX geological codes to standardize the logging legend (Table 7‑4).

 

Principal lithologic units in the Horseshoe and Raven area, QZIT, CARK, ARKQ, SPLO, AMPH and CALC are described in Section 6. Many other units listed below are present on the Hidden Bay property, but not in the vicinity of the deposits.

 

Table 74: UEX Lithology Legend

 

Codes

UEX name

Description

OB

Overburden

Overburden

CONG

Conglomerate

Conglomerate: maximum grain size >4mm

MDST

Mudstone

Mudstone

SDST

Sandstone

Sandstone: grain size 0.065-4 mm

SLST

Siltstone

Siltstone

UX

Uranium mineralization

Uranium mineralization

CLAY

Clay

Clay alteration: hydrothermal or paleoweathering, protolith uncertain

GOUG

Fault gouge

Fault gouge: unconsolidated cataclasite, clay matrix breccia, precurser lithology is unclear

LOST

Lost core

Lost core

AMPH

Amphibolite

>80% dark green to black amphibole; often massive to crudely banded.

ARKS

Meta-arkose

Massive to weakly foliated or weakly gneissic feldspar > quartz-rich meta-sandstone, with weak to undeveloped gneissic compositional layering. Generally lower biotite content than semipelites

ARKQ

Arkosic Quartzite

Arkosic Quartzite: >30% feldspar, finer grained, more easily altered than the QZIT, specific to Raven Horseshoe area

CALC

Calc-silicate gneiss

Compositionally layered) with amphibole-pyroxene +/- garnet and psammitic (meta-arkosic) layers; may contain dolomite

CARK

Calc-arkose

Arkosic rock with calc-silicate bands (where ARKS>CALC)

DIAB

Diabase

Fine grained mafic dykes with sharp contacts, equigranular, post-metamorphic

DIOR

Diorite

Mafic equigranular, usually medium-grained feldspar with biotite or amphibole-bearing intrusion; usually foliated

DOLO

Dolomite

Grey to cream or pink, usually banded to laminated dolomite-rich unit often with calc-silicate, graphite, or arkosic lamina

GABR

Gabbro

Mafic equigranular, usually medium-grained feldspar + pyroxene +/- amphibole-bearing intrusion; usually foliated

GRAN

Granite

K-feldspar-quartz-biotite granite, massive to foliated; usually medium grained, non-porphyritic; pink to grey

GRGN

Granitic gneiss

Impure granitic gneiss with foliated granitic and other compositional bands

PEGM

Pegmatite

Coarse-grained K-feldspar-quartz-biotite pegmatite; also inludes quartz-dominant pegmatites

PLAG

Plagioclasite

Albite-pyroxene +/- amphibole metasomatic unit after meta-arkose; may contain coarse pyroxene and resemble an intrusion; gradational contacts

 

69

 

 

PEL0

Pelitic gneiss or schist

Biotite quartz feldspar +/- garnet +/- sillimanite gneiss or schist (>50% biotite for schist) with >25% combined biotite, garnet, and/or sillimanite

PEL1

"

As above, 1-5% graphite

PEL2

"

As above, 5-20% graphite

PEL3

"

As above, >20% graphite

SPL0

Semi-pelitic gneiss

Biotite quartz feldspar gneiss with <25% combined biotite, garnet, sillimanite, often with abundant pegmatitic segregations

SPL1

"

As above, 1-5% graphite

SPL2

"

As above, 5-20% graphite

SPL3

"

As above, >20% graphite

PYRX

Pyroxenite

>80% pyroxene, up to 20% amphibole; often massive to crudely banded. Grains up to 1.5 cm in diameter.

QZIT

Quartzite

Pale grey to white, massive quartz rich meta-sandstone with >80% quartz, and subsidiary feldspar +/- biotite

QZPL

Quartz-rich pelite

Quartz-rich pelite

QV

Quartz Vein

Quartz vein >20cm (+ or - carbonate) NB: Clearly not pegmatoid related

 

The primary purpose of a logging system is to provide a standard process for the geological logging procedures on the Hidden Bay exploration project.

 

The legend was developed to increase the amount and quality of geological data being collected and allow flexibility with data collection, so geologists can record all the information required without having to record one type of data at the expense of other data. The legend aims to simplify the interpretation of drillhole data and reduce the number of rock codes in the database to a manageable level.

 

The logging system is broken down into a series of tablets that are used to record the various forms of data required. These tablets include Lithology, Alteration/Paleoweathering, Veining/Structure and Veining/Structure Orientation Data. Each of the individual tablets is treated in isolation, such that geologists can refine the data being recorded depending on the types of geological data required for the specific task, e.g. resource definition, grade control and regional exploration.

 

A core reference library has been established on site and good communication between geologists allows for a consistent approach to geological logging. All core is routinely wet down and digitally photographed as a permanent record of the lithological history, in addition to the geological log, with a Canon Powershot A610 digital camera.

 

A review by the QPs of the Cameco logs and scissor holes of the 2005 Cameco drilling indicates that the geological information is complete and of good quality. The Cameco drillholes were logged using a similar legend under the guidance of Roger Lemaitre, P.Geo., from Cameco. Drillholes completed under the direction of Cameco in 2005 were also re-logged by UEX personnel in summer 2008 to standardize coding and logging data, to perform a second check on sampling intervals and to conduct infill sampling, where necessary.

 

7.4.6

Geotechnical Logging

 

All geotechnical logging was completed by, or under the supervision of, Golder personnel with the Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Mississauga, Ontario offices. All selected holes were logged geotechnically in accordance with the UEX Geotechnical Protocol developed by Golder. A selection of holes were logged with RQD, which is the percent of total core length recovered in solid pieces greater than 10 cm in length that correlates with fracture density. Numerous holes were tested for intact rock strength using a rating system based on hammer blows, fracture count per run and detailed total core recovery.

 

During 2007 and 2008, Golder personnel came to the site and conducted intact rock strength measurements on HQ core using a point load testing machine. Throughout the drill seasons, Golder has also conducted detailed geotechnical assessments of drill core. Logging was completed using the Q rock mass rating system. The QPs have not reviewed the results of the Golder assessments and cannot provide an assessment of the quality assurance (“QA”)/quality control (“QC”) procedures or interpret the results of the Q rock mass rating results.

 

70

 

In winter 2007/2008, Golder surveyed a series of holes in the Horseshoe area using a downhole televiewer. The aim of this was to determine geotechnical properties directly above the mineralized zones and around the peripheries of the deposit.

 

7.4.7

Radiometric Probing of Drillholes

 

Downhole radiometric probing (gamma logging) with in-hole probing instruments is a routine task undertaken on all holes drilled at the Horseshoe and Raven projects. In uranium exploration, probing is integral in accurately detecting gamma radiation downhole which directly correlates to mineralized zones, since these probes can quantitatively measure radioactivity caused by the atomic decay of uranium. Using in-house correlation formulas determined from comparing geochemical sampling with probe data, the concentration of uranium in situ can be determined. The probe data is used to determine a uranium equivalent intersection which is used for planning of follow-up drillholes and to correlate intervals in the core boxes to guide geochemical sampling. A detailed radiation measurement is taken every 10 cm downhole and 10 cm up hole by passing a probe continuously down the drillhole immediately after its completion and measuring in situ radioactivity.

 

The probes are calibrated before each drill program at the SRC’s test pit facility in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The probing equipment was tested using a known low-grade radioactive source in the field before and after the probing of each hole to ensure that the equipment was functioning properly before and after the in-hole probing occurs. The radiometric logging was performed using a Mount Sopris Model 4MXA/1000 500 m winch, or Model 4MXC/1000 1000 m winch and MGX II Model 5MCA/PMA digital encoder. A Mount Sopris Modified Triple Gamma Probe consisting of a 2SMA-1000 Sonic Modem section (#3460 or #3461) and 2GHF-1000 Triple Gamma Probe section (#3431 or #3458) was used to probe all holes. Data was acquired using MSLog Version 7.43, a Mount Sopris computer recovery program. Data from the probe is then used to correlate mineralized zones with the drill core and identify zones for sampling and geochemical assay. A second check is to scan the drill core with a hand-held SPP2 scintillometer or a RS-120/125 super scintillometer. Detailed radiometric measurements are taken every 10 cm on the core in mineralized zones and recorded on the core and in accordance with standard procedure. At times, there are some discrepancies with the downhole probe interval and the core due to stretch in the winch cable, the counter wheel icing up or a differing zero depth between the core and the probe data.

 

The detailed radiometric readings from the hand-held scintillometer on the drill core are used as a guide by the geologist for geochemical sampling. The geologist marks the intervals on the individual sample and the sample numbers and location are recorded in drill logs.

 

7.4.8

Relationship between Sample Length and True Thickness

 

Since the orientations of drillholes in the deposit vary, and the morphology of mineralized zones has variable orientation across the two deposits, the relationship of geochemical sample length in drillholes to the true thickness of mineralization is also variable. At both deposits, the steep orientation of most drillholes crosses the lens-shaped mineralized zones at or near to true thickness. The five metre to 30 m spaced drilling density, and geological confidence in the mineralization extent orientation and morphology has enabled 3D wireframe modelling of both deposits which accommodates for variations in sample length to local orientation of drillholes and mineralized zones.

 

71

 

7.4.9

Hydrogeology

 

The Horseshoe and Raven Deposits are located adjacent to and east of the margin of the Athabasca Basin. The stratigraphy of the Athabasca Basin rocks consist of saturated sandstones, both from primary and secondary porosity and is a very porous aquifer. As the Property resides outside the Athabasca Basin, in crystalline metamorphic rocks, there is no anticipated hydrogeological concerns for mining identified at this time and is not considered material or relevant to the Property. As such, the QPs have not included the characterization of the hydrogeological environment in this TRS.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

72

 

 

8.

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

 

Due to the historical nature of the time period of when this data and information were collected, the QPs have reviewed the descriptions of procedures for sample collection, preparation, security and analyses for this Property as provided by UEX/UEC in the exploration reports, in conjunction with interviews of some of the personnel responsible for data collection and agree that the work was completed to industry standards. The QPs have checked these work descriptions against UEX’s assessment reports from 2009 and 2011 and have found them to be identical. The QPs are confident that the descriptions provided in this section are accurate for the time that the data was collected. Mr. Barsi and Mr. Hamel reviewed the geochemistry sample intervals from selected drillholes during their site visit in June of 2021, but given the number of holes drilled on the deposit it was not possible to review the sample intervals for all drill holes. No errors or inconsistencies were found during this review. Where appropriate, the authors have updated the sample totals for the data collected in the latter half of 2009 and all of 2011.

 

A review of the procedures (described below) of the sampling method and approach used by UEX at the time indicates that they are of an industry standard, and provide an acceptable basis for the geological interpretation of the deposits leading to the estimation of mineral resources and economic evaluation of the deposits.

 

8.1

Horseshoe and Raven Geochemical Sample Collection

 

Drill core sampling for geochemical assay is the primary sampling method. A combination of radiometric responses from hand-held scintillometer readings on drill core and recognition of visibly mineralized or altered areas guided sampling. Sampling has been conducted continuously across mineralized intervals within the mineralized zones. Samples were also collected from the non-mineralized core for at least several metres above and below mineralized intersections to confirm the location of the mineralization boundaries for each mineralized zone. In the case of multiple zones of mineralization in a hole, the internal non-mineralized section was generally sampled to provide a more continuous profile. In June 2008, UEX implemented a program of sampling weakly and non-mineralized core to clearly bracket mineralization with a nominal two metres of sampling below 0.02% U3O8 and any broad zones of internal waste were sampled. Re-sampling of holes was conducted at this time where previously sampled intervals were deemed too restricted in extent.

 

A representative length check on selective sample intervals was conducted on all of the HU and RU holes up until March 31, 2008. A total of 16,756 m of core was sampled representing 24,049 samples averaging 0.7 m in length. Sample intervals range from 0.1 m to 3.0 m with 261 samples or one percent of the total dataset greater or equal to 1.2 m in length. Note this excludes non-routine blanks and standards. Typically, the broader intervals were sampled over areas of low core recovery. An extra 1,635 samples, each approximately 10 cm in length, underwent spectral analysis with PIMA and were assayed with a full multi-element suite to spectrally and geochemically profile the alteration signature of the deposit. As of April 2009, the entire UEX drilled Horseshoe and Raven database includes 46,667 selective sample records and 3,002 systematic sample records (these numbers include routine standards and blanks). There have been 3,587 systematic sample records added to the database from July 2009 through 2011.

 

73

 

After core logging, all drill core marked for sampling is split longitudinally to obtain a representative half core sample for geochemical analysis. Splitting of core samples was undertaken by employees of UEX at the Raven Camp. Samples are split dry and not cut, using an electric hydraulic press with a “knife” and “V-block”. The splitter and sample trays are vacuumed clean to prevent contamination between each sample. One-half of the core was placed in a clear plastic sample bag, the bag top is rolled down and then securely taped to prevent any sample loss. Once a sample is split and placed in a sample bag, an additional level of QC is introduced where the radioactivity of the sample is measured by a SPP-2 scintillometer. These samples are then placed in approved pails and then sent to SRC Geoanalytical Laboratory for assaying. The second half is retained for geological documentation and record purposes and remains in the core box. A sample tag with the sample number is stapled into the core box to mark the location of the sample interval. All mineralized sections are kept in permanent wooden racks for easy access and review. After each hole is sampled, the splitting tent is cleaned to prevent hole to hole contamination and to minimize the amount of background radiation from dust.

