10-K/A

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, 2022

☐	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 – 1030 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada	V6E 2Y3
(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. ☒

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 as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter ($2.61 on January 31, 2022) was approximately $725,158,707.

The registrant had 345,766,062 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 27, 2022.

ii

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) is filing this Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) (the “Form 10-K/A”) to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, as originally filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on September 29, 2022 (the “Original Report”), to amend the disclosure contained in Items 2, 9 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 new property disclosure requirements for registrants engaged in mining operations recently implemented by the SEC and reflected in the Original Report for the first time.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 as included after Item 16 of the Original Report have not been restated and no disclosures contained in the accompanying notes have been added to or amended in any manner.

For the convenience of the reader, this Form 10-K/A sets forth the Company’s Annual Report in its entirety, and not just those portions that have been amended since the filing of the Original Report.  Other than the amendments to the Items noted above, none of the disclosure contained in any other Item of the Original Report has been amended, updated or otherwise revised.  Furthermore, none of the Items, including the amendments as noted above, have been amended, updated or otherwise revised to reflect material subsequent events occurring after the filing date of the Original Report on September 29, 2022.  Such subsequent matters are or will be addressed in subsequent reports filed by the Company with the SEC.

Item 15 of the Original Report has been amended to contain: (i) currently dated certifications from the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer), as required by Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) and 13a-14(b), attached as Exhibits 31.1, 31.2 and 32.1 to this Form 10-K/A; (ii) a currently dated consent of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, attached as Exhibit 23.1 to this Form 10-K/A; (iii) 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, 23.3. 23.4. 23.5. 23.6 and 23.7 to this Form 10-K/A; and (iv) and each of the following and updated Technical Report Summaries in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K: (a) Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA, dated March 9, 2023; (b) Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA, dated March 9, 2023; (c) Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, TX USA, dated March 9, 2023; and (c) Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA, dated March 9, 2023; attached as Exhibits 96.3, 96.4, 96.5 and 96.6 to this Form 10-K/A.

__________

iii

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Form 10-K Annual Report and any documents incorporated herein by reference (collectively, the “Annual Report”) include statements and information about our strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for the future that are not statements or information of historical fact. These statements and information are considered to be forward-looking statements, or forward-looking information, within the meaning of and under the protection provided by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and similar Canadian securities laws.

Forward-looking statements, and any estimates and assumptions upon which they are based, are made in good faith and reflect our views and expectations for the future as of the date of this Annual Report, which can change significantly. Furthermore, forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties which may cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, forward-looking statements in this Annual Report should not be unduly relied upon.

Forward-looking statements may be based on a number of material estimates and assumptions, of which any one or more may prove to be incorrect. Forward-looking statements may be identifiable by terminology concerning the future, such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “forecast”, “intend”, “goal”, “likely”, “may”, “might”, “outlook”, “plan”, “predict”, “potential”, “project”, “should”, “schedule”, “strategy”, “target”, “will” or “would”, and similar expressions or variations thereof including the negative use of such terminology. Examples in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, such forward-looking statements reflecting or pertaining to:

● our overall strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2022 (“Fiscal 2022”) and beyond;

● our expectations for worldwide nuclear power generation and future uranium supply and demand, including long-term market prices for uranium;

● our belief and expectations of in-situ recovery mining for our uranium projects, where applicable;

● our estimation of mineralized materials, which are based on certain estimates and assumptions, and the economics of future extraction for our uranium projects including our Palangana Mine and our recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mine (collectively, the “ISR Mines”);

● our plans and expectations including anticipated expenditures relating to exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and reclamation activities for our uranium projects including our ISR Mines;

● our ability to obtain, maintain and amend, within a reasonable period of time, required rights, permits and licenses from landowners, governments and regulatory authorities;

● our ability to obtain adequate additional financing including access to the equity and credit markets;

● our ability to remain in compliance with the terms of our indebtedness; and

● our belief and expectations including the possible impact of any legal proceedings or regulatory actions against the Company.

Forward-looking statements, and any estimates and assumptions upon which they are based, are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and we do not intend or undertake to revise, update or supplement any forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, future events or changes in estimates and assumptions or other factors affecting such forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws. Should one or more forward-looking statements be revised, updated or supplemented, no inference should be made that we will revise, update or supplement any other forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties. As discussed in more detail under Item 1A. Risk Factors herein, we have identified a number of material risks and uncertainties which reflect our outlook and conditions known to us as of the date of this Annual Report, including but not limited to the following:

● our limited financial and operating history;

● our need for additional financing;

● our ability to service our indebtedness;

● our limited uranium extraction and sales history;

iv

● our operations are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, of which many are beyond our control;

● our exploration activities on our mineral properties may not result in commercially recoverable quantities of uranium;

● limits to our insurance coverage;

● the level of government regulation, including environmental regulation;

● changes in governmental regulation and administrative practices;

● nuclear incidents;

● the marketability of uranium concentrates;

● the competitive environment in which we operate;

● our dependence on key personnel; and

● conflicts of interest of our directors and officers.

Any one of the foregoing material risks and uncertainties has the potential to cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by any forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf. Furthermore, there is no assurance that we will be successful in preventing the material adverse effects that any one or more of these material risks and uncertainties may cause on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, or that the foregoing list represents a complete list of the material risks and uncertainties facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of a material nature that, as of the date of this Annual Report, we are unaware of or that we consider immaterial that may become material in the future, any one or more of which may result in a material adverse effect on us.

Forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary information.

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. RESIDENTS CONCERNING DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESOURCES

The Company is a U.S. Domestic Issuer for United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) purposes, most of its shareholders are U.S. residents, the Company is required to report its financial results under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and its only trading market is the NYSE American.  However, because the Company is a reporting issuer in Canada, certain prior regulatory filings required of the Company in Canada contain or incorporate by reference therein certain disclosure that satisfies the additional requirements of Canadian securities laws, which differ from the requirements of United States’ securities laws.  Unless otherwise indicated, all Company resource estimates included in those Canadian filings, and in the documents incorporated by reference therein, had been prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum classification system.  NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators which establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects.

Canadian standards, including NI 43-101, differ significantly from the requirements of SEC Industry Guide 7, as defined in the Glossary of Technical Terms (“Industry Guide 7”).  Thus, resource information contained, or incorporated by reference, in our Canadian filings, and in the documents incorporated by reference therein, may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by companies reporting “reserve” and resource information under SEC Industry Guide 7.

v

SEC Industry Guide 7 disclosure standards historically have not permitted the inclusion of information concerning “Measured Mineral Resources,” “Indicated Mineral Resources” or “Inferred Mineral Resources” or other descriptions of the amount of mineralization in mineral deposits that do not constitute “reserves” by SEC Industry Guide 7 standards.  United States investors should also understand that “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility.  It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an “Inferred Mineral Resource” will ever be upgraded to a higher category.  Under Canadian rules, estimated “Inferred Mineral Resources” may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies.  United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted into mineral “reserves” as defined by SEC Industry Guide 7.  Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an “Inferred Mineral Resource” exists or is economically or legally mineable.  The Company does not have any mineral “reserves” within the meaning of SEC Industry Guide 7.