 

A small representative portion of drill core has had the second half of the core removed for specific gravity and dry bulk density testing and some intersections have been taken for detailed metallurgical testing. The three HQ holes were bulk sampled for metallurgical testing and, as a result, no remaining core is available.

 

No inherent sampling biases exist in the longitudinal splitting of the core and sample processes are consistent from season to season. It is the opinion of the QPs that the samples are of good quality, representative and no material factors that may have resulted in sample biases. The sample data has been verified through correlation of probe, detailed radiometric SPP2 readings and a detailed assay comparison and QA/QC program.

 

8.2

Drillhole Sampling Quality and Representativeness

 

The sampling methods and approach employed by UEX/UEC at the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits meet industry standards. The sampling of outlying targets was not reviewed by QPs but was carried out using the same protocols. There are no drilling, sampling, or recovery (core loss) factors that, in the opinion of the QPs, could materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results. Sample locations and lengths are selected to appropriately represent mineralization distribution, with breaks between sample intervals made between obvious changes in geology or mineralization distribution. As a result, the sampling is considered to consistently represent the appropriate length and quantity of mineralization to determine a representative uranium grade independent of mineralization style.

 

All laboratory analyses of drilling samples for UEX, except for select check sampling, were conducted by the SRC. The SRC has an ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited quality management system (Scope of Accreditation #537), from the Standards Council of Canada (SRC, 2007). SRC’s Geoanalytical Laboratory is located at 125-15 Innovation Blvd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The SRC laboratories are accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. The SRC is independent of UEX or UEC.

 

Once the samples have arrived in Saskatoon, all elements of sample preparation are completed by employees of the SRC’s Geoanalytical lab. When samples arrive at the lab, no employee, officer, director, or associate of UEX/UEC, is or has been involved in any aspect of sample preparation and analysis. In the QPs’ opinion, the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures meet industry standards.

 

74

 

8.3

Shipping and Security

 

Radioactive samples, mainly drill core, are shipped within Canada in compliance with pertinent federal regulations regarding their transport and handling. UEX has developed a procedure to detail requirements for exploration staff and others to ensure nuclear substances are shipped in compliance with regulatory requirements.

 

The transportation instructions are provided for the shipment of Dangerous Good Class 7, Radioactive Materials. Each shipment must meet all regulatory requirements of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods.

 

The samples are held in approved containers that are sealed with secure lids and meet the requirements of the CNSC Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations. Each shipping container is weighed and the level of the radioactivity is measured in compliance with the transportation of dangerous goods regulations to determine total activity of the container. The sealed shipping containers are temporarily stored outside the core shacks at the Raven Camps. Once a week, the shipment of radioactive samples is transported by road from the camp directly to SRC’s lab in Saskatoon. The pails are shipped in a closed vehicle under the exclusive use rules by our carrier, J.P. Enterprises Inc., based in La Ronge, Saskatchewan. In the authors’ opinion, there is little chance of tampering of samples as they are shipped directly to the lab from the camps.

 

8.4

Geochemical Analyses

 

8.4.1

Analytical Procedures

 

The resource data set uses U3O8 assay by ICPOES as the primary analytical method and ICP Total Digestion for lower grade samples (<1,000 parts per million (“ppm”) U).

 

On arrival at the SRC laboratory, all samples are received and sorted into their matrix types and received radioactivity levels. The samples are then dried overnight at 80°C in their original bags and then jaw crushed until 60% of the material is less than mm in size. A 100 g sub sample is split using a riffler, which is then ground (either puck and ring grinding mill or an agate grind) until 90% is minus 106 μm. The grinding mills are cleaned between sample using steel wool and compressed air, or in the case of clay rich samples, silica sand is used. The pulp is transferred to a labelled plastic snap top vial.

 

The samples are tested using validated procedures by trained personnel. All samples are digested prior to analysis by ICP and fluorimetry. All samples are subjected to multi-suite assay analysis, which includes U, Ni, Co, As, Pb by total and partial digestions. During initial phases of exploration, assaying using three separate digestions methods were tested: Boron, Partial and Total. In early winter 2007, routine analysis of Boron was discontinued. Boron analyses exist for 73 holes up to HU-053 and RU-020, and for drillholes completed during the 2005 program, which was managed by Cameco.

 

75

 

Total digestions are performed on an aliquot of sample pulp. The aliquot is digested to dryness on a hotplate in a Teflon beaker using a mixture of concentrated HF:HNO3:HClO4. The residue is dissolved in dilute HNO3 (SRC, 2007). Partial digestions are performed in an aliquot of sample pulp. The aliquot is digested in a mixture of concentrated HNO3: HCl in a hot water bath then diluted to 15 ml with DI water. Fluorimetry is used on low uranium samples (<100 ppm) as a comparison for ICPOES uranium results. Uranium is determined on the partial digestion. An aliquot of digestion solution is pipetted into a 90% Pt, 10% Rh dish and evaporated. A NaF/LiK pellet is placed on the dish, fused on a special propane rotary burner and then cooled to room temperature.

 

The SRC Geoanalytical laboratory reports uranium values in ppm. In order to convert the uranium values to weight percent U3O8, the reported values were divided by a conversion factor of 10,000 and then multiplied by another conversion factor of 1.17924.

 

The reader is referred to the SRC’s website (http://www.src.sk.ca/) for more details regarding the analytical techniques and sample handling procedures.

 

8.4.2

SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories U3O8 Method Summary

 

All samples are received and entered into the Laboratory Information Management System (“LIMS”). In the case of uranium assay by ICPOES for UEX, a pulp is already generated from the first phase of preparation and assaying (discussed above). UEX routinely assays every sample above 1,000 ppm Uranium via ICP Total Digestion with ICPOES (Inductive Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometry) Uranium assay. A 1,000 mg of sample is digested for one hour in an HCl: HNO3 acid solution. The totally digested sample solution is then made up to 100 ml and a 10-fold dilution is taken for the analysis by ICPOES. Instruments were calibrated using certified commercial solutions. The instruments used were Perkin Elmer Optima 300DV, Optima 4300DV or Optima 5300DV. The detection limit for U3O8 by this method is 0.001%. SRC management has developed QA procedures to ensure that all raw data generated in-house is properly documented, reported and stored to meet confidentiality requirements. All raw data is recorded on internally controlled data forms. Electronically generated data is calculated and stored on computers. All computer-generated data is backed up on a daily basis. Access to samples and raw data is restricted to authorized SRC Geoanalytical personnel at all times. All data is verified by key personnel prior to reporting results. Laboratory reports are generated using SRC’s LIMS.

 

8.4.3

Laboratory Audits

 

Two detailed laboratory audits were completed on the primary laboratory, SRC in Saskatoon, by UEX personnel. A laboratory audit was conducted on September 24, 2007, and a follow-up review on June 5, 2008. The laboratory audit covered all aspects of the sample preparation and analytical process. The review is documented with an appropriate action plan for non-compliance or suggested action items. SRC and UEX have established an open relationship where the external QA/QC program and their interpretation of the laboratory’s internal QC program are discussed on a regular basis.

 

8.5

Uranium Equivalent Grades

 

In late March 2009, logged mineralized intersections from two drillholes, which had not been sampled, were involved in a fire that destroyed the core splitting shack. The core, as per procedures, had been logged, photographed and had detailed SPP2-RS120/125 scintillometer radiometric readings collected every 10 cm on the core, prior to the incident. The drillholes had also been radiometrically probed.

 

76

 

A total of 228 samples were lost from the Raven and Horseshoe areas. All HU-344 samples and a portion of HU-347 were lost for a total of 92 samples at Horseshoe Northeast. The majority of RU-205 samples and a portion of RU-197 were lost for a total of 136 samples lost at Raven West. RU-197 did not intersect any of the interpreted mineralized subzones. Probe grades indicate that these holes intersected lower grade portions of the deposits.

 

This TRS did not use equivalent probe grades for any of the lost holes in the resource calculation.

 

8.6

Dry Bulk Density Samples

 

In order to obtain bulk density estimates, UEX has taken a large selection of samples for dry bulk density measurement. These samples are systematically selected from different mineralized zones and a proportionately valid sample distribution of all rock types and alteration types, including different intensities of clay alteration.

 

Prior to September 1, 2008, a total of 2,615 samples from 33 holes underwent dry bulk density testing from Horseshoe and Raven. There were 1,845 samples from 33 Horseshoe (HU) holes and 770 samples from four Raven (RU) holes.

 

A further 1,109 samples, with a particular emphasis on the Raven Deposit, underwent dry bulk density testing during the period from September to June 2009, bringing the total number to 3,724 analyses. There are now results for 2,198 samples from 39 Horseshoe holes and 1,526 samples from 19 Raven holes with good spatial and lithological spread.

 

Average dry bulk density for Horseshoe and Raven lithologies is 2.48 g/cm3. The density statistics by rock type are listed in Table 8‑1 and Table 8‑2 for Horseshoe and Raven, respectively.

 

No further density sampling was completed past May 2009, as the current amount of information was sufficient for resource estimation.

 

Table 81: Horseshoe Bulk Density (g/cm3) Statistics Grouped by Lithology

 

HORSESHOE

Rock

Count

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

ARKQ/S

1455

2.47

2.5

1.45

3.14

CARK

66

2.73

2.75

2.34

2.86

CLAY

12

1.88

1.78

1.33

2.45

DIAB/DIOR

14

2.71

2.73

2.27

2.85

GOUG

2

1.98

1.98

1.75

2.21

PEGM

94

2.37

2.41

1.89

2.65

PEL0

7

2.41

2.38

2.22

2.64

QZIT

450

2.53

2.55

2.02

2.83

SPL0

6

2.57

2.53

2.44

2.75

UX

92

2.49

2.49

1.75

2.95

Total

2198

2.48

2.52

1.33

3.14

 

77

 

Table 82: Raven Bulk Density (g/cm3) Statistics Grouped by Lithology

 

RAVEN

Rock

Count

Mean

Median

Minimum

Maximum

ARKQ

301

2.43

2.51

1.11

2.64

BX

10

1.98

1.99

1.74

2.32

CARK

413

2.44

2.42

1.98

2.93

GRAN

17

2.32

2.4

1.64

2.58

PEGM

53

2.41

2.44

1.58

2.89

PEL0

61

2.56

2.62

1.92

2.76

QZIT

632

2.54

2.55

1.44

2.65

SPL0

39

2.50

2.5

2.24

2.67

Total

1526

2.48

2.53

1.11

2.93

 

8.6.1

Analytical Methods

 

Dry bulk density samples were collected from half-split core retained in the core box after geochemical sampling, since the dry bulk density process requires wax coating of the samples, which would affect the geochemical analysis. An approximately seven cm to 15 cm piece of half split core was submitted for each analysis. Samples were tagged and placed in sample bags on site, then shipped to SRC. Once received by SRC, samples are weighed dry and then covered in an impermeable barrier and then reweighed. The samples are then submersed in room temperature water and reweighed. The dry bulk density is calculated and reported.

 

As shown in Figure 8‑1 below, there is no correlation between grade and dry bulk density. The regression curve is flat. However, above 3% U3O8, there is a small inflection associated with a weak positive correlation between U3O8 grade dry bulk densities.

 

There is a strong negative correlation with logged proportions of clay in the core and bulk density. Table 8‑3 details the uranium grade ranges and specific gravity. Those samples not assayed for uranium are typically sitting distal to mineralization in less altered rock.

 

Table 83: Average Dry Bulk Densities (g/cm3) by Grade Bins

 

U3O8% Grade range

Number of samples

SG average

U3O8%average

Not assayed

539

2.58

Barren

Assay to 0.05%

1,885

2.47

0.02%

0.05% to 0.1%

385

2.47

0.07%

0.1% to 1%

770

2.45

0.33%

>1%

145

2.48

2.26%

TOTAL

3,724

2.48

0.21%

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

78

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b12.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 81: Logarithmic Plot of Dry Bulk Density versus Uranium Grade in Corresponding Geochemical Samples

 

SRC has conducted 170 repeat analyses whereby in each batch at least one sample is repeated in every 40 samples. The repeats for this period were completed at a ratio of one repeat to 14 routine samples. All repeats passed the internal QC limit of +/- 0.02 g/cm3. The sample repeats have a strong positive correlation for both the period prior to September 2008 (Figure 8‑2) and the period from September 2008 to June 2009 (Figure 8‑3).

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b13.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 82: Quantile - Quantile Plot of Laboratory Bulk Density Replicated for Batches Submitted for all Seasons Prior to September 2008

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

79

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b14.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 83: Quantile - Quantile Plot of Laboratory Bulk Density Replicated for Batches Submitted between September 2008 and June 2009

 

As a check, prior to September 2008 a total of 52 samples, or one in 50, underwent wet bulk density measurements in parallel with dry bulk density measurement. The average wet density of the selected sample was 2.61 g/cm3 and the difference between the corresponding dry densities averaging 2.53 g/cm3 is 2.8%. One known standard, a piece of granite, was used for the wet density measurements and the three results were in the acceptable range of 2.71 g/cm3 +/- 0.01 g/cm3.

 

During the period from September 2008 to June 2009, a total of 51 samples, or one in 22, underwent wet density measurements in parallel with the dry bulk density measurement. The average wet density of the selected samples was 2.54 g/cm3 and the difference between the corresponding dry densities, which average 2.47 g/cm3, is 2.8%.

 

One known standard, a piece of granite, was used for the wet density measurements and the 11 results were in the acceptable range of 2.71 g/cm3 +/- 0.01 g/cm3.

 

8.7

Summary

 

All samples were prepared and analyzed at SRC, an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory. In the opinion of the QPs, the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures for all assay data meet industry standards for QC and QA and are adequate for use in mineral resource estimation.