On October 31, 2018, the SEC adopted the Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants (the “New Rule”), introducing significant changes to the existing mining disclosure framework to better align it with international industry and regulatory practice, including NI 43-101.  The New Rule became effective as of February 25, 2019, and issuers are required to comply with the New Rule as of the annual report for their first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and earlier in certain circumstances.  The Company believes that it is now complying with the New Rule in accordance with the filing of this Annual Report and its related filings.

REFERENCES

As used in this Annual Report: (i) the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, “Uranium Energy”, “UEC” and the “Company” mean Uranium Energy Corp., including our wholly-owned subsidiaries and a controlled partnership; (ii) “SEC” refers to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission; (iii) “Securities Act” refers to the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (iv) “Exchange Act” refers to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (v) all dollar amounts refer to United States dollars unless otherwise indicated.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I	2
Item 1. Business	2
Item 1A. Risk Factors	15
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments	27
Item 2. Description of Properties	28
Item 3.  Legal Proceedings	215
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures	215
PART II	216
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	216
Item 6. Selected Financial Data	220
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	220
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	236
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	236
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	237
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures	237
Item 9B. Other Information	238
Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	238
Part III	239
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	239
Item 11. Executive Compensation	245
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	270
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	271
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services	272
Part IV	273
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	273
Item 16. Form 10-K Summary	277

1

PART I

Item 1. Business

Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC: NYSE AMERICAN) is a fast growing, uranium mining company listed on the NYSE American. UEC is working towards fueling the global demand for carbon-free nuclear energy, a key solution to climate change, and energy source for the low-carbon future.

UEC is a pure-play uranium company and is advancing its next generation of low-cost, environmentally friendly, In-Situ Recovery (“ISR”) mining uranium projects. The Company has two extraction ready ISR hub and spoke platforms in South Texas and Wyoming, anchored by fully licensed and operational processing capacity at its Hobson and Irigaray plants.

UEC also has seven U.S. ISR uranium projects with all of their major permits in place, with additional diversified holdings of uranium assets across the U.S., Canada and Paraguay.

We believe nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of the energy transition and the energy mix of a future low carbon economy. As such, we are focused on scaling our business to meet the future energy needs for nuclear in the U.S. and globally.

Corporate Organization

Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 under the name Carlin Gold Inc. During 2004 we changed our business operations and focus from precious metals exploration to uranium exploration in the United States. On January 24, 2005, we completed a reverse stock split of our common stock on the basis of one share for each two outstanding shares and amended our Articles of Incorporation to change our name to Uranium Energy Corp. Effective February 28, 2006, we completed a forward stock split of our common stock on the basis of 1.5 shares for each outstanding share and amended our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized capital from 75,000,000 shares of common stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share, to 750,000,000 shares of common stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share. In June 2007 we changed our fiscal year end from December 31^st to July 31^st (in each instance our “Fiscal” year now).

On December 31, 2007, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Resources Ltd., under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada. On December 18, 2009, we acquired a 100% interest in the South Texas Mining Venture, L.L.P. (“STMV”), a Texas limited liability partnership, from each of URN Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., and Everest Exploration, Inc. On September 3, 2010, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Paraguay Corp., under the laws of the State of Nevada. On May 24, 2011, we acquired a 100% interest in Piedra Rica Mining S.A., a private company incorporated in Paraguay. On September 9, 2011, we acquired a 100% interest in Concentric Energy Corp. (“Concentric”), a private company incorporated in the State of Nevada.  On March 30, 2012, we acquired a 100% interest in Cue Resources Ltd. (“Cue”), a formerly publicly-traded company incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. On March 4, 2016, we acquired a 100% interest in JDL Resources Inc., a private company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. On July 7, 2017, we acquired a 100% interest in CIC Resources (Paraguay) Inc., a private company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. On August 9, 2017, we acquired a 100% interest in AUC Holdings (US), Inc. (“AUC”). On January 31, 2018, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Resources (SK) Corp., under the laws of the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada. On December 17, 2021, we acquired a 100% interest in Uranium One Americas, Inc. (“U1A”) (now UEC Wyoming Corp.).

Our principal office is located at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3.

2

General Business

UEC’s goal is to provide the much needed fuel for the global energy transition. The International Energy Outlook projects that worldwide electricity generation will grow by 1.8% per year, through to 2050. As the global community calls on all governments and industries to curb their carbon emissions to stop the effects of climate change, there is growing need to combine intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, with one or more “firm” zero-carbon sources, such as nuclear energy, to ensure the affordability and accessibility of the net-zero electricity grid.

We are predominantly engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay.  We utilize ISR mining where possible which we believe, when compared to conventional open pit or underground mining, requires lower capital and operating expenditures with a shorter lead time to extraction and a reduced impact on the environment. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our uranium projects in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.  We have one uranium mine located in the State of Texas, our Palangana Mine, which utilizes ISR mining and commenced extraction of uranium oxide (“U₃O₈”), or yellowcake, in November 2010. We have one uranium processing facility located in the State of Texas, our Hobson Processing Facility, which processes material from our ISR Mines into drums of U₃O₈, our only sales product and source of revenue, for shipping to a third-party storage and sales facility.  Since commencement of uranium extraction from our ISR Mines in November 2010 to July 31, 2022, our Hobson Processing Facility has processed 578,000 pounds of U₃O₈. As at July 31, 2022, we had no uranium supply or “off-take” agreements in place.

Our fully-licensed and 100%-owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically in the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson Processing Facility acts as the central processing site (the “hub”) for our Palangana Mine and future satellite uranium mining activities, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (the “spokes”). The Hobson Processing Facility has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually and is licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually.

As at July 31, 2022, we hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our uranium projects in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.

Our operating and strategic framework is based on expanding our uranium extraction activities, which includes advancing certain uranium projects with established mineralized materials towards uranium extraction, and establishing additional mineralized materials on our existing uranium projects or through acquisition of additional uranium projects.

3

Physical Uranium Program

The Company is investing in building the next generation of low-cost and environmentally friendly uranium projects that will be competitive on a global basis. Despite our focus on low cost ISR mining with its low capital requirements, we saw a unique opportunity to purchase drummed uranium at prevailing spot prices which are below most global industry mining costs. Hence, we established a physical uranium portfolio (the “Physical Uranium Program”) and, as of the date of this Annual Report, have entered into agreements to purchase 5.5 million pounds of U.S. warehoused uranium of which various deliveries have, or are scheduled to occur, in March 2022 to December 2025 at the ConverDyn conversion facility located in Metropolis, Illinois, at a volume weighted average price of approximately $37.30 per pound.

Our Physical Uranium Program will support three objectives for our Company: (i) to bolster our balance sheet as uranium prices appreciate; (ii) to provide strategic inventory to support future marketing efforts with utilities that could compliment production and accelerate cash flows; and (iii) to increase the availability of our Texas and Wyoming production capacity for emerging U.S. origin specific opportunities which may command premium pricing due to the scarcity of domestic uranium. One such U.S. origin specific opportunity is the Company’s plan to participate in supplying the Uranium Reserve, as outlined in the Nuclear Fuel Working Group report published by the U.S. Department of Energy (the “UR”). 

During the year ended July 31, 2022 (“Fiscal 2022”), we made significant advancements in various aspects of our operations, including:

● we completed the acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. (“U1A”) on December 17, 2021, pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement dated November 8, 2021 (the “U1A Acquisition”). The acquisition of U1A (now UEC Wyoming Corp.) represented a unique opportunity to acquire an advanced asset base from a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., one of the global leaders in the nuclear industry, and to double the Company’s production capacity in three key categories: total number of permitted U.S. ISR projects; resources; and processing infrastructure;

● we repaid the remaining $10 million balance of our secured credit facility on January 31, 2022 and are now completely debt free;

● we completed and filed technical report summaries (each, a “TRS report”) in accordance with Item 1302 of Regulation S-K (the “S-K 1300”) disclosing mineral resources for each of our Reno Creek, Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke, Anderson and Yuty Projects on February 8, 2022, April 4, 2022, July 12, 2022 and July 19, 2022, respectively.

● we launched our environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) program and achieved several key milestones;

● we completed installation of the monitor well ring at Production Area 1 of our Burke Hollow Project;

● the Company’s shares remain included on the Russell 2000 and Russell 3000 indexes; and

● we secured an additional 1,816,000 pounds of U.S. warehoused uranium, expanding our Physical Uranium Program to 5.5 million pounds U₃O₈, with delivery dates out to December 2025 at a volume weighted average price of approximately $37.30 per pound.

4

Uranium Industry Background

Since the ratification of the Paris Agreement; a legally binding international treaty on climate change that was adopted by 196 parties in Paris on December 15, 2015 and entered into on November 6, 2016; the global community has embarked on a challenging but necessary journey to decarbonize the global energy mix in order to limit global warming to well below a two degree scenario compared to pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement reaffirms that developed countries should take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable, while for the first time also encouraging voluntary contributions by other parties. Climate finance is needed for mitigation, because large-scale investments are required to significantly reduce emissions.

According to the International Energy Agency (“IEA”), in order to meet net-zero by 2050 global goals, the global community will need to halt sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars by 2035, and phase out all unabated coal and oil power plants by 2040.

Nuclear energy will play a key role in the future energy mix, due to its consistency and reliability, which other carbon-free energy sources are unable to provide in their current form. According to research conducted by Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, powering the grid with 100% renewables is not the most affordable path towards creating a carbon-free grid. Instead, this research has concluded that the best way to achieve net-zero emissions from the grid is to combine intermittent low-carbon sources, such as wind and solar, with one or more “firm” zero-carbon sources, such as nuclear energy (source: Nuclear Energy: Essential Clean Energy For a Low Carbon Economy, Nuclear Energy Institute).

The need for safe, reliable, pollution-free electricity continues to rise as the world’s population grows to new record levels. The world’s population of 8 billion in 2022 is projected to increase over 1% per year to a population near 8.6 billion by 2030. The need for more electricity and efforts to reach global climate change goals with clean energy sources are increasingly important drivers for the projected long-term increase in nuclear power and uranium demand.

There has been a new and vibrant interest in nuclear power as more countries realize that nuclear power is indispensable for decarbonizing the globe, stabilizing electrical grids and supplementing intermittent power sources. Elevated interest in nuclear power has also been one of the results of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with Russia cutting off gas supplies to Western Europe. The lack of alternative energy sources has exposed the risks to national security for these countries as a result of their Russian over dependency, and indigenous nuclear power is proving to be a good option to mitigate that threat. The world’s current operating fleet of nuclear power plants, in addition to the global growth in new reactors under construction and those planned, is testimony to the confidence in nuclear power to provide safe, highly reliable, economic and carbon free electricity as part of an overall energy supply mix.

The World Nuclear Association (“WNA”) reported: “nuclear reactors generated a total of 2653 TWh in 2021, up 100 TWh from 2553 TWh in 2020. This is the third highest ever total for global generation from nuclear… and reestablishes the upward trend in nuclear generation seen since 2012.” The IEA World Energy Outlook in 2021 projected “electricity generation growth of between 75% and 116% over 2020-2050 across its three main scenarios. In the report’s Sustainable Development Scenario, “nuclear generation increases by 2022 TWh (75%) over the same period, requiring capacity growth of about 254 GW, or 61%.” As of July 31, 2022, the IAEA Power Reactor Information System shows more than 6 GWe of new nuclear capacity has been added in 2022 while 1.85 GWe has been retired, and construction has begun on four new reactors this year with a total capacity of 4.6 GWe. 

As of July 2022, WNA data showed a total of 443 nuclear reactors operable in 32 countries, with a combined capacity of about 394 GWe. Their data also showed 59 new reactors under construction, 89 reactors planned or on order and another 340 proposed. While most of the growth in nuclear power is coming from countries like China and Russia, there is also notable growth in other countries, including India and the United Arab Emirates. Some of these countries have embarked on sovereign-backed uranium acquisition programs, building inventory stockpiles for their future requirements. This also includes substantial long-term contracting with western suppliers and taking controlling interests in individual mines. In addition, Russia, China and South Korea are aggressively pursuing programs to sell their reactors around the globe. In many cases the sales agreements contain turnkey provisions, including uranium supply as a component of the reactor package that will require far more uranium than they currently produce. As such, they will need to carve out large supply sources in the coming years.

5

While global generation from nuclear power has eclipsed pre-Fukushima levels, Japan restarts have been slower than expected. As of August 1, 2022, a total of 26 reactors had applied for restart, including ten reactors that have restarted. More restarts are expected as Japan completes additional safety programs and ramps back up towards a policy goal of 20 to 22 percent of their total electrical generation from nuclear power by 2030. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida recently said he has asked for as many as nine nuclear reactors to be online this coming winter to help offset expected power shortages.