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

80

 

Table 84: Number of Samples for Each Deposit by Year

 

Horseshoe Sample Data

Year

Number of

Samples

Total

Sample

Length for

Year

Percent of Total

Data for

Resource

1974

38

40.4

0.2

2005

866

394.68

3.6

2006

2031

1145.47

8.4

2007

11576

8252.43

48.1

2008

5051

4087.6

21.0

2009

3894

3662.3

16.2

2009

135

128.7

0.6

2011

472

361.6

2.0

Total

24063

18073.18

 

Raven Sample Data

Year

Number of

Samples

Total

Sample

Length for

Year

Percent of Total

Data for

Resource

2005

1577

853.6

7.3

2007

4485

3366.55

20.9

2008

7305

5671.6

34.0

2009

5116

4619.83

23.8

2009

159

136.6

0.7

2011

2821

2433.3

13.1

Total

21463

17081.48

 

 

8.7.1

Verifications of Analytical Quality Control Data

 

As part of UEX’s quality improvement programs (“UEX Batch Acceptance Procedure”), a rigorous QA/QC program was implemented during the 2007 summer drilling program and continues to be followed. All drill core samples are submitted to the SRC laboratories in Saskatoon for geochemical analysis. Inserted into each drill core sample batch submitted to SRC are a total of 20 samples for analysis. 16 samples are sawed half-core drill samples and four QA samples, which include a blank, a duplicate and two standard samples. The standard samples inserted into each batch are a commercially available standard (certified reference material), a blank, a field duplicate and a round robin pulp. Results are documented in Table 8‑5 and Table 8‑6. Most drillholes at both the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits that were completed under the management of UEX have been completed under this program. Prior to the implementation of this program, only blank samples were submitted routinely throughout the 2006 and early 2007 drilling programs. Additional QA/QC samples have been taken from the drillholes that were drilled prior to the UEX Batch Acceptance Procedure being implemented to improve the confidence in the earlier sampling. SPP2 radiometric readings have also been compared to the geochemical assays and a good correlation was noted.

 

81

 

To the knowledge of QPs from UEX, the same QA samples implemented in 2007 continued to be followed during the summer 2009 and 2011 drilling programs. However, review of the sample information in the sample database collected during the 2009 through 2011 programs did not indicate which samples were field duplicates and standards. As a result, Table 8‑7 includes only lab inserted standards and duplicates and does not include the number of field duplicates.

 

Table 85: Summary of the Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period 2005 to September 2008 (Baldwin, 2009)

 

QA/QC Sample

Number

Outside

Percentage Outside of

Tolerance

CG515 standard (ICP)

2016

0

0%

Blanks (ICP)

1033

6

0.60%

Field Duplicates

228

11

5% (outside of 30%)

Laboratory Replicates

1098

0

0%

Laboratory Replicates (ICPOES)

404

1

0.20%

BL-2 (ICP) standard

210

0

0%

BL-3 (ICP) standard

180

0

0%

BL-4 (ICP) standard

334

0

0%

BL-4A (ICP) standard

232

0

0%

UEX08 (ICP) standard

9

0

0%

BL-1 (ICPOES) standard

17

0

0%

BL-2 (ICPOES) standard

255

0

0%

BL-2A (ICPOES) standard

159

0

0%

BL-3 (ICPOES) standard

259

0

0%

BL-4 (ICPOES) standard

332

3

1%

BL-4A (ICPOES) standard

615

0

0%

BL-5 (ICPOES) standard

7

0

0%

ICP vs ICPOES assay

4,575

3

0.10%

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

82

 

Table 86: Summary of the Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period September 2008 to June 2009 (Baldwin, 2009)

 

QA/QC Sample

Number

Outside

Percentage Outside of Tolerance

CG515 standard (ICP)

879

0

0%

Blanks (ICP)

261

1

0.40%

Field Duplicates

30

3

10% (outside of 30%

Lab Replicates (ICP)

516

0

0%

Lab Replicates (ICPOES)

116

0

0%

BL-2 (ICP) standard

5

0

0%

BL-4A (ICP) standard

520

1

0.20%

UEX08 (ICP) standard

516

5

1.00%

BL-2 (ICPOES) standard

16

0

0%

BL-2A (ICPOES) standard

25

0

0%

BL-3 (ICPOES) standard

6

0

0%

BL-4A (ICPOES) standard

251

0

0%

UEX08 (ICPOES) standard

144

1

0.70%

ICP vs ICPOES assay

696

4

0.6% (outside 10%

 

In all cases, results outside of acceptable limits have been followed up through checking results from the batch with the laboratory or having the analysis repeated. In the case of the error repeating, the core was re-split and the new sample submitted for analysis.

 

Analysis of standards for the period from 2005 to September 2008 indicates that results were acceptable (within three standard deviations from the mean) for 100% of 965 standards submitted via U ppm ICP Total Digestion and 1,641 or 99.8% of the 1,644 standards submitted via the ICPOES U3O8 assay technique. Assay comparisons between three different assay techniques revealed a strong positive correlation for U ppm and U3O8.

 

Analysis of standards for the period from September 2008 to June 2009 indicates that results were acceptable (within three standard deviations from the mean) for 1913 or 99.6% of 1,920 standards submitted via U ppm ICP Total Digestion and 441 of the 442 standards submitted via the ICPOES U3O8 assay technique. Assay comparison between different assay techniques revealed a strong positive correlation for U ppm and U3O8.

 

Laboratory replicates correspond to a pulp analyzed in replicate as part of the laboratory’s internal QC measures to ensure reproducibility of assay results over time. Replicates also serve as a validation tool for batches with identified problems in either standards or blanks. The laboratory replicates are found to be in acceptable limits with a correlation coefficient close to one (R2> 0.999) and have very low dispersion for ICP and ICPOES analytical techniques.

 

83

 

Table 87: Summary of Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period July 2009 to 2011

 

QA/QC Sample

Number

Outside

Percentage Outside of Tolerance

Lab (ICP) Replicates

160

0

0%

Lab (ICPOES) Replicates

58

0

0%

CG515 (ICP) Standard

23

0

0%

CAR110 (ICP) Standard

223

0

0%

BL-2 (ICP) Standard

13

9*

1.7%

BL-2 (ICPOES) Standard

14

0

0%

BL-2A (ICPOES) Standard

13

0

0%

BL-3 (ICP) Standard

3

0

0%

BL-3 (ICPOES) Standard

20

0

0%

BL-4A (ICP) Standard

34

0

0%

BL-4A (ICPOES) Standard

55

0

0%

UEX08 (ICP) Standard

49

0

0%

UEX08 (ICPOES) Standard

49

0

0%

 

*One standard was outside of the tolerance limits by 1.7% the rest were less than 1%.

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b15.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 84: Control Chart for Reference Material CG51509* analyzed for Uranium at SRC

 

*The lower limit for this standard in the QC data information is less than two. In order to plot the data, the lower limit was changed to 0.5 and samples that returned values of less than two were changed to 1.5.

 

84

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b16.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 85: Control Chart for Reference Material CAR110 analyzed for Uranium at SRC

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b17.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 86: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-2a analyzed for %U3O8 at SRC

 

85

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b18.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 87: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-3* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

 

*Uranium Total values were converted to %U3O8 and plotted on the same graph.

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b19.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 88: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-4a* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

 

*Uranium Total values were converted to %U3O8 and plotted on the same graph.

 

86

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b20.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 89: Control Chart for Reference Material UEX08* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

 

*Uranium Total values were converted to %U3O8 and plotted on the same graph.

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b21.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 810: Control Chart for Reference Material UEX02* analyzed for Uranium and %U3O8 at SRC

 

*Uranium Total values were converted to %U3O8 and plotted on the same graph.

 

87

 

Analysis of standards for the period July 2009 to 2011 indicates that results were acceptable (within three standard deviations from the mean) for 335 or 98% of 345 standards submitted via U ppm ICP Total Digestion and 151 of the 151 standards submitted via the ICPOES U3O8 assay technique (Figure 8‑4, Figure 8‑5, Figure 8‑6, Figure 8‑7, Figure 8‑8, Figure 8‑9, & Figure 8‑10).

 

The laboratory replicates are found to be in acceptable limits with a correlation coefficient close to one (R2 > 0.999) and have very low dispersion for ICP and ICPOES analytical techniques (Figure 8‑11, Figure 8‑12, Figure 8‑13, & Figure 8‑14).

 

Upon review of the geochemical sampling for mid-2009 and all of 2011, UEX was unable to discern which samples were the field duplicates. This is likely due to the fact that the database from that period which stored all the Horseshoe and Raven data did not specifically and discretely identify field duplicates and no current staff at UEX was able to use that database to separate out field duplicates. UEX also investigated the 2009 and 2011 assessment reports for this data, and it was not reported separately there either. The QPs are confident that the field duplicates were collected between 2009 and 2011 after having conversations with a geotechnician who split the samples and was responsible for running the sample shack, though his knowledge of the database is negligible.

 

88

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b22.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 811: XY Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium at SRC 2009

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b23.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 812: RPD Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium at SRC 2009

 

89

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b24.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 813: XY Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium SRC 2011

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b25.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 814: RPD Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium SRC 2011

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

90

 

 

9.

DATA VERIFICATION

 

9.1

Qualified Person Data Verification

 

In order to verify that the data in the historical UEX database was acceptable for the Horseshoe and Raven Mineral Resource Estimates, the QPs reviewed the data from logging through to the final database. The assay data file from the database was checked against the Golder assay database from 2009 by randomly selecting drillholes and comparing results. No differences were found from the current assay database and the 2009 database. The recent historical drilling was checked against the assay files obtained from SRC, UEX’s primary laboratory. The data verification was carried out by Nathan Barsi (P.Geo.) with assistance from Chris Hamel (P.Geo.) and Susan Biss (P.Geo.), UEX’s Land and Geodatabase Administrator.

 

In the database, there are a total of 715 drillholes: 404 for Horseshoe and 311 for Raven. This includes 96 new drillholes, which have been added to the database since the completion of the previous estimates for Horseshoe and Raven in July 2009. These include 28 drillholes in Horseshoe and 68 drillholes in Raven drilled in summer 2009 and 2011. The QPs are confident that the assays database is up to date and correct.

 

9.2

Database Verification

 

Exploration work completed by UEX between 2005 and 2012 was conducted using documented procedures and protocols involving extensive exploration data verifications and validation. During drilling, experienced UEX geologists implemented industry standard best practices designed to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the exploration data.

 

UEX monitored the analytical QC data on a regular basis. Failures of QC samples were investigated, and appropriate actions taken, including re-assaying of samples within batches containing a failure. Results from re-assayed batches replace the original assay of the failed batch.

 

Data verification was carried out on the resource estimation database, along with data and information from the drilling programs, radiometric probing of the drillholes, geological logging information, core recovery and sampling and the geochemical database. This consisted of verifying for selected holes that:

 

Drillhole ID is unique.

 

Sample ID is unique.

 

Individual drillhole records must all be related to one unique Hole ID.

 

Data intervals do not overlap in space.

 

Selective core intervals were checked and corroborated against drillhole logging.

 

Sample intervals do not extend past the end of hole depth.

 

Downhole radiometric probing data correlate in space and pattern with scintillometer data.

 

End of hole depth is consistent with drill log information.

 

Core photos exist and corroborate the drillhole logging.

 

Drilling date, hole size, and casing length are consistent with the drill logs.

 

91

 

UEX staff members (Chris Hamel, P.Geo., Nathan Barsi, P.Geo. and Susan Biss., P.Geo.) carried out the database audit and adjustments. Audits on collar, collar survey, downhole survey, casing, core recovery, density, geochemistry, sample measurements, geology, alteration and structure data were carried out. Inconsistencies and errors in the database were verified and corrected. A random selection of drillholes were resurveyed during the site visit to ensure accuracy. No errors were found by the QPs during a review of this database.

 

9.3

Logging and Sampling Procedure Review

 

During the QPs site visit, the logging and sampling procedure were reviewed against the historical drill logs and were found to be consistent as those described in Section 7.

 

9.4

Collar Position

 

During the QPs site visit, four drillhole collars were surveyed using Trimble R12 equipment by Mr. Hamel. The surveys were taken when the GPS indicated a minimum of one metre accuracy. The QP’s surveys were then compared to the collar positions in the UEX database. No significant differences were found between the survey collar positions provided by UEX and the GPS surveys complete by the QPs (Table 9‑1).

 

Table 91: Raven Collars, Comparison between QP's GPS and UEX Database

 

BHID

2021 Survey

Original

Difference

 

Y

 

X

Z

Y

X

Z

Y

X

Z

RU-053

6446314.8

572964.7

442.1

6446311.9

572967.3

441.0

2.8

-2.6

1.1

RU-079,-083

6446315.1

572913.0

446.8

6446313.6

572914.3

446.0

1.5

-1.4

0.8

RU-111,-112

6446382.8

572888.9

450.3

6446382.8

572887.7

450.0

0.0

1.2

0.3

RU-272

6446278.7

572868.6

444.2

6446277.3

572870.3

444.0

1.4

-1.6

0.2

 

9.4.1

Downhole Surveys, Collar and Lithology Review

 

Prior to conducting the mineral resource estimate, the downhole survey and lithology data were checked against the original survey files and logs and against the 2009 database used for the previous estimates. The QPs checked the validity of the modelling database against the digital lithology log sheets and downhole survey data supplied that existed in the previous resource estimate. No errors were noted in the new data and the minor differences between the old and new databases were due to updated information. The QPs exported all data from the UEX database and found it to be the same as the 2009 database by conducting spot checks of the current database against the 2009 database. Visual checks of the drillhole traces were completed in 3D. The new database was used in the resource estimation contained in this TRS.