The United States has the world’s largest nuclear fleet and produces about 30% of the world’s nuclear generation. The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) Energy Information Administration reported U.S. nuclear plants continued to be the nation’s most reliable energy source with an average capacity factor of more than 93 percent this past year. For context, capacity factors for other sources of energy were natural gas (54%), coal (49%), wind (35%) and solar (25%). In 2021, nuclear plants provided more than half of U.S carbon free energy and about 20% of its total generation. As of August 2022, the operating U.S. reactor fleet stands at 92 reactors, with two new commercial reactors under construction (Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia). While some U.S. reactors have been shut down prematurely, the overall generating capacity remains strong as a result of plant reactor upgrade programs and license extensions. In terms of uranium demand, the U.S. nuclear fleet is the world’s largest uranium consumer and has averaged about 46 million pounds of uranium a year over the past decade.

Regarding uranium supply, the WNA’s 2021 Fuel Report noted: “regardless of the particular scenario in the long term, the industry needs to at least double its development pipeline of new projects by 2040”. And they also noted: “Over the longer term, the Reference Scenario shows demand for uranium growing by 3.1% compound average growth rate.” The 2021 report also noted that in all scenarios “world reactor requirements for uranium in 2040 are approximately 12% higher” than in the previous 2019 report. World base case uranium demand is forecasted to be about 204 million pounds U₃O₈ in 2022, exceeding the 134 million pounds of projected production by about 70 million pounds (source: UxC 2022 Q2 UMO). While the difference between primary production and reactor demand is currently being filled with secondary market supplies, this is not a sustainable long-term supply source. Projections from UxC 2022 Q2 MO show secondary market supplies dropping to less than 24 million pounds per year over the next 4 years.

The U.S. uranium mining industry was formerly the world’s largest producer but is now producing virtually no uranium. The United States has become almost entirely dependent on foreign supply, with about 60% being imported from State Owned Enterprises (“SOE”) in Russia and other former Soviet Union (“FSU”) countries, including Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. However, actions taken by the U.S. federal government over the past couple of years have culminated in a foundation for the industry to recover. Most notably, the prior administration established the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group (“NFWG”) comprised of various government agencies “to develop recommendations for reviving and expanding domestic nuclear fuel production”.

The NFWG recommendations were released in a report entitled, “Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage”. The report broadly advocates for increased U.S. leadership in nuclear energy, both at home and abroad, with a focus on U.S. national security objectives that includes lessening dependence on SOE supply. Uranium mining is the starting point in the strategy with a program to purchase 17 to 19 million pounds of U.S. uranium for a strategic Uranium Reserve. That Administration’s policy outlined a 10-year, $1.5 billion UR program.  In 2020, the U.S. Congress approved $75 million for initial funding for fiscal year 2021. In July of 2022, the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (“NNSA”) issued Requests for Proposals (“RFP”) to the U.S. producers that had produced uranium since 2009, for an initial quantity of up to 1 million pounds of domestic uranium. Results of the NNSA RFP are expected to be known this year at the end of September.

The global uranium market suffered a long downturn after peaking in 2007 at $138 per pound U₃O₈ that was followed by a rebound and then a subsequent drop of about 75% from early 2011 into the 2016 low of $17.75 per pound.  However, the market has been showing a slow recovery since, and was up by approximately 175% going into August 2022 from the 2016 low. Global fundamentals are in process of rebalancing the uranium market and driving an improvement in the price of uranium. Significant purchasing by producers to fill long-term supply contracts, as well as financial entities buying significant quantities of uranium for appreciation purposes, have all been contributing to the upward movement in uranium prices. Other factors that have affected global production include production shutdowns or reductions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic that removed almost 20 million pounds of production in 2020 that will not be made up. While most of the impacted mines have or are in the process of ramping back up operations, there are still lingering factors affecting production. In early August, the world’s largest producer (Kazatomprom) announced the pandemic “disrupted the overall production supply chain in 2021, resulting in a shortage of certain production materials, such as reagents and piping which led to a shift in the commissioning schedule for new wellfields.”

6

This year the nuclear fuel markets have experienced a fundamental change after Russia invaded Ukraine with western utilities beginning an almost immediate shift away from Russian supply. Industry consultant “TradeTech” reported that the new trend “is foreshadowing a potential bifurcation in the nuclear fuel markets.” While the markets are still sorting out what all the impacts might be, one of the more likely postulated outcomes is a western market that will not receive much if any supply from suppliers in the Commonwealth of Independent States (the “CIS”). The CIS includes Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan that together supplied about 60% of U.S. uranium requirements in 2021, a new record high from these FSU countries. Most western utilities with suppliers in the CIS are already pursing increased diversification strategies with supply options from the U.S and its allies that are in more stable jurisdictions. While sanctions banning some Russian energy sources have been implemented in the U.S., there has not been a ban placed on Russian uranium to date, although legislation has been introduced to do so. Transportation issues are also impacting uranium supply with routes through Russian ports or supply on Russian vessels running into legal constraints. While alternate routes are being worked on (i.e. the Caspian Sea), to date these routes are not fully functioning.  As a result, there has been additional buying on the spot market by the impacted suppliers.

Ultimately, the forces of supply and demand will dictate the uranium market’s future direction. While the global market has clearly improved since the 2016 low, we still expect several major drivers to further bolster prices. Higher priced contracts that have supported high production costs have largely rolled out of producer and utility supply portfolios. These higher priced contracts are not expected to be replaceable with current market prices still below levels needed to sustain profitable mining operations for many western producers. Several projects that have produced significant quantities of uranium for many years have been shut down as a result of resource depletion and the WNA notes: “more mines are expected to close over the next decade”. SOE supply is also likely to be reduced in the U.S. and Western European markets with the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that has exposed serious national security risks to those countries with overdependence on Russian energy sources. Global supply demand numbers are showing a cumulative structural supply deficit of approximately 440 M lbs in 2022 through 2032, despite several new production projects expected to come online. The supply dynamics in western countries are still unfolding, as western utilities look to explore and secure alternative supply options in more stable jurisdictions.

On the demand side of the equation, further upside market pressure also appears likely to evolve as utilities return to a longer-term contracting cycle to replace expiring contracts. Utilities will most likely need to do a lot more contracting in upcoming years with more than 50% of their requirements showing uncommitted by 2029. That factor and the growing recognition that nuclear power will need to be part of the solution to meet climate change objectives underpin a solid growth story for long term uranium producers.

As these and other market forces unfold, the secondary market supply is forecasted to become a less important driver, paving the way for a more production cost driven market. Lead times for new production typically range from seven to 10 years or longer. The market appears to be within the time frames required for investment to bring new supply online to meet those lead times. While some producers have announced restart plans, prices are not yet at levels that incentivize future production for many producers, increasing the probability of the potential for less supply than the market is currently pricing in.

Titanium (TiO2) Industry Updates

During Fiscal 2022, the market fundamentals for titanium dioxide remained positive. There is no economical substitute or environmentally safe alternative to titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide is used in many “quality of life” products for which demand historically has been linked to global gross domestic product (“GDP”), ongoing urbanization trends and discretionary spending.  90% of all the mined titanium feedstocks are used to manufacture pure titanium dioxides – a pigment that enhances brightness and opacity in paints, inks, paper, plastics, food products and cosmetics. The remaining 10% of supply is used in the production of titanium metal and steel fabrication.

7

Demand for titanium feedstocks, such as ilmenite, is closely tied to titanium dioxide pigment demand. The global titanium pigment demand fundamentals are underpinned by urbanization and rising living standards and as such the long-term demand fundamentals remain robust. Demand for titanium pigment rebounded strongly during the first half of 2022 due to global economic growth, while the supply of titanium dioxide feedstock was impacted due to difficulties encountered by some producers which had a direct effect on prices. Existing producers continue to report increasing ilmenite prices due to low inventories throughout the supply chain with prices and demand expected to remain robust throughout 2022.

In addition to above mentioned supply constraints, the nature of feedstock supply is also changing. China, the world’s largest feedstock market, is increasingly more reliant on higher quality feedstocks. Chinese domestic ilmenite is mainly unsuitable for processing under the stricter environmental regulations and, as such, the long-term global shift towards chloride pigment production will continue to drive overall high-quality feedstock demand and prices.  

In our view, what appear to be longer-term supply and demand fundamentals and, more specifically, the long-term global shift towards higher grade feedstocks, have the potential to keep upward pressure on high-quality feedstock prices.

In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Mining

We utilize in-situ recovery or ISR uranium mining for our South Texas projects as well as our Reno Creek Project in Wyoming, and will continue to utilize ISR mining whenever such alternative is available to conventional mining. When compared to conventional mining, ISR mining requires lower capital expenditures, has a reduced impact on the environment, and results in a shorter lead time to uranium recovery.

ISR mining is considered considerably more environmentally friendly compared to alternative, traditional mining approaches, as the ISR process does not require blasting or waste rock movement, resulting in less damage to the environment, minimal dust, and no resulting tailings or tailings facilities. Further, ISR mining is more discrete and, therefore, land access does not typically have to be restricted, and the area may be restored to its pre-mining usage faster than when applying traditional mining approaches.

ISR mining involves circulating oxidized water through an underground uranium deposit, dissolving the uranium and then pumping the uranium-rich solution to the surface for processing. Oxidizing solution enters the formation through a series of injection wells and is drawn to a series of communicating extraction wells. To create a localized hydrologic cone of depression in each wellfield, more groundwater will be produced than injected. Under this gradient, the natural groundwater movement from the surrounding area is toward the wellfield, providing control of the injection fluid. Over-extraction is adjusted as necessary to maintain a cone of depression which ensures that the injection fluid does not move outside the permitted area.

The uranium-rich solution is pumped from an ore zone to the surface and circulated through a series of ion exchange columns located at the mine site. The solution flows through resin beds inside an ion exchange column where the uranium bonds to small resin beads. As the solution exits the ion exchange column, it is mostly void of uranium and is re-circulated back to the wellfield and through the ore zone. Once the resin beads are fully-loaded with uranium, they are transported by truck to our Hobson Processing Facility and transferred to a tank for flushing with a brine solution, or elution, which strips the uranium from the resin beads. The stripped resin beads are then transported back to the mine and reused in the ion exchange columns. The uranium solution, now free from the resin, is precipitated out and concentrated into a slurry mixture and fed to a filter press to remove unwanted solids and contaminants. The slurry is then dried in a zero-emissions rotary vacuum dryer, packed in metal drums and shipped out as uranium concentrates, or yellowcake, to a conversion facility for storage and sales.

Each project is divided into a mining unit, known as a Production Area Authorization (“PAA”), which lies inside an approved Mine Permit Boundary. Each PAA will be developed, extracted and restored as one unit and will have its own set of monitor wells. It is common to have multiple PAAs in extraction at any one time with additional units in various states of exploration, pre-extraction and/or restoration.

8

After mining is complete in a PAA, aquifer restoration will begin as soon as practicable and will continue until the groundwater is restored to pre-mining conditions. Once restoration is complete, a stability period of no less than one year is scheduled with quarterly baseline and monitor well sampling. Wellfield reclamation will follow after aquifer restoration is complete and the stability period has passed.

Hobson Processing Facility

Our Hobson Processing Facility is located in Karnes County, Texas, about 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi. It was originally licensed and constructed in 1978, serving as the hub for several satellite mining projects until 1996, and completely refurbished in 2008. On December 18, 2009, we acquired the Hobson Processing Facility as part of our acquisition of STMV.

With a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually and licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually, our fully-licensed and 100%-owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our “hub-and-spoke” strategy in the State of Texas, specifically in the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining.

Palangana Mine

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements generally having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at our Palangana Mine, a 6,406-acre property located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 100 miles south of the Hobson Processing Facility. These agreements are subject to certain royalty and overriding royalty interests indexed to the sales price of uranium.

On December 18, 2009, we acquired the Palangana Mine as part of our acquisition of STMV. In November 2010, the Palangana Mine commenced uranium extraction utilizing ISR mining and in January 2011 the Hobson Processing Facility began processing resins received from the Palangana Mine.

Material Relationships Including Long-Term Delivery Contracts

As at July 31, 2022, we had no uranium supply or “off-take” agreements in place.

Given that there are up to approximately 60 different companies as potential buyers in the uranium market, we are not substantially dependent upon any single customer to purchase uranium extracted by us.

Seasonality

The timing of our uranium concentrate sales is dependent upon factors such as extraction results from our mining activities, cash requirements, contractual requirements and perception of the uranium market. As a result, our sales are neither tied to nor dependent upon any particular season. In addition, our ability to extract and process uranium does not change on a seasonal basis. Over the past ten years uranium prices have tended to decline during the calendar third quarter before rebounding during the fourth quarter, but there does not appear to be a strong correlation.

Mineral Rights

In Texas our mineral rights are held exclusively through private leases from the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. In general, these leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only including surface access rights for an initial term of five years and renewal for a second five-year term. We have amended the majority of the leases to extend the time period for an additional five years past the original five-year renewal periods. Our Burke Hollow and some of our Goliad Project leases have a fixed royalty amount based on net proceeds from sales of uranium, and our other projects have production royalties calculated on a sliding-scale basis tied to the gross sales price of uranium. Remediation of a property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds.