 

In-hole downhole surveys for the UEX Horseshoe and Raven drillholes included dip and azimuth readings obtained from a Reflex EZ-Shot® downhole survey tool. The digital readings from this instrument are recorded on paper logs and corrected to true north prior to input into the database.

 

During the verification for the previous estimates a total of 1,208 entries in the survey data file were checked against the paper logs. No errors were found in the new drillhole database since the errors were corrected in 2009.

 

No significant discrepancies were noted in lithologies when comparing the core to the drill logs during the site visits.

 

92

 

The July 2009 downhole survey data from UEX database was checked against the original survey file by randomly selecting five holes from Horseshoe and three from Raven. The verification of survey data was conducted by visual checking of the database against original documents. The QPs visually compared the drillhole traces that were constructed in 3D, with the current database against the 2009 database and no discrepancies were found.

 

The lithology data from UEX database was checked against original log by randomly selecting three drillholes at Horseshoe and three at Raven. No errors were found.

 

9.5

Assay and Bulk Densities Databases

 

The assay and bulk densities databases were rigorously checked in the 2009 resource report by Palmer and Fielder. All samples were cross checked with the original assay certificates from the lab. They were found to be appropriate for use in mineral resource estimation. This database was ‘locked in time’ by the previous resource estimate. Mr. Barsi compiled a current assay and densities database and checked it against the 2009 database and found no differences, except for the addition of the new assay data from mid-2009 and 2011. There were no additional density measurements added to the database.

 

The QPs checked the 2009 and 2011 data against the original SRC assay results sheets and found no differences.

 

Since no additional bulk density data was collect past the July 2009 resource report, the QPs are satisfied with this data set and for its use in resource estimation.

 

9.6

Independent Samples

 

The QPs have independently verified the findings of the independent samples taken by Golder by reviewing the original assay values and the assay values obtained by Golder. The QPs agree with Golder’s summary below.

 

During the site visits in 2007 and 2008, a total of 15 samples were collected from the remaining half core for Horseshoe and Raven and submitted to SRC for assay analysis. These samples are to provide an independent verification of U3O8, mineralization on the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. Each sample was analyzed by total digestion ICP Analysis. The assay values for the Golder samples compared to the UEX original samples are provided in Table 9‑2. Differences in the assay’s values are probably due to the sample size difference between the Golder samples and the UEX samples. The Golder samples for Horseshoe and Raven were between seven cm and 16 cm in length, whereas the UEX samples average was 70 cm. The samples do confirm the presence of U3O8, mineralization at Horseshoe and Raven deposits.

 

93

 

Table 92: Independent Samples taken by Golder at Horseshoe and Raven

 

Golder

Original

Sample Id

U3O8 (%)

Sample Id

U3O8 (%)

G79037

0.100

87855

2.110

G79038

0.933

65068

0.348

G79040

0.295

69154

0.395

G79041

1.438

62657

0.520

G79042

4.339

89598

7.600

G019190

1.179

2007-901

0.528

G019191

5.742

G-2008-111

1.650

G019192

2.334

G-2008-145

1.880

G019193

2.134

G-2008-73

1.860

G019194

0.011

2007-1964

0.015

G019195

0.947

2007-1404

0.849

G013038

0.971

2007-1826

0.977

G013039

0.004

2007-1826

0.015

G013040

0.002

2007-397

0.002

G013041

6.732

2007-227

1.780

G013042

0.498

2007-1961

0.238

 

9.7

Conclusion

 

The QPs verification indicates that the logging, sampling, shipping, sample security assessment, analytical procedures, inter-laboratory assay validation and validation by different techniques are comparable to industry standard practices.

 

The QPs recommend an additional check assay sampling program be instituted should the Company implement the recommendation to conduct an updated IA with an economic analysis that would increase the number of check assays for a higher degree of confidence in the summer 2009 and 2011 assay data. It is important to note that these holes were all infill holes and returned values that were within expected ranges for the mineralization that was being confirmed with closer spaced drill centres. The summer 2009 and 2011 data only represent 7.88% of the total assay sample population. Completing these check assays will eliminate future but very minor QA/QC concerns over this subpopulation of assays.

 

The databases are considered acceptable for Mineral Resource estimation of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits.

 

9.8

QP Comments

 

In the opinion of the QPs, the sample collection, preparation, security, and analytical procedures for all assay data for the historical data and the summer 2009 and 2011 drill programs comply with industry standards and are adequate to support mineral resource estimation. This data has been compiled in one current database. The QPs believe that the samples were collected properly, are representative of the material intersected in the holes and hence are representative of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits and can be used to estimate mineral resources in this Technical Report.

 

A review of the QA/QC program and results by the QPs indicate that the program meets industry standards and the data is sufficient for resource estimation.

 

94

 

10.

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

 

Metallurgical test work was completed on the Horseshoe and Raven deposits between 2006 and 2009. The details and analysis of the completed work outlined in this section was provided to the QPs by the Company and is found in:

 

Palmer, K., and Fielder, B., 2009. Technical Report on the Hidden Bay Property, Saskatchewan, Canada, Including Updated Mineral Resource Estimates for Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. Report by Golder Associates Ltd to UEX.

 

Doerksen, G., Melis, L., Liskowich, M., Murphy, B., Palmer, K., and Pilotto, D., 2011. Preliminary Assessment Technical Report on the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits, Hidden Bay Project Saskatchewan, Canada. Report by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. to UEX.

 

A summary of the metallurgical work reported in the Doerksen et al (2011) is found below. This has been reviewed and verified by the QP’s.

 

Metallurgical testing for UEX’s Hidden Bay project included test work on the Horseshoe-Raven deposits. Test work, completed at SGS Canada Inc.’s Lakefield Research facility in Lakefield, Ontario (SGS Lakefield) under the direction of Melis Engineering Ltd., was completed in 2009 on Horseshoe-Raven mineralization. The SGS Canada Lakefield Research facility is recognized across the mining industry as a global leader in metallurgical analysis.

 

Based on supporting metallurgical test work, process recoveries are estimated to be 95%.

 

Horseshoe-Raven test composites were prepared from assay rejects and from purpose-drilled HQ core. The elemental analyses of the composites showed that the Horseshoe and Raven uranium deposits are relatively low in deleterious elements such as arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and base metals. Five uranium carriers were identified, uraninite, boltwoodite, uranophane, coffinite and minor amounts of carnotite.

 

The Horseshoe-Raven composites were categorized as medium in hardness from the perspective of SAG milling, with an average SPI value of 69 minutes. The ball mill Bond Work Indices were all within a tight range of 16.1 to 17.7 kWh/t with an average value of 16.7 kWh/t, showing very little variation across the deposits and characterizing the Horseshoe-Raven mineralization as moderately hard for ball mill grinding.

 

Leach test results confirmed the Horseshoe-Raven mineralization is easily leached under relatively mild atmospheric leach conditions. Leach extractions of 98% or greater can be achieved for the Horseshoe and Raven mineralization under atmospheric leach conditions using a mesh-of-grind K80 (80% passing size) of approximately 145 µm, a leach temperature of 50ºC, a free acid concentration of 10 g H2SO4/L, representing an acid consumption of 45 kg H2SO4/t, an ORP of 500 mV, representing a sodium chlorate consumption of 0.6 kg NaClO3/t, and a leach retention time of eight to 12 hours. An overall uranium recovery of 95% was used in this study for all the cash flow analysis. Mine optimization work used 96% uranium extraction, prior to finalization of the recovery estimate.

 

95

 

The pregnant leach solution and residue from a Horseshoe bulk leach test were retained to generate waste raffinate and leach residue for waste treatment testing. The specific gravity of the generated tailings was measured at 2.59 t/m3. The tailings K80 was 136 µm and the K50 (50% passing size) was 54 µm.

 

Tailings supernatant aging tests resulted in elevated levels of radium and molybdenum in the supernatant. This was expected, and confirms that, like all uranium tailings supernatant, excess tailings water would be re-used and/or treated in the mill process and waste treatment circuits under normal operating conditions.

 

The concentrations of uranium (0.015 mg/L), arsenic (0.0067 mg/L), molybdenum (0.0115 mg/L), radium 226 (0.02 Bq/L) and selenium (0.009 mg/L) obtained in treated effluent are below typical regulatory limits set by the provincial and federal governments.

 

This TRS assumes that run of mine (“ROM”) material will be trucked to the Rabbit Lake processing facility for treatment. It is assumed that a toll treatment agreement could be reached with Cameco, the owner of the Rabbit Lake plant, which would allow Hidden Bay mineralization to be processed at an average rate of 1,000 tpd. It is also assumed that the Rabbit Lake facility would provide toll tailings deposition for the Hidden Bay ROM material.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

96

 

11.

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

 

11.1

Introduction

 

The Mineral Resource Estimate presented herein represents the first mineral resource evaluation prepared for the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits in accordance with S-K 1300.

 

Prior to UEC’s acquisition of UEX, the uranium deposits on the Property had previous resource estimates completed in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 requirements, as UEX was previously governed by Canadian regulations. UEC will not be disclosing those previous estimates in the TRS, as they did not comply with S-K 1300.

 

The mineral resource model prepared in this TRS by the QPs considers 404 core boreholes (128,180 m) drilled by UEX during the period of 2005 through 2009, and 2011 for the Horseshoe deposit and 311 core boreholes (82,205 m) for the Raven Deposit. The resource estimation work was completed by Mr. Nathan Barsi, P.Geo. (APEGS # 15012) under the supervision of Mr. Roger Lemaitre P.Eng., P.Geo. (APEGS #10647) who is an appropriate QP as this term is defined in S-K 1300. The effective date of the Mineral Resource Statement is October 31, 2021.

 

This section describes the resource estimation methodology and summarizes the key assumptions considered by the QPs. In the opinion of the QPs, the resource evaluation reported herein is a reasonable representation of the global uranium mineralization found at the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits at the current level of sampling. The mineral resources were estimated in conformity with the CRIRSCO classification criteria for an Indicated Mineral Resource and the requirements of S-K 1300. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve.

 

The database used to estimate the Horseshoe and Raven mineral resources consists of all the drill data compiled by UEX up to the end of the 2012. This database has been validated by the QPs. The QPs are of the opinion that the current drilling information is sufficiently reliable to interpret with confidence the boundaries for uranium mineralization and that the assay data is sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation.

 

Datamine Studio RM software was used to construct the geological solids, prepare assay data for geostatistical analysis, construct the block model, estimate metal grades and tabulate mineral resources. Microsoft Excel was used for geostatistical analysis.

 

11.2

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology

 

The mineral resources reported herein were estimated using an inverse-distance squared interpolated block modelling approach informed from core borehole data constrained within uranium mineralization wireframes for both deposits. The geological model of the mineralization represents distinct irregularly shaped pods that are mappable continuously from borehole to borehole. The solid used to constrain the block model was defined using a traditional wireframe interpretation constructed from explicit modelling and sectional interpretation of the drilling data using a 0.02% U3O8 threshold. This threshold grade for the deposit modelling was used as it defined the margins and continuity of the uranium mineralization at the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. Constructing a singular wireframe envelope for both deposits supersedes the 28 subzones for the Horseshoe Deposit and the 16 subzones from the Raven Deposit. However, in the resource estimate presented below, only blocks in the block model that exceeded the COG of 0.05% U3O8 were included in the estimate.

 

97

 

The evaluation of the mineral resources involved the following procedures:

 

Database compilation and verification.

 

Construction of 3D wireframe models for the boundaries of the uranium mineralization using a 0.02% U3O8 threshold.

 

Data extraction and processing (capping), and statistical analysis.

 

Selection of estimation strategy and estimation parameters.

 

Block modelling and grade estimation.

 

Validation.

 

Preparation of the Mineral Resource Estimate.

 

11.3

Resource Database

 

All exploration data available to evaluate the mineral resources for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits are listed in Table 11‑1. These holes were drilled by UEX in 2005 through 2009 and 2011. These drillholes pierce the mineralization wireframe or are within the immediate vicinity of it.

 

Table 111: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Exploration Drillholes

 

Horseshoe Deposit

# of Drillholes

Metres

Series of Holes

404

128,180

HO-001 - H-016, HR-001 - HR-013, HS-001, HU001-HU-373, HU-318A

Raven Deposit

# of Drillholes

Metres

Series of Holes

311

82,206

RV-001 - RV-028, RU-001 - RU-283

 

All drillhole collar locations were surveyed by Total station DGPS at the time of their completion.

 

UEX exported all the relevant borehole sampling data for the mineral estimation as CSV files from the DHLogger database, and Mr. Barsi imported it into Datamine Studio RM. The QP performed the following validation steps:

 

checked minimum and maximum values for each quality value field and confirmed/edited those outside of expected ranges;

 

checked for gaps, overlaps and out of sequence intervals in assays tables; and

 

there were very few intervals that needed to be adjusted since the previous resource database was used. The QP spot checked records against the previous database with the current database and found no errors or anomalies.

 

After these measures were implemented, no errors were found in the database. The QP is satisfied that the database is useable for mineral resource estimation.

 

98

 

11.4

Geological Modelling

 

Detailed descriptions of the geological characteristics of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits are outlined in Section 6.6. Given the shape of the two deposits, the QPs considered that any future mining of the deposits would likely be by underground cut-and-fill mining methods, as it is one of the most selective underground mining methods in use and suitable for the extraction of non-tabular mineralized bodies. The Horseshoe Deposit dips moderately to the south and has a distinct plunge of mineralization to the northeast following dilational zones between the bedding planes of individual stratigraphic units. The Raven Deposit is more tabular and dips moderately to the southeast.