9

In Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming our mineral rights are held either exclusively or through a combination of federal mining claims and state and private mineral leases. Remediation of a property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds. Our federal mining claims consist of both unpatented lode and placer mining claims registered with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and the appropriate counties. These claims provide for all mineral rights including surface access rights for an indefinite period. Annual maintenance requirements include BLM claim fees of $165 per claim due yearly on September 1^st.  Our state mineral leases are registered with their respective states. These leases provide for all mineral rights, including surface access rights, to be subject to a production royalty of 4% in Wyoming and 5% to 6% in Arizona, ranging from a five-year term in Arizona to a ten-year term in Wyoming. Annual maintenance requirements include lease fees of between $1 and $3 per acre and minimum exploration expenditure requirements of between $10 and $20 per acre in Arizona. Our private mineral leases are negotiated directly with the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. These leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only, including surface access rights, subject to production royalties, ranging from an initial term of five to seven years and renewal for a second five-year to seven-year term, and some of which have an initial term of 20 years.

Under the mining laws of Saskatchewan, Canada, title to mineral rights for our Diabase Project is held through The Crown Minerals Act of the Province of Saskatchewan.  In addition, The Mineral Resources Act, 1985 and The Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations affect the rights and administration of mineral tenure in Saskatchewan. Our Diabase Project lands are currently claimed as “Crown dispositions” or “mineral dispositions”. Subject to section 19 of The Crown Minerals Act, a claim grants to the holder the exclusive right to explore for any Crown minerals that are subject to these regulations within the claim lands. Claims are renewed annually and the claim holder is required to satisfy work expenditure requirements. Expenditure requirements are $Nil for the first year, $15 per hectare for the second year to the tenth year of assessment work periods and $25 per hectare for the eleventh year and subsequent assessment work periods. For registering exploration expenditures, mineral dispositions may be grouped at the time of submission if the total mineral disposition area is not greater than 18,000 hectares. The holder may also submit a cash payment or cash deposit in lieu of a work assessment submission for not more than three consecutive work periods. A claim may be converted to a mineral lease upon application and payment of a registration fee.

Under the mining laws of the Republic of Paraguay, title to mineral rights for our Yuty Project is held through a “Mineral Concession Contract” approved by the National Congress and signed between the Government of the Republic of Paraguay and the Company, and titles to mineral rights for our Oviedo Project and our Alto Paraná Titanium Project are held through “Exploration Mining Permits” granted by the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay. These mineral rights provide for the exploration of metallic and non-metallic minerals and precious and semi-precious gems within the territory of Paraguay for up to a six-year period, and for the exploitation of minerals for a minimum period of 20 years from the beginning of the production phase, extendable for an additional ten years.

Environmental, Social and Governance Overview

UEC is dedicated to preserving the environment in which we operate, and to being a responsible neighbor to our local communities. We believe in mining in a responsible manner, such as through the deployment of ISR technology when possible, adhering to all applicable environmental regulations and managing and reducing our carbon emissions. UEC believes that uranium and nuclear energy will be an important part of the energy transition as it can provide reliable and consistent power to the grid. Ensuring responsible mining practices better positions nuclear to be an energy source of choice to governments, and enables us to be a better partner and corporate citizen to our local communities.

Environmental Management

Environmental Governance

UEC approved an Environmental, Health and Safety Policy in Fiscal 2022 which sets out objectives and provides overarching guidelines for the management of the environment. This enterprise-wide policy can be found at https://www.uraniumenergy.com/about/corporate-governance/. Topics covered in this policy include the management of hazardous waste, water, biodiversity and land use, air quality and pollutants, green-house gas (“GHG”) emissions, and energy management. Adherence to and performance against this policy will be reviewed by our Board of Directors’ Sustainability Committee annually.

10

Environmental Regulations

We believe that we comply with all federal, state and local applicable laws and regulations which govern environmental quality and pollution control.  Our operations are subject to stringent environmental regulation by state and federal authorities including the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RCT”), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).

In Texas, where the Company’s hub-and-spoke operations are anchored by the fully-licensed Hobson Processing Facility, surface extraction and exploration for uranium is regulated by the RCT, while ISR uranium extraction is regulated by the TCEQ. An exploration permit is the initial permit granted by the RCT that authorizes exploration drilling activities inside an approved area. This permit authorizes specific drilling and plugging activities requiring documentation for each borehole drilled. All documentation is submitted to the RCT on a monthly basis and each borehole drilled under the exploration permit is inspected by an RCT inspector to ensure compliance. As at July 31, 2022, we held one exploration permit in each of Bee, Duval and Goliad Counties in Texas.

As an example of the regulation that guides our industry, before ISR uranium extraction can begin in Texas, a number of permits must be granted by the TCEQ.

A Mine Area Permit (“MAP”) application is required for submission to the TCEQ to establish a specific permit area boundary, aquifer exemption boundary and the mineral zones of interests or production zones. The application also includes a financial surety plan to ensure funding for all plugging and abandonment requirements. Funding for surety is in the form of cash or bonds, including an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2022, we held MAPs for our Palangana Mine and our Goliad and Burke Hollow Projects.

A Radioactive Material License (“RML”) application is also required for submission to the TCEQ for authorization to operate a uranium recovery facility. The application includes baseline environmental data for soil, vegetation, surface water and groundwater along with operational sampling frequencies and locations. A Radiation Safety Manual is a key component of the application which defines the environmental health and safety programs and procedures to protect employees and the environment. Another important component of the application is a financial surety mechanism to ensure plant and wellfield decommissioning is properly funded and maintained. Surety funding is in the form of cash or bonds, and includes an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2022, we held RMLs for our Palangana Mine, Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects and Hobson Processing Facility.

PAA applications are also required for submission to the TCEQ to establish specific extraction areas inside the MAP boundary. These are typically 30 to 100-acre units that have been delineated and contain extractible quantities of uranium. The PAA application includes baseline water quality data that is characteristic of that individual unit, proposes upper control limits for monitor well analysis and establishes restoration values. The application will also include a financial security plan for wellfield restoration and reclamation which must be funded and in place prior to commencing uranium extraction. As at July 31, 2022, we held four PAA permits for our Palangana Mine and one for our Goliad Project.

A Class I disposal well permit application is also required for submission to the TCEQ for authorization for deep underground wastewater injection. It is the primary method for disposing of excess fluid from the extraction areas and for reverse osmosis concentrate during the restoration phase. This permit authorizes injection into a specific injection zone within a designated injection interval. The permit requires continuous monitoring of numerous parameters including injection flow rate, injection pressure, annulus pressure and injection/annulus differential pressure.  Mechanical integrity testing is required initially and annually to ensure the well is mechanically sound.  Surety funding for plugging and abandonment of each well is in the form of cash or bonds, including 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2022, we held two Class I disposal well permits for each of our Hobson Processing Facility, Palangana Satellite Facility and Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects.

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) creates a regulatory program to protect groundwater and is administered by the EPA. The SDWA allows states to issue underground injection control (“UIC”) permits under two conditions: the state’s program must have been granted primacy; and the EPA must have granted an aquifer exemption upon the state’s request (an “Aquifer Exemption”). Texas, being a primacy state, is therefore authorized to grant UIC permits and makes the official requests for an Aquifer Exemption to the EPA. The Aquifer Exemption request is submitted by the Company to the TCEQ and, once approved, is then submitted by the TCEQ to the EPA for concurrence and final issuance. As at July 31, 2022, we held an Aquifer Exemption for each of our Palangana Mine and our Goliad and Burke Hollow Projects.

11

Waste Disposal

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state statutes affect mineral exploration and production activities by imposing regulations on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of “hazardous wastes” and on the disposal of non-hazardous wastes. Under the auspices of the EPA, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) imposes joint and several liability for costs of investigation and remediation and for natural resource damages, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons with respect to the release into the environment of substances designated under CERCLA as hazardous substances (collectively, “Hazardous Substances”). These classes of persons or potentially responsible parties include the current and certain past owners and operators of a facility or property where there is or has been a release or threat of release of a Hazardous Substance and persons who disposed of or arranged for the disposal of the Hazardous Substances found at such a facility. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some cases, third parties, to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover the costs of such action. We may also in the future become an owner of facilities on which Hazardous Substances have been released by previous owners or operators. We may in the future be responsible under CERCLA for all or part of the costs to clean up facilities or properties at which such substances have been released and for natural resource damages.

Air Emissions

Our operations are subject to local, state and federal regulations for the control of emissions of air pollution.  Major sources of air pollutants are subject to more stringent, federally imposed permitting requirements. Administrative enforcement actions for failure to comply strictly with air pollution regulations or permits are generally resolved by payment of monetary fines and correction of any identified deficiencies. Alternatively, regulatory agencies could require us to forego construction, modification or operation of certain air emission sources. In Texas the TCEQ issues an exemption for those processes that meet the criteria for low to zero emission by issuing a permit by rule. Presently our Palangana Mine, our Hobson Processing Facility and our Goliad Project all have permits by rule covering air emissions.

Water Management

UEC commits its management team, employees and contractors to be good stewards of the water it utilizes in all parts of its operations. From exploration to restoration, water is the critical factor for ISR mining and responsibly managing that water is crucial to our business.

12

At all UEC’s ISR projects the ore hosted groundwater does not meet either primary or secondary drinking water standards and should only be used for industrial or agricultural use without proper treatment.

Water consumption at UEC’s ISR mining projects is primarily natural groundwater. During the recovery process, water is pumped from the ore hosted aquifer and piped to the satellite facility. The groundwater is filtered for solids, stripped of uranium, allowed to settle and then approximately 95% is reinjected or recirculated back into the same aquifer it was recovered from. This recycling process is an overwhelming advantage of ISR mining compared to other methods such as conventional or open pit.

In order to ensure appropriate water management, and to ensure our team can continuously make decisions to reduce our water usage, UEC closely monitors our water consumption. UEC is identifying ways to reduce water consumption on an ongoing basis.

Compliance with the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) imposes restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of wastes, including mineral processing wastes, into waters of the U.S., a term broadly defined. Permits must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal waters. The CWA provides for civil, criminal and administrative penalties for unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances and other pollutants. It imposes substantial potential liability for the costs of removal or remediation associated with discharges of oil or hazardous substances. State laws governing discharges to water also provide varying civil, criminal and administrative penalties and impose liabilities in the case of a discharge of petroleum or its derivatives, or other hazardous substances, into state waters. In addition, the EPA has promulgated regulations that may require us to obtain permits to discharge storm water runoff. Management believes that we are in substantial compliance with current applicable environmental laws and regulations.

GHG Emissions Management

Mining is an essential industry to enable the global transition to net-zero. Uranium mining, at the heart of UEC’s business, fuels nuclear energy, which is an essential carbon-free energy source. Beyond this, we understand that our operational activities do contribute to climate change through the release of emissions. Therefore, over the next several years, we will begin a process to understand our emissions profile, as well as identify and implement opportunities to reduce emissions, where and when possible.

We have created an emissions inventory of all sources (mobile and stationary) for each Texas project and we have initiated fuel consumption tracking by individual source at each project. We have created tracking mechanisms for all Scope 1 and 2 emissions for our Texas projects, which includes fuel consumption and mileage for the Texas fleet and stationary sources as well as electrical energy consumption at each Texas project. Scope 1 emissions covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2 emissions covers indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating and cooling consumed by the Company.

Through developing this inventory, we have been able to identify, assess and conduct a cost benefit analysis for emission reduction opportunities at UEC’s Texas projects. Such opportunities include exploring ways to upgrade our Hobson plant into a zero-emissions processing plant. 

Aligned to responsibly managing our emissions in the short-term, we have purchased carbon offset credits for our Scope 1 and 2 emissions for our Texas sites.

13

Health and Safety

Health and safety is one of our top priorities. We pride ourselves on employing safe practices in all aspects of its work.

In Fiscal 2022, UEC’s Board approved an Environmental, Health and Safety Policy that provides overall objectives and guidance for our health and safety management. Supporting this Policy, at each site, UEC has a number of operational policies and practices covering radiation safety and procedures, spills and leakage reporting, equipment training and emergency response procedures. There is also a company-wide Injury and Incident Policy covered in the employee handbook that all employees are familiar with and are required to comply against.

Training for employees on health and safety protocols are essential to ensuring we employ best safety practices at all times. Although exact training hours have not been recorded for this fiscal year, UEC has provided training to staff on a variety of safety topics, including, but not limited to, the following topics:

● Annual radiation safety training for all plant and wellfield employees;

● Bi-Annual Radiation Safety Officer training;

● Radiation Safety Technician training;

● Logging training;

● First Aid/CPR training every two years;

● Rig Safety/Inspections training; and

● Annual DOT Training/HazMat training.

UEC’s health and safety practices are developed to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met. Across all of our sites, our employees are required to report all injuries to their supervisor. On an annual basis, all reports are analyzed and tracked as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Association (“OSHA”). Given the nature of UEC’s specialized industry, there are site-specific emergency procedures in place that identify the steps employees should take in the event of a health and safety emergency.