 

Due to the distribution of mineralization in each deposit, the continuity of each of the deposits was determined on a section-by-section basis during the process of generating the wireframes. Continuity of mineralization was established by a QP between holes within each individual section and then determined from section to section spaced at 25 m intervals. Sections were setup for each of the two deposits to be perpendicular to the controlling structure. The singular wireframes for both deposits were modeled independently of the stratigraphic units by creating wireframes interpolated from the mineralization assays. Every effort was made to exclude any material below the threshold grade of 0.02% U3O8, but in some cases samples below cut-off would have to be included to achieve the goal of a singular wireframe for each deposit, especially in situations when mineralization occurred along strike of such areas on the adjacent sections that exceeded the threshold grade. The singular strings that bounded the mineralization on each section generally follow the dip/orientation of the previous wireframed subzones resulting in strings that are generally irregular versions of lenticular, tabular and vein-like horizons. Once the strings outlining the mineralization on each section were completed, they were joined together to create a singular wireframe defined within the diamond drillhole pattern (Figure 11‑1, Figure 11‑2, Figure 11‑3, & Figure 11‑4). The authors have determined that given the density of drilling of both deposits that there would be areas between the sections within the wireframe that were not mineralized, given that the continuity of mineralization on each section was previously established. The wireframes show the deposits to be anastomosing bodies that are contiguous from section to section when appropriate. This is not surprising given that the mineralization is mostly a disseminated style with areas of higher grade being more vein type controlled. The Horseshoe wireframe dips moderately to the southeast and has a distinct plunge to the mineralization progressing from the southwest to northeast. The Raven wireframe is more tabular and dips moderately to the southeast. Upon completion of the wireframes, the assay sample database was trimmed to samples that only fall within the mineralized wireframe.

 

The continuity of the mineralization on each section and between sections was compared to the interpolated block model developed and described in Sections 11.8, 11.8, 11.10 and 11.11 below. As shown in Figures 11.9 and 11.10, good correlation between mineralized holes was observed and the interpolated block grades matched assay grades closely.

 

99

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b26.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 111: Horseshoe Wireframe Plan View (Looking Down)

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b27.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 112: Horseshoe Wireframe Isometric View (Looking NNE)

 

100

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b28.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 113: Raven Wireframe Plan View (Looking Down)

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b29.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 114: Raven Wireframe Isometric View (Looking NNE)

 

11.5

Specific Gravity

 

Specific gravity measurements were obtained by dry bulk density at the assay laboratory as part of the routine assaying protocol. A total of 2,198 specific gravity measurements were taken within the various stratigraphic units and in all types of alteration on the Horseshoe deposit, while 1,526 samples were taken on the Raven deposit. Due to the spatial location of the specific gravity measurements and the lack of correlation between the measurements and the metal content, a uniform specific gravity was applied to the uranium mineralization wireframes of 2.48 (Figure 11‑5 and Figure 11‑6) and (Table 11‑2 and Table 11‑3).

 

101

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b30.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 11‑5: Horseshoe Density vs U3O8

 

Table 112: Horseshoe Density Statistics

 

Horseshoe Density Statistics

Mean

2.48

Standard Error

0.00

Median

2.52

Mode

2.54

Standard Deviation

0.15

Sample Variance

0.02

Kurtosis

10.98

Skewness

-2.44

Range

1.81

Minimum

1.33

Maximum

3.14

Sum

5461.39

Count

2198.00

 

102

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b31.jpg.ashx

 

 

Figure 11‑6: Raven Density vs U3O8

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

103

 

Table 113: Raven Density Statistics

 

Raven Density Statistics

Mean

2.48

Standard Error

0.00

Median

2.53

Mode

2.57

Standard Deviation

0.18

Sample Variance

0.03

Kurtosis

8.47

Skewness

-2.24

Range

1.82

Minimum

1.11

Maximum

2.93

Sum

3780.93

Count

1526.00

 

11.6

Composites

 

Assays were composited to one metre lengths, which is the 80th percentile of the lengths contained within the mineralized wireframe. The minimum composite length allowed is 0.15 m. The compositing method chosen in Datamine Studio RM is the one whereby all samples are included in one of the composites. This is achieved by adjusting the composite length but trying to keep the length as close as possible to one metre. Compositing had the effect of slightly reducing the coefficient of variation.

 

11.7

Capping

 

Basic statistics, histograms and cumulative probability plots for each metal were applied to determine appropriate capping grades. A QP capped the Horseshoe assays at 10% and the Raven assays at 1.88% after generating cumulative probability plots. These are illustrated in Figure 11‑7 and Figure 11‑8. Basic statistics for the uranium assays, composited assays, composite assays trimmed to inside the wireframe, and composite assays trimmed to the wireframe with capping applied, are summarized in Table 11‑4. A QP used the composite assayed that were capped and trimmed to the uranium wireframe assays to complete the block model estimations for each deposit.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

104

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b32.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 117: Log Probability Plot for Horseshoe Composite and Trimmed Assays

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

105

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b33.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 118: Log Probability Plot for Raven Composite and Trimmed Assays

 

Table 114: Basic Statistics for Mineralized Wireframes at Horseshoe and Raven

 

Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

Deposit

Sample

Count

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Coefficient of

Variation

Capped

Count

Assays

Horseshoe

24068

0.0000

20.40

0.100

0.449

4.50

-

Raven

21463

0.0000

18.80

0.047

0.214

4.51

-

Comp. Assays

Horseshoe

23755

0.0000

20.40

0.100

0.449

4.48

-

Raven

20983

0.0001

18.80

0.048

0.211

4.42

-

Comp. Trim. Assays

Horseshoe

14976

0.0000

20.40

0.152

0.556

3.66

-

Raven

12177

0.0001

18.80

0.076

0.270

3.55

-

Trim. Cap. Assays

Horseshoe

14976

0.0000

10.00

0.150

0.513

3.42

8

Raven

12177

0.0001

1.88

0.073

0.184

2.53

42

 

106

 

11.8

Block Model Definition

 

As a starting point, the QPs followed the block size criteria set forth in the 2009 Report, with a block size of five by five by 2.5 m for the mineralized wireframe. The QPs visually checked the blocks in both 2D and 3D and deemed it appropriate to use the existing block criteria as referenced above. Sub-cells, at 0.25 m resolution, were used to respect the geology of the modelled wireframe. Sub-cells were assigned the same grade as the parent cell. The block model was rotated on the Z-axis to honor the orientation of the mineralization. The characteristics of the final block model are summarized in Table 11‑5.

 

Table 115: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Block Model Specifications

 

Horseshoe Deposit

Lenses

Axis

Block Size (m)

Origin*

Number of

Cells

Rotation

Angles

Rotation

Priority

   

Parent

Sub-cell

       

All

X

5

0.25

555,740

128

-

-

 

Y

5

0.25

6,415,140

30

-

-

 

Z

2

0.25

330

40

345

1

Raven Deposit

Lenses

Axis

Block Size (m)

Origin*

Number of

Cells

Rotation

Angles

Rotation

Priority

   

Parent

Sub-cell

       

All

X

5

0.25

555,740

128

-

-

 

Y

5

0.25

6,415,140

30

-

-

 

Z

2

0.25

330

40

345

1

* UTM grid (NAD 83 datum)

 

11.9

Search Ellipsoid

 

The QPs chose search ellipsoids based on the controls of mineralization at both deposits. The X-axis was the long axis as it is parallel to the main trend of the axial plane that controls mineralization. The Y-axis was rotated to match the general dip of the units. The Z-axis was most restrictive to limit spreading/smearing of material between zones of higher-grade mineralization (Table 11‑6).

 

Table 116: Search Ellipse Parameters for Horseshoe and Raven Estimation

 

Horseshoe Deposit

R1x

R1y

R1z

Angle1

Angle1

Angle1

Axis

Axis

Axis

(m)

(m)

(m)

1

2

3

1

2

3

15

15

10

335

-40

0

3

1

3

Raven Deposit

R1x

R1y

R1z

Angle1

Angle1

Angle1

Axis

Axis

Axis

(m)

(m)

(m)

1

2

3

1

2

3

25

25

10

345

-40

0

3

1

3

1 The rotation angles are shown in Datamine RM convention.

 

107

 

11.10

Estimation Strategy

 

Table 11‑7 summarizes the general estimation parameters used for the uranium estimation. Grade estimation used an inverse distance weighting a squared estimation algorithm and three passes informed by composited, capped and trimmed to wireframe assays. The first pass was the most restrictive in terms of search radii required. Successive passes usually populate areas with less dense drilling, using less restrictive data requirements (Table 11‑8). Upon completion of the estimation, the QPs reviewed the resource estimate at each cross-section to visually ensure that the estimation was representative of the assay grades where the drillhole pierces/passes through the wireframe. For the first estimation pass, assays from at least five samples were required to estimate a block, though most blocks used the maximum numbers or assays allowable if it could get them.

 

Table 117: Estimation Parameters for Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

 

Horseshoe Deposit

 

Parameter

1st

       Pass       

2nd

       Pass        

3rd

       Pass      

Interpolation method

ID2

ID2

ID2

Search range X (relative to ellipse)

1X

1X

1X

Search range Y (relative to ellipse)

1X

1X

1X

Search range Z (relative to ellipse)

1X

1X

1X

Minimum number of Assays

5

3

3

Maximum number of Assays

10

12

24

Raven Deposit

Parameter

1st

       Pass        

2nd

       Pass        

3rd

       Pass        

Interpolation method

ID2

ID2

ID2

Search range X (relative to ellipse)

1X

2X

4X

Search range Y (relative to ellipse)

1X

2X

4X

Search range Z (relative to ellipse)

1X

2X

4X

Minimum number of Assays

5

3

3

Maximum number of Assays

24

24

24

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

108

 

Table 118: Volume Estimated per Pass for Each Deposit

 

Horseshoe Deposit

Lenses

Estimation

Volume

Percent

 

Pass

Estimation

Estimated

All

1

196,577

70%

 

2

81,913

29%

 

3

1187

1%

Raven Deposit

Lenses

Estimation

Volume

Percent

 

Pass

Estimation

Estimated

All

1

303,772

88%

 

2

39,005

11%

 

3

1159

1%

 

11.11

Block Model Validation

 

The resulting block models for both the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits were validated by:

 

Comparison of block model volumes to volumes within solids.

 

Visual comparison of colour-coded block model grades with drillhole grades on section and plan plots.

 

Comparison of block model grades and drillhole grades using swath plots.

 

11.11.1

 Block Volume/Solid Volume Comparison

 

The block model volumes were compared to the wireframe volumes (Table 11‑9). Both deposits returned nearly identical volumes for the block models versus the wireframes. The very small variation in volume is likely from using cubes to fill a complex irregular shape.

 

Table 119: Wireframe Volume vs Block Model Volume

 

Horseshoe

Wireframe Volume (m3)

Block Model Volume (m3)

4,495,576

4,495,127

Raven

Wireframe Volume (m3)

Block Model Volume (m3)

5,174,080

5,174,176

 

11.11.2

 Visual Validation of Sections

 

The visual comparisons of block model grades with composite grades for both deposits show a reasonable correlation between the values. No significant discrepancies were apparent from each section that was reviewed. Examples of this process can be seen in Figure 119 and Figure 1110.

 

109

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b34.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 119: Horseshoe Visual Check of Drillhole Grades against Block Grades (Section Orientation of 335°)

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

110

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b35.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 1110: Raven Visual Check of Drillhole Grades against Block Grades (Section Orientation of 345°)

 

11.11.3

Swath Plots

 

Swath plots (Figure 11‑11 & Figure 11‑12) have been generated for the block model grades versus the drillholes assays for each wireframe. In general, the swath plots show a good correlation between drillholes and ID2 values. There are a few instances where the swath plot has discrete peaks that weakly correlate, but that is likely due to the irregular morphology of the deposits as it progresses along the X direction. The swath plots show that the block model is not exaggerating the localized high-grade uranium assays and was used as confirmation that the model is not over-estimating uranium grades.

 

111

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b36.jpg.ashx

 

Figure 1111: Horseshoe Swath Plot in the X Direction

 

http://api.rkd.refinitiv.com/api/FilingsRetrieval3/.78192258.0001437749-24-010672b37.jpg.ashx

Figure 1112: Raven Swath Plot in the X Direction

 

112

 

11.11.4

Validation Author Statement

 

Validation checks confirm that the block estimates are a reasonable representation of the informing data considering the current level of geological and geostatistical understanding of the Property.

 

11.12

Mineral Resource Classification

 

Block model quantities and grade estimates were classified according to the CRIRSCO classification criteria for an Indicated Mineral Resource and the requirements of S-K 1300 by Mr. Nathan Barsi, P.Geo. (APEGS#15012) under the supervision of Mr. Roger Lemaitre P.Eng., P.Geo. (APEGS #10647).

 

The CRIRSCO definition for an Indicated Mineral Resource in the 2017 SME Guide is:

 

“A Mineral Deposit or part of a deposit may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource in a Public Report when the nature, quality, amount, and distribution of data are such as to allow the Competent Person determining the Mineral Resource to confidently interpret the geological framework and to assume physical continuity of mineralization. Confidence in the estimate is sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters to prepare incremental mine plans (typically annual or phases) and production schedules and to enable an evaluation of economic viability. Overall confidence in the estimates is high, while local confidence is reasonable. The Competent Person should recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource class to the advancement of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support detailed technical and economic studies leading to Probable Mineral Reserves which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.