Competition

The uranium industry is highly competitive, and our competition includes larger, more established companies with longer operating histories that not only explore for and produce uranium but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Due to their greater financial and technical resources, we may not be able to acquire additional uranium projects in a competitive bidding process involving such companies. Additionally, these larger companies have greater resources to continue with their operations during periods of depressed market conditions.

The global titanium market is highly competitive, with the top six producers accounting for approximately 60% of the world’s production capacity according to TZ Minerals International Pty. Ltd. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Among our competitors are companies that are vertically-integrated (those that have their own raw material resources).

Research and Development Activities

No research and development expenditures have been incurred, either on our account or sponsored by customers, for our three most recently completed fiscal years.

Employees

Amir Adnani is our President and Chief Executive Officer and, effective October 29, 2015, Pat Obara was appointed our Chief Financial Officer. These individuals are primarily responsible for all our day-to-day operations. Effective September 8, 2014, Scott Melbye was appointed our Executive Vice President. Other services are provided by outsourcing and consulting and special purpose contracts. As of July 31, 2022, we had 63 persons employed on a full-time basis and four individuals providing services on a contractual basis.

14

Human Capital

As of July 31, 2022, our employee population consisted of 63 individuals working for us and our consolidated subsidiaries, 38 of whom were located in the United States, 13 in Canada and 12 in Paraguay. Our Company is committed to attracting and retaining talented and experienced individuals to manage and support our operations.  We engage in a variety of learning and development opportunities with our employees, including ongoing training, continuing education courses, workshops and seminars and membership in professional organizations relating to employees’ projects areas of expertise. We strive to fill employment openings through internal promotions or transfers of qualified employees, as appropriate.

Available Information

The Company’s website address is www.uraniumenergy.com and our annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and amendments to such reports, are available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are filed or furnished electronically with the SEC. These same reports, as well as our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished electronically with the SEC are available for review at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Printed copies of the foregoing materials are available free of charge upon written request by email at info@uraniumenergy.com. Additional information about the Company can be found on our website, however, such information is neither incorporated by reference nor included as part of this or any other report or information filed with or furnished to the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

In addition to the information contained in this Form 10-K Annual Report, we have identified the following material risks and uncertainties which reflect our outlook and conditions known to us as of the date of this Annual Report. These material risks and uncertainties should be carefully reviewed by our stockholders and any potential investors in evaluating the Company, our business and the market value of our common stock. Furthermore, any one of these material risks and uncertainties has the potential to cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by any forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf. Refer to “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements”.

There is no assurance that we will be successful in preventing the material adverse effects that any one or more of the following material risks and uncertainties may cause on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, which may result in a significant decrease in the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, there is no assurance that these material risks and uncertainties represent a complete list of the material risks and uncertainties facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of a material nature that, as of the date of this Annual Report, we are unaware of or that we consider immaterial that may become material in the future, any one or more of which may result in a material adverse effect on us. You could lose all or a significant portion of your investment due to any one of these material risks and uncertainties.

Risks Related to Our Company and Business

Evaluating our future performance may be difficult since we have a limited financial and operating history, with significant negative operating cash flow and an accumulated deficit to date. Our long-term success will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and to develop positive cash flow from our mining activities.

15

As more fully described under Item 1. Business herein, Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 and, since 2004, we have been engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on projects located in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. In November 2010, we commenced uranium extraction for the first time at our Palangana Mine utilizing ISR methods and processed those materials at our Hobson Processing Facility into drums of U₃O₈. We also hold uranium projects in various stages of exploration and pre-extraction in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. Since we completed the acquisition of our Alto Paraná Project located in the Republic of Paraguay in July 2017, we are also involved in mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, of titanium minerals.

As more fully described under “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations herein, we have a history of significant negative cash flow and net losses, with an accumulated deficit balance of $286.4 million as at July 31, 2022. Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and on debt financing in order to fund our operations. Although we generated revenues from sales of U₃O₈ we extracted during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012 of $3.1 million, $9.0 million and $13.8 million, respectively, and generated revenues from sales of purchased uranium inventory and toll processing services totaling 23.2 million during Fiscal 2022, we have yet to achieve profitability or develop positive cash flow from our operations, and we do not expect to achieve profitability or develop positive cash flow from operations in the near term. As a result of our limited financial and operating history, including our significant negative cash flow from operations and net losses to date, it may be difficult to evaluate our future performance.

As at July 31, 2022, we had a working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of $93.7 million including cash and cash equivalents of $32.5 million and uranium inventory holdings of $66.2 million. Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we received additional cash proceeds of $14.8 million under our at-the-market offerings (the “2021 ATM Offerings”). We believe that our existing cash resources and, if necessary, cash generated from the sale of the Company’s liquid assets, will provide sufficient funds to carry out our planned operations for 12 months from the date of this Annual Report. Our continuation as a going concern for a period beyond those 12 months will be dependent upon our ability to obtain adequate additional financing, as our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. Our continued operations, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets, are dependent ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations.

Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. We may also be required to seek other forms of financing, such as asset divestitures or joint venture arrangements, to continue advancing our projects which would depend entirely on finding a suitable third party willing to enter into such an arrangement, typically involving an assignment of a percentage interest in the mineral project.

Our long-term success, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets and our ability to acquire additional uranium projects and continue with exploration and pre-extraction activities and mining activities on our existing uranium projects, will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations by establishing ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium and to develop these into profitable mining activities. The economic viability of our mining activities, including the expected duration and profitability of our ISR Mines and of any future satellite ISR mines, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects located within the South Texas Uranium Belt, our Christensen Ranch Mine and Reno Creek Project located in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, and our projects in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, have many risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium and titanium minerals; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected capital costs to construct a mine and/or processing plant; (iv) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (v) significantly lower than expected mineral extraction; (vi) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vii) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Our mining activities may change as a result of any one or more of these risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that any ore body that we extract mineralized materials from will result in achieving and maintaining profitability and developing positive cash flow.

16

Our operations are capital intensive, and we will require significant additional financing to acquire additional mineral projects and continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities on our existing projects.

Our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. We will require significant additional financing to fund our operations, including acquiring additional mineral projects and continuing with our exploration and pre-extraction activities which include assaying, drilling, geological and geochemical analysis and mine construction costs. In the absence of such additional financing we would not be able to fund our operations or continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities, which may result in delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our projects.

Our uranium extraction and sales history is limited. Our ability to generate revenue is subject to a number of factors, any one or more of which may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

We have a limited history of uranium extraction and generating revenue.  In November 2010, we commenced uranium extraction at our Palangana Mine