 

In assessing continuity between points of observation, the Competent Person should consider the likely cut-off grade and geometric limits that would be used to prepare incremental (e.g., annual or phased) mine plans.

 

The 2017 SME Guide goes on to state that in regard to the QP’s choice for the appropriate class of mineral resource that for indicated resources:

 

“Confidence in the estimate is sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters to prepare incremental plans (typically annual or phased) and production schedules and to enable an evaluation of economic viability.

 

The QPs are satisfied that the geological modelling honors the current geological information and knowledge. The location of the samples and the assay data are sufficiently reliable to support resource evaluation. The sampling information was acquired by core drilling with pierce points between seven metres and 30 m apart, but generally at 10 m across section and 25 m along strike. The QPs are confident that it has modelled the overall spatial location of the uranium mineralization and that it is representative of the controls. Preliminary metallurgical data has been collected and has been disclosed in the relevant section. The QPs consider all block estimates within the mineralized lenses to satisfy the classification CRIRSCO criteria for an Indicated Mineral Resource.

 

113

 

The COG used to determine resources was calculated to be 0.05% U3O8 by the QPs.

 

The QPs determined COG by considering a cut-and-fill underground mining method for the two deposits. The mining parameters used to determine COG are listed in Table 11‑10. The limitations associated with typical cut-and-fill mining processes require that all rock present within a mineralized zone be mined and removed from the mining stope regardless of whether or not that portion of rock is mineralized, partially mineralized or is considered to be waste rock. Thus, the cost to mine mineralized rock is equivalent to the cost of mining waste rock. In a cut-and-fill underground mining scenario, waste rock must be removed.

 

The basis for the processing/water treatment and general and administrative costs provided by the Registrant, who completed a scoping level engineering analysis report of the Property using a heap leach recovery method and cut-and-fill mining. The QPs used the costs provided by the Registrant for processing and G&A that were dated in 2016 and inflated the costs using the Canadian Consumer Price Index to equivalent costs as of March 1, 2024. The mining costs were obtained from Canadian Mining Journal article on mechanized cut and fill mining. The inflated processing and G&A costs and the mining costs were used to help determine the resource estimate COG.

 

Processing, water treatment, general and administrative costs, along with mining and milling recoveries using heap leach extraction, were estimated for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. The uranium price of US$75/lb U3O8 was used and is considered reasonable given the range of spot uranium prices reported by industry price expert TradeTech between September 15, 2023 and this TRS’ effective date of March 1, 2024. An exchange rate of C$1.00 to US$0.73 was used.

 

As the cost of mining waste rock and mineralized rock are the same in cut-and-fill underground extraction, marginal COGs are determined exclusively from the processing, water treatment and general and administrative costs.

 

The marginal COG was determined using the formula:

 

COG = Processing+Water Treat+G&A+ Mining Cost per tonne
Uranium Price (in CAD$ per t) x total recovery

 

Criteria related to calculating COG is presented in Table 11‑10.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

114

 

Table 1110: Cut-Off Grade Determination

 

Assumptions

     
         
 

Uranium Price

$               75.00

USD/lb U3O8

 
   

$           165,345

USD/t U3O8

 
   

$           226,500

CAD/t U3O8

 
         
 

Mining Recovery

95.0%

   
 

Processing Recovery

95.0%

   
 

Total Recovery

90.3%

   
         
 

USD Exchange

C$1.00 =  

$                  0.73

US

         

Mining, Processing and General Administrative Costs

   
         
 

Mining Costs*

 

$           47.83

 
 

Processing/Water Treatment

 

$           32.75

 
 

General and Administrative

 

$           22.23

 
   

Total  

$           102.81

 
         

Marginal Cut-Off Grade

     
         
 

Cut-Off Grade =

Processing Cost + Mining Cost

   

Uranium Price (CAD$/t) x Total Recovery

         
 

Cut-Off Grade =

0.05%

U3O8

 
         

* In Cut-and-Fill Mining, cost to Mine Mineralization = cost to Mine Waste

   

t Processing Costs in equation include water treatment and general and administrative costs

 

 

Only blocks within the wireframe model that exceeded the COG of 0.05% U3O8 were included in the resource estimate.

 

Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resources will be converted into mineral reserve. The QPs are unaware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing and political or other relevant issues that may materially affect the mineral resources.

 

The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits is presented in Table 11‑11.

 

Table 1111: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates

 

Horseshoe Deposit Uranium Resource

Deposit

Category

Quantity

(Tonnes)

Average Grade U3O8 (%)

Total lb. U3O8

Horseshoe

Indicated

4,982,500

0.215

23,594,000

Raven Deposit Uranium Resources

Deposit

Category

Quantity

(Tonnes)

Average Grade U3O8 (%)

Total lb. U3O8

Raven

Indicated

5,370,000

0.117

13,832,400

*Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Resources were estimated using a COG of 0.05% U3O8.

 

115

 

11.13

Grade Sensitivity Analysis

 

The mineral resource model is relatively sensitive to the selection of the reporting uranium COG. To illustrate this sensitivity, the quantities and grade estimates are presented in Table 11‑12 at various COGs. The reader is cautioned that the figures presented in this table should not be misconstrued with a Mineral Resource Statement. The tables are only presented to show the sensitivity of the block model estimate to the selection of U3O8 COG.

 

Table 1112: Global Block Model Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various U3O8 Cut-Off Grades

 

Horseshoe Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Cut-Off

Indicated Blocks

Grade

Volume / Quantity

 

Grade

U3O8

Volume

Tonnage

 

U3O8

(%)

(m3)

(tonnes)

 

(%)

0.01

4,113,990

10,202,696

 

0.119

0.02

3,415,704

8,470,945

 

0.140

0.05

2,009,077

4,982,512

 

0.215

0.10

1,196,033

2,966,088

 

0.313

0.15

866,315

2,148,462

 

0.386

0.20

628,722

1,559,230

 

0.466

0.25

468,775

1,162,562

 

0.548

0.30

372,190

923,032

 

0.620

0.35

300,907

746,250

 

0.689

0.40

238,923

592,530

 

0.771

Raven Grade Sensitivity Analysis

Cut-Off

Indicated Blocks

Grade

Volume / Quantity

 

Grade

U3O8

Volume

Tonnage

 

U3O8

(%)

(m3)

(tonnes)

 

(%)

0.01

5,013,261

12,432,888

 

0.066

0.02

4,117,590

10,211,623

 

0.077

0.05

2,165,334

5,370,028

 

0.117

0.10

867,706

2,151,912

 

0.186

0.15

439,339

1,089,560

 

0.250

0.20

244,018

605,165

 

0.312

0.25

149,652

371,138

 

0.368

0.30

93,338

231,479

 

0.424

0.35

60,029

148,873

 

0.481

0.40

40,251

99,822

 

0.534

 

The sensitivity analysis indicates that a large portion of the resource for the deposits are lower grade pounds.

 

116

 

11.14

Resource Uncertainty and Prospect of Economic Extraction

 

As shown in Table 11‑12, the tonnage of the mineral resource estimate is very sensitive to changes in COG. As COG was determined using marginal operating costs, uranium prices of US$75.00/lb U3O8, mining recovery of 95%, and milling recovery of 95%, these sources of uncertainty could have a material impact on the tonnage of the total indicated resources presented in Table 11‑11. As uranium prices are currently highly volatile, a significant decrease in uranium prices could have a significant decrease in the total tonnage of the indicated resources. Additional metallurgical heap leach extraction studies would be required to provide additional certainty to the metallurgical recovery before economic studies could be completed.

 

Sampling, drilling methods, data processing and handling, geological modeling and the estimation method used are not considered to be well constrained and understood and likely would not have a material impact on the tonnage of the indicated resources presented in Table 11‑11.

 

It is the opinion of the QPs that all issues related to the technical and economic factors that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work. The uncertainty of some of these factors may be resolved with the recommended work program outlined below in Section 23.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

117

 

12.

MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, there are no mineral reserves for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

118

 

13.

MINING METHODS

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, detailed mining methods have not been determined for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

119

 

14.

PROCESS AND RECOVERY METHODS

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, detailed process and recovery methods have not been determined for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

120

 

15.

INFRASTRUCTURE

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, detailed infrastructure plans have not been determined for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

121

 

16.

MARKET STUDIES

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, detailed market studies have not been completed for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

122

 

17.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, detailed environmental studies, plans, negotiations or agreements with local individuals or groups have not been completed for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

123

 

18.

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, detailed capital and operating cost studies have not been completed for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

124

 

19.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

 

As this TRS is considered an IA, an economic analysis has not been completed for the Property.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

125

 

20.

ADJACENT PROPERTIES

 

There are no applicable adjacent properties to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

126

 

21.

OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

 

There is no other known relevant data and information at this stage of the project.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

127

 

22.

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

 

The singular wireframe constructed by the current QPs was developed using the former authors’ subzones for each deposit as a guide. The alternate section definition and the distribution of the drillholes and assays resulted in the majority of the subzones being truncated by the newly interpreted singular wireframes around the margin of the two deposits.

 

The Horseshoe Deposit is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 23,594,000 lbs U3O8 with an average grade of 0.215% U3O8 at a COG of 0.05% U3O8. The Raven Deposit is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 13,832,400 lbs U3O8 with an average grade of 0.117% U3O8 at a COG of 0.05% U3O8. No inferred resources have been estimated for either deposit.

 

The Raven deposit’s contained uranium in indicated resources in this estimate is increased by 0.1% along with the average grade increase at a cut-off of 0.05% U3O8 when compared to the combined indicated and inferred resources reported in the 2009 Report. The objective of the 2011 drill program at the Raven deposit was to confirm continuity of mineralization. The very small increase in resources estimated at the Raven deposit in this TRS, as well as the corresponding slight increase in grade is partly the result of the results of the 2011 drill program.

 

This updated mineral resource will be able to be used for any future development work on the Property given that all the drillhole data has been included and disclosed at effective date of this TRS.

 

The total tonnage of the mineral resource estimate presented above is very sensitive to changes in COG, and thus changes to marginal operating costs, uranium prices, mining recovery and milling recovery. As uranium prices are currently highly volatile, a significant decrease in uranium prices could have a significant decrease in the total tonnage of the indicated resources. Additional metallurgical heap leach extraction studies would be required to provide additional certainty to the metallurgical recovery before economic studies could be completed.

 

Most issues related to the technical and economic factors that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further engineering work.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

128

 

23.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The QPs’ recommendations are as follows:

 

23.1

Preliminary Economic Assessment

 

Given that the Horseshoe and Raven resource is in the indicated category, it is recommended than an IA with economic parameters be completed in order to determine the potential economics and viability of mining the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits. This document would determine whether the projects warrant advancing to a pre-feasibility study. Completing the economic parameters for an IA is estimated to cost CAD $150,000 - $200,000.

 

23.2

Additional Field Duplicate Sampling

 

During the proposed IA work recommended in Section 22, it is recommended that UEC undertake an additional sampling program to supplement the summer 2009 to 2011 assay data as the field duplicate data could not be easily segregated and validated from the assay database. The QPs are confident that field duplicate samples were taken, but taking additional samples would eliminate any doubt of the validity of the data and eliminate future but very minor QA/QC concerns over this subpopulation (7.88% of the total sample database) as part of any future preliminary economic assessment, as recommended in Section 26.1.

 

It is recommended to take approximately 500 samples across both deposits, as this would be approximately 2% of the sample population to date. The majority of the costs associated with an additional sampling program would be analytical costs, as the sample pulps from the original assay sample pulps may still be available from the laboratory. If the samples are available, the estimated cost of an additional sampling program would be CAD $25,000. If they are not available, the cost would increase by approximately 33%, as new samples would have to be collected from the historical drill core the next time an exploration program is active at the Raven camp where the core is stored. This would cost approximately CAD $35,000.

 

23.3

Advanced Metallurgy

 

Preliminary metallurgy was completed for the 2009 and 2011 technical reports. Additional metallurgical work was completed in 2015, focusing on the viability of using uranium heap leach recovery. It is recommended that UEC advance the heap leach metallurgical testing to the next phase by completing additional compositing of representative samples from the Horseshoe and Raven deposits to continue developing the parameters for recovering the mineralized material in a sellable product. A recommended minimum of six tonnes of material is required for this work. The cost of completing this work would be CAD $2,350,000, and is broken down in the Table 23‑1.

 

129

 

Table 231: Cost Break Down of Metallurgical Drill Program

 

Description 

Total (C$ 000s) 

Direct Costs 

Personnel 

220 

Field Equipment Costs 

  30 

Analysis 

  80 

Travel and Transport 

  15 

Miscellaneous 

   5 

Subtotal 

350 

Contractor Costs 

Diamond Drilling 

1,500 

Camp Costs 

   400 

Other Contractor 

     400   

Subtotal 

2,000 

Total 

2,350 

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

130

 

24.

REFERENCES

 

Alexandre, P., Kyser, and Polito, P., 2003. Geochronology of the Paleoproterozoic basement- hosted unconformity-type uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan Canada, in Uranium Geochemistry 2003, International Conference, April 13-16, 2003, Proceedings, (eds.) M. Cuney; Unite Mixte de Recherche CNRS 7566 G2R, University Henri Poincare, Nancy, France, p. 37-40.

 

Andrade, N., 1983a. Project 564, South Block, Compilation and economic geology. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 206 pages.

 

Andrade, N., 1983b. North Block, Compilation and economic geology. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 217 pages.

 

Annesley, I.R., and Madore, C., 1991. The Wollaston Group and its underlying Archean basement. Final Report, SRC Publication R-1230-4-C-91.

 

Annesley, I., Madore, C., and Portella, P., 2005. Geology and thermotectonic evolution of the western margin of the Trans-Hudson orogen: evidence from the eastern sub- Athabasca basement, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 42, p. 573-597.

 

Annesley, I.R., Madore, C., Quirt, D., Shi, r., and Dyck, J., 1995. Wollaston Eagle Project: Segment 1 Report. Saskatchewan Research Council Publication No. R-1230-16-C-95, 132 pages, plus appendices.

 

Annesley, I.R., Madore, C., Shi, R., Quirt, D., Dyck, J., Hajnal, Z., and Reilkoff, B., 1996. Wollaston Eagle Project: Segement 2 Report. Saskatchewan Research Council Publication No. R-1420-5-C-96, 184 pages, plus appendices.

 

Appleyard, E.C., 1984. The origin of plagioclasite in the vicinity of the Rabbit Lake uranium deposit; in Summary of Investigations, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Saskatchewan Energy and Mines, Misc. Report 84-4, pp. 68-71.

 

Baldwin, D., 2009. Horseshoe and Raven Deposits, QAQC Summary Report for the Period September 2008 to June 2009, internal report to UEX, 27 pages.

 

Baudemont, D., Piquard, J.P., Ey, F., and Zimmerman, J., 1993. The Sue uranium deposits, Saskatchewan, Canada. Exploration and Mining Geology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 179-202.

 

Bickford, M.E., Collerson, K.D., and Lewry, J.F., 1994. Crustal history of the Rae and Hearne provinces, southwestern Canadian Shield, Saskatchewan: constraints from geochronologic and isotopic data. Precambrian Research, v. 68, pp. 1-21.

 

Cameron, K., and Eriks, S., 2008a. Hidden Bay uranium project: Report on fall 2005 airborne resolve survey and results. UEX Corporation, assessment report, 25 pages.

 

Cameron, K., and Eriks, S., 2008b. Hidden Bay uranium project: Report on winter 2006 airborne VTEM survey and results. UEX Corporation, assessment report, 52 pages.

 

131

 

Cristall, J., 2005. Interpretation of the 2004 VTEM Electromagnetic Survey Tent-Seal, Post- Landing, Cunning Bay, West Rabbit Fault and West Bear Areas. Cameco Corporation, internal report to UEX Corporation, 17 pages plus appendices.

 

Cumming, G.L., and Krstic, D., 1992. The age of unconformity-related uranium mineralization in the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 29, pp. 1623-1639.

 

DiPrisco, G., 2008. Mineralogical characterization of U-rich drill core samples from the Horseshoe-Raven project, Northern Saskatchewan. Unpublished report to UEX Corporation, 19 pages.

 

Doerksen, G., Melis, L., Liskowich, M., Murphy, B., Palmer, K., and Pilotto, D., 2011. Preliminary Assessment Technical Report on the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits, Hidden Bay Project Saskatchewan, Canada. Report by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. to UEX Corporation.

 

Eldorado Resources Ltd., 1986. Uranium Resource Status Summary as of Dec. 31, 1986.Internal Report.

 

Eriks, S. 2012. Hidden Bay Project, Horseshoe Deposit Report on Summer 2009 Activities and Results, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, assessment report.

 

Eriks, S., Hasegawa, L. 2014. Hidden Bay Project, Horseshoe Deposit Report on Summer 2011 Activities and Results, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, assessment report.

 

Fayek, M., Harrison, T.M., Ewing, R.C., Grove, M., and Coath, C.D., 2002. O and Pb isotope analyses of uranium minerals by ion microprobe and U-Pb ages from the Cigar Lake deposit; Chemical Geology, v. 185, p. 205-225.

 

Forand, L., 1995. Rabbit Lake joint venture 1995 annual exploration report. Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 119 pages, plus appendices.

 

Forand, L., 1999. Rabbit Lake joint venture 1998 annual exploration activities report. Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 58 pages, plus appendices.

 

Forand, L., and Nimeck, G., 1992. Rabbit Lake exploration joint venture, annual report, 1992 exploration activities, CBS 6802, 6761, 6785-6789, 6804. Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 56 pages plus appendices.

 

Forand, L., Nimeck, G., and Wasyliuk, K., 1994. Rabbit Lake exploration joint venture, 1994 annual exploration report volume 1 of 2. Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 87 pages.

 

Foster, S., Wasyliuk, K., and Powell, B., 1997. Rabbit Lake joint venture 1997 exploration program. Cameco Corporation, 72 pages, plus appendices.

 

Goldak, D and Powell, B., 2003. Report on the 2002 Geophysical Activities, Horseshoe-Raven and Telephone Lake Grids, Mineral Dispositions S-106961, S-106962, and S-106981, NTS 64 L/4 and 64 L/5, Assessment Report submitted to Saskatchewan Industry and Resources, Cameco Corporation, 11 pages, plus appendices.

 

132

 

Gyorfi, I., Hajnal, Z., White, D.J., Takacs, E., Reilkoff, B., Annesley, I.R., Powell, B., Koch, R., 2007. High-resolution seismic survey from the McArthur River region: contributions to mapping of the complex P2 uranium ore zone, Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan. In EXTECH IV: Geology and Uranium EXploration TECHnology of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta,(ed.) C.W. Jefferson and G. Delaney; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 588 (also Saskatchewan Geological Society, Special Publication 18; Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication 4), pp. 397-412.

 

Hasegawa, L., Eriks, S. 2014. Hidden Bay Project, Horseshoe Deposit Report on Winter 2011 Activities and Results, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, assessment report.

 

Hasegawa, L., Musienko, E. 2015. Hidden Bay Project, Horseshoe Deposit Report on Winter 2012 Activities and Results, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, assessment report.

 

Healey, C.M., and Ward, D.M., 1988. Cameco statement of ore reserves and mineral resources. Cameco Corporation, internal company report.

 

Hoeve, J., and Quirt, D.H., 1985. A stationary redox front as a critical factor in the formation of high-grade, unconformity type uranium ores in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada. Bulletin Mineralogique, Volume 110, pp. 157-171.

 

Hoeve, J., and Sibbald, T.I.I., 1978. On the genesis of Rabbit Lake and other unconformity- type uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Economic Geology, Vol. 73, pp. 1450-1473.

 

Hubregtse, J.J., and Duncan, B., 1991. Geological evaluation and petrography of the Raven Lake area and the Horseshoe-Raven Deposit area. Cameco Corporation, consultant’s report, 36 pages plus appendices.

 

Irvine, R., 2004. VTEM survey for UEX Corporation, Points North, Saskatchewan, Project 460. UEX Corporation, assessment report, 23 pages.

 

Jefferson, C., Thomas, D.J., Gandhi, S.S., Ramaekers, P., Delaney, G., Brisbin, D., Cutts, C., Portella, P., and Olson, R.A., 2007. Unconformity associated uranium deposits of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 588, p. 23-67.

 

Jones, B.E., 1980. The geology of the Collins Bay uranium deposit, Saskatchewan. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Bulletin 73, 818, pp. 90-94.

 

Kos, C., 2004. West Bear Mitchell Area 2004 MMI Survey (M-Solution) and Boulder Sampling Survey. Cameco Corporation, report UEX Corporation.

 

Lemaitre, R., 2006. 2005 Resource Estimate of the West Bear Deposit, Cameco Corporation, report prepared for UEX Corporation. 54 pages plus appendices, filed on SEDAR.

 

Lemaitre, R., and Herman, T., 2003. Hidden Bay project: 2002 and 2003 exploration report. Cameco Corporation, exploration report to UEX Corporation, 107 pages plus appendices.

 

Lemaitre, R., and Herman, T., 2006. Hidden Bay project: 2005 diamond drilling report. Cameco Corporation, exploration report to UEX Corporation, 97 pages plus appendices.

 

133

 

Lewry, J.F., and Sibbald, T.I.I., 1980. Thermotectonic evolution of the Churchill Province in northern Saskatchewan. Tectonophysics, v. 68, pp. 45-82.

 

McCready, K., 2007. U3O8 Method Summary. SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories, 2 pages. Ogryzlo, P.S., 1984. Project 564, South Block summary of activities 1984. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 42 pages, plus appendices.

 

Ogryzlo, P.S., 1985. Project 564, South Block summary of activities 1985. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 29 pages, plus appendices.

 

Ogryzlo, P.S., 1987. Project 602, Saskatchewan Mineral Venture, South Block fall program. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 20 pages, plus appendices.

 

Ogryzlo, P.S., 1987. Project 602, Saskatchewan Mineral Venture, South Block winter program. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 38 pages, plus appendices.

 

Ogryzlo, P.S., 1988. Project 602, Saskatchewan Mineral Venture, South Block. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 36 pages, plus appendices.

 

Palmer, K.J., 2007. December 2007 Mineral resource estimate, West Bear Deposit. Golder Associates Ltd., report to UEX Corporation dated December 11, 2007, 4 pages.

 

Palmer, K.J., 2008. Technical Report on the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits, including a Mineral Resource estimate for the Horseshoe Deposit, Hidden Bay Property, Saskatchewan, Canada, Report to UEX Corporation, filed on SEDAR.

 

Palmer, K.J. and Fielder, B., 2009. Technical Report on the Hidden Bay Property, Saskatchewan, Canada, including a Mineral Resource Estimate for the Horseshoe, Raven and West Bear Deposits, Report to UEX Corporation, filed on SEDAR.

 

Powell, B., 1996. Assessment report Rabbit Lake project, Rhino Lake property 1996, geophysical program CBS 7252, S105327, S105328. Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 10 pages.

 

Quirt, D.H., 1990. Mineral deposit studies: Horseshoe-Raven uranium deposits, Project 3.12. Saskatchewan Research Council, 65 pages, plus appendices.

 

Ramaekers, P., and Dunne, C.E., 1976. Geology and geochemistry of the eastern margin of the Athabasca basin in Uranium in Saskatchewan, ed. C.E. Dunne, Saskatchewan Geological Society, Special Paper 3, pg. 297-322.

 

Ramaekers, P., Jefferson, C.W., Yeo, G.M., Collier, B., Long, D.G.F, Drever, G., McHardy, S., Jiricka, D., Cutts, C., Wheatley, K., Catuneanu, O., Bernier, S., Kupsch, B., and Post, R.T., 2007. Revised geological map and stratigraphy of the Athabasca Group, Saskatchewan and Alberta in EXTECH IV: Geology and uranium EXploration TECHnology of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta. (ed.).

 

Rhys, D. A., 2002. Geological Report on the Hidden Bay Property, Wollaston Lake Area, Northern Saskatchewan, report prepared for UEX Corporation by Panterra Geoservices Inc., p. 84, filed on SEDAR.

 

Rhys, D. A., and Ross, K.V., 1999. Structural setting and controls on uranium mineralization, Collins-Bay Rabbit Lake Fault system, Wollaston Lake to Thorburn Lake, northern Saskatchewan. Panterra Geoservices Inc., consulting report for Cameco Corporation, 278 pages.

 

Rhys, D. A., Horn, L., Baldwin, D., and Eriks, S. 2008. Technical Report on the Geology of, and Drilling Results from, the Horseshoe and Raven Uranium Deposits, Hidden Bay Property, Northern Saskatchewan, 131 pages, filed on SEDAR.

 

Rhys, D. A., Eriks, S. 2011. Hidden Bay Project, Horseshoe Deposit Report on Fall 2008 Activities and Results, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, assessment report.

 

134

 

Rhys, D. A., Eriks, S. 2012. Hidden Bay Project, Horseshoe Deposit Report on Winter 2009 Activities and Results, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, assessment report.

 

Ruzicka, V., 1996. Unconformity-associated uranium in Geology of Canadian mineral deposit types, ed. O.R. Eckstand, W.D. Sinclair and R.I. Thorpe, Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada, no. 8, pp. 197-210.

 

Sibbald, T.I.I., 1983. Geology of the crystalline basement, NEA/IAEA Athabasca test area in Uranium Exploration in Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada, ed. E.M. Cameron, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 82-11, pp. 1-14.

 

Sopack, V.J., de Carle, A., Wray, E.M., and Cooper, B. 1983. Application of lithogeochemistry to the search for unconformity-type uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin in Uranium Exploration in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada, ed. E.M. Cameron, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 82-11, pp. 191-205.

 

SMEGAC, 2016. Mineral Exploration Guidelines for Saskatchewan. http://saskmining.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/BMP%20August%202016_Draft.pdf, 137 pages.

 

SRC, 2007. Quality Assurance Report for UEX for the period 2006 – 2007. SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories, 12 pages.

 

SRC Website, 2021. Analytical techniques and sample handling procedures https://www.src.sk.ca/sites/default/files/files/resource/SRC_Geoanalytical_Services_S chedule_2019_FINAL%20web.pdf#page=11.

 

Studer, D., 1984. Project 565, Centre Block, Compilation and economic geology. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 135 pages, plus appendices.

 

Studer, D., 1986. Project 565, Centre Block, Summary of activities 1985. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 53 pages, plus appendices.

 

Studer, D., 1987. Project 604, Assessment report on CBS 6801-6805 inclusive and CBS 7255, Centre Block. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 38 pages, plus appendices.

 

135

 

Studer, D., 1989. Saskatchewan Mineral Venture, South Block. Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 32 pages, plus appendices.

 

Studer, D., and Gudjurgis, P., 1985. Project 565, Centre Block, Summary of activities 1984. Eldorado Resources Ltd., internal company report, 80 pages, plus appendices.

 

Studer, D., and Nimeck, G., 1989. Centre Block annual report, Cameco Corporation, internal company report, 33 pages, plus appendices.

 

Terhune, B. Conventional versus mechanized cut and fill mining, Canadian Mining Journal, April 2021, https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/featured-article/conventional-versus-mechanized-cut-and-fill-mining.

 

UEX, 2023. 2022 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven project, Saskatchewan, UEX Corporation, 145 pages.

 

Walcott, A., and Walcott, P., 2008. A geophysical report on resistivity surveying, Horseshoe- Raven property, Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan. Unpublished report for UEX Corporation, 16 pages.

 

Wallis, R.H., 1971. The geology of the Hidden Bay area, Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Mineral Resources, Report 137, 76 pages.

 

Whitford, K.G., 1971. Exploration report, Permit 8, northern Saskatchewan. Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd., internal report.

 

Witherly, K., 2007. Report on Processing and Analysis of VTEM 30 Hz EM and Magnetics Data, Hidden Bay Project, Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan. Internal company report prepared by Condor Consulting of Lakewood, Colorado for UEX Corporation.

 

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

136

 

25.

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

 

The QPs are partially relying upon the Opinion of Title dated September 7, 2021 by Robertson Stromberg LLP, titled “UEX Corporation - Review of Certain Mineral Dispositions”, wherein section IV Item 3 it is stated that they are of the opinion that UEX is holder of 100% interest on the Horseshoe Raven claim. The QPs are in part relying upon this report as assurance of equity in the title of the claim. The equity stated in the report is consistent with the records indicated by UEX. This reliance applies to Section 3.3.

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

 

137

 

26.

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGES

 

This TRS titled "2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan" with an effective date of March 1, 2024, and dated March 25, 2024, was prepared and signed by the following authors:

 

 

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

 

138

 

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

 

To accompany the report entitled: 2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan with an effective date of March 1, 2024, and a signature date of March 25, 2024.

 

I, Christopher Hamel, do hereby certify that:

 

 

1)

I am Vice President Exploration, Canada with the firm of UEC Corporation with an office at 724 66th Street, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

 

 

2)

I am a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan in 2001, where I obtained a B.Sc. Geology. I have practiced my profession continuously since June 2001. I have been registered as a Professional Geoscientist since 2010. My experience that is relevant to the scope of this Technical Report is:

 

 

Exploration Manager for UEX Corporation from January to September 2021, Vice President, Exploration from October, 2021 to December 1, 2022, and Vice President Exploration, Canada from December 1, 2022 to present, where I guide field teams in the planning and execution of field programs and perform generative and evaluative work for the company. In these roles, I am the senior technical person of responsibility in the company.

 

 

Chief Geologist for UEX Corporation July 2017 to January 2021, where I supported field activities and performed generative and evaluative work for the company. In this role, I was a senior person of technical responsibility in the company.

 

 

Contract Geologist for UEX Corporation from January 2017 to June 2017, where I participated in the execution of the Christie Lake field program and performed property evaluation and regional compilation work. In this role, I was depended upon for significant participation and decision making.

 

 

Contract Geologist for Forum Uranium November 2016, where I participated in an exploration program to explore for uranium in Saskatchewan.

 

 

District Geologist, Cameco Corporation from April 2012 to October 2016, where I was regional management in support of multiple exploration project teams. I helped to design, implement, and allocate exploration budgets between projects to advance uranium exploration field programs in Saskatchewan, which included uranium discoveries on the Read Lake, Mann Lake, and Hughes Lake projects. I helped plan and oversee the drill program to evaluate the uranium resource at Cigar Lake Phase II. In this role, I was in a senior technical position of responsibility.

 

 

Project Geologist, Cameco Corporation from April 2008 to March 2012, where I was responsible for the project-level management of uranium exploration programs in northern Saskatchewan at the Rabbit Lake and McArthur River mine sites. My work at Rabbit Lake included the discovery and delineation of a new zone of mineralization at Eagle Point. My work at McArthur River was focused on the on-going evaluation of the P2 trend north and south from the mine workings. During this time, I was in a position of responsibility and was depended upon for significant participation and decision-making.

 

 

Geologist III for Cameco Corporation from Nov 2006 to Jan 2008, where I was responsible for uranium exploration projects in northern Saskatchewan, including what is now the LaRocque East property, the Dawn Lake property including evaluation drilling at the Tamarack Deposit and drilling at the Wolf Lake Zone on the Studer Option Property. This role is transitionary, moving a person from a role involving independent judgement to a role of participation and decision-making.

 

139

 

 

Geologist II, Cameco Corporation from April 2004 to March 2008, where I participated in the successful execution and management of uranium field exploration programs, including evaluation drilling at the Tamarack Deposit and  exploration drilling at the Dawn Lake “11” and “14” zones on the Dawn Lake property and participated in exploration in Cameco’s Australian projects. This role requires the exhibition of independent judgement and occasionally decision-making with respect to the execution of exploration programs.

 

 

Exploration Geologist for DeBeers Canada Exploration June 2001 to March 2004, where I participated in and managed exploration programs to explore for, delineate and evaluate diamond deposits in Northwest Territory, Nunavut and Saskatchewan.

 

 

3)

I am a Professional Geoscientist registered with the Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS#12985) since June 2010.

 

 

4)

I have personally inspected the subject project and was on site on between June 9 to 17, 2021.

 

 

5)

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (S-K 1300) and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300.

 

 

6)

I have had no involvement with the subject property prior to my employment at UEX Corporation.

 

 

7)

As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, this technical report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.

 

 

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 25th day of March, 2024.

 

 

 

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

 

 

 

 

 /s/ Christopher Hamel

 

March 25, 2024

 

 

 

 

 

Christopher Hamel, P.Geo. (APEGS#12985)

Vice President Exploration, Canada
UEC Corporation

 

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

 

To accompany the report entitled: 2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan with an effective date of March 1, 2024, and a signature date of March 25, 2024.

 

I, Nathan Barsi, do hereby certify that:

 

1)

I am the Exploration Manager with the firm of UEX Corporation with an office at 724 66th Street Millar Avenue, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

 

2)

I am a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan in 2007, where I obtained a B.Sc. Geology. I have practiced my profession continuously since May 2007. I have been registered as a Professional Geoscientist since 2015. My experience that is relevant to the scope of this Technical Report is:

 

 

Exploration Manager, UEX Corporation from April 2023 to present, where I am responsible for managing all aspects of our exploration portfolio. I guide our exploration staff in the planning and execution of field programs, most recently Christie Lake and Roughrider projects. I perform generative work on our portfolio to build suitable exploration programs for our projects from early (greenfields) stage to late (brownfields) stage. With this role I am in a senior technical position of responsibility.

 

 

District Geologist, UEX Corporation from October 2021 to March 2023, where I am regional management in support of multiple exploration project teams. I helped to design, implement, and allocate exploration budgets between projects to advance uranium and cobalt nickel exploration field programs in Saskatchewan that included Christie Lake, Hidden Bay, and West Bear. In this role, I am in a senior technical position of responsibility.

 

 

Senior Geologist, UEX Corporation from February 2021 to October 2021, where I managed the West Bear and Hidden Bay exploration projects and lead the team that discovered the Michael Lake Cobalt and Nickel zone. I completed in house mineral resource estimates for various properties. In this role, I am in a senior technical position of responsibility.

 

 

Project Geologist for, UEX Corporation from 2018 to January 2021, where I was responsible for the project-level management of uranium exploration programs in northern Saskatchewan. I was responsible for managing and exploration on the West Bear Project from discovery of the maiden Cobalt Nickel Resource (2018) to resource definition drilling and mineral resource modelling and estimation of the deposits (2019). I also completed generative work for future drill programs on multiple projects in the Athabasca Basin and filled in as the Project Geologist for Christie Lake. During this time, I was in a position of responsibility and depended upon for significant participation and decision-making.

 

 

Contract Geologist, UEX Corporation from December 2016 to December 2017, where I participated in exploration program for uranium on the Christie Lake project.

 

 

Project Geologist, Cameco Corporation from April 2014 to October 2016, where I was responsible for the management of uranium field exploration programs in northern Saskatchewan. During this time, I was in a position of responsibility and depended upon for significant participation and decision-making.

 

141

 

 

Geologist III, Cameco Corporation from 2014 to 2011 Millennium, where I was responsible for uranium exploration projects in northern Saskatchewan, including mineral resource and geotechnical drilling at the Millennium deposit. In 2011, I worked in the Alligator River Uranium Field in the Northern Territory of Australia. I was an integral part of the exploration team that found the Angularli unconformity uranium deposit and developed further follow up targets with the team. This role is transitionary, moving a person from a role involving independent judgement to a role of participation and decision-making.

 

 

Geologist II, Cameco Corporation from 2011 to 2009, where I participated in the successful execution and management of uranium field exploration programs at the Centennial Deposit in the Athabasca Basin and the Otish Project in the Otish Basin in Quebec. I toured and reviewed the Matoush deposit model in the Otish Basin, a style of mineralization that was atypical of an unconformity or basement-hosted deposit. This role requires the exhibition of independent judgement and occasionally decision-making with respect to the execution of exploration programs.

 

 

Geologist I, Cameco Corporation from 2009 to 2007, where I participated in the successful execution and management of uranium field exploration programs, including resource drilling at the Millennium Deposit and Tamarack Deposit and exploration drilling at the surrounding property of the Millennium Deposit, Rabbit Lake Mine and Dawn Lake projects. I toured mining and milling facilities at Mcclean Lake Mine and Rabbit Lake Mine and have observed unconformity and basement uranium mineralization in mining stopes and pit walls.

 

3)

I am a professional Geoscientist registered with the Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS#15012) since March of 2015.

 

4)

I have personally inspected the Horseshoe-Raven Project site and was on site on between June 9 to 17, 2021.

 

5)

I have not been involved with the Horseshoe-Raven Project prior to my employment at UEX Corporation.

 

6)

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (S-K 1300) and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300.

 

7)

As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, this Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

 

 

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 25th day of March, 2024.

 

 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

 

 

 

 

 /s/ Nathan Barsi

 

 March 25, 2024

 

 

 

 

 

Nathan Barsi, P.Geo. (APEGS#15012)

District Geologist, Canada
UEC Corporation

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

 

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

 

To accompany the report entitled: 2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan with an effective date of March1, 2024, and a signature date of March 25, 2024.

 

I, Roger Lemaitre, P.Geo. P.Eng., do hereby certify that:

 

1)

I am the former President and Chief Executive Officer of UEX Corporation (“UEX”) with an office at 724 66th Street, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

 

2)

I am a graduate of Queens University in 1992, where I obtained a B.Sc. (Applied) in Geological Engineering.

 

3)

I am graduate of McGill University in 1994, where I obtained an M.Sc. (Applied) in Geology – Mineral Resources and Exploration.

 

4)

I am a graduate of Athabasca University, where I obtained a Masters of Business Administration in 2011.

 

5)

I have been registered as a Professional Engineer continuously since 1997. I have been a registered Professional Engineer with the Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of Saskatchewan since January 6, 1999 (APEGS #10647). Previously, I was registered as a Professional Engineer with Professional Engineers Ontario (former PEO #910472317) between March 11, 1997 and March 13, 2002.

 

6)

I have been a registered Professional Geoscientist with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan since January 6, 1999 (APEGS #10647). I am also a registered Professional Geoscientist with the Ordre des géologues du Québec since December 12, 2023 (OGQ Permit #10716).

 

7)

I have practiced my profession continuously since 1992. My experience that is relevant to the scope of this Technical Report includes direct involvement in generating, managing and conducting: (i) exploration activities, including the collection, supervision and review of geological, mineralization, exploration and drilling data; (ii) geological modeling; (iii) sampling, sample preparation, assaying and other resource-estimation related analyses; (iv) completion of quality control and quality assurance studies; and (v) mineral resource estimation for uranium, cobalt-nickel, zinc-lead and zinc-copper projects in Canada and worldwide. I am currently president and CEO of UEX, where since 2014 I have been responsible for managing UEX’s Athabasca uranium project portfolio and have been actively involved in review of UEX’s independent resource estimates of the West Bear Co-Ni Deposit and the Christie Lake Project, as well as the completion of internal mineral resource estimates during the evaluation of two acquisition opportunities. Prior to my role at UEX, I have had involvement with various other uranium and nickel projects, including acting as President and CEO of URU Metals Limited (“URU”), where I was responsible for URU’s uranium projects in Niger, Sweden and Canada and nickel projects in South Africa, and acting in various roles for Cameco Corporation (“Cameco”), including as director of worldwide exploration, where I was responsible for supervising Cameco’s global exploration portfolio, during which time I was responsible for the evaluation of uranium projects by conducting internal resource estimates on eleven global uranium deposits for potential acquisition by Cameco and the completion of the internal resource estimate of the Angularli deposit.

 

143

 

8)

I have personally been involved in managing drill programs for the Horseshoe-Raven Project between 2002 and 2005 and since have inspected the subject project and visited the property several times in 2019. I last visited the Horseshoe-Raven Site to inspect core and outcrop related to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits on July 23 through July 26, 2019. I was able to examine, along with the UEX technical team, the key features of the Horseshoe-Raven deposit geology and mineralizing processes in drill core.

 

9)

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (S-K 1300) and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300.

 

10)

As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report Summary not misleading.

 

 

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 25th day of March, 2024.

 

 

 

 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

 

 

 

 

 /s/ Roger Lemaitre

 

 March 25, 2024

 

 

 

 

 

Roger Lemaitre, P.Geo. (APEGS#10647)

Former President and CEO, Canada
UEX Corporation

 

 

 

 

 

 

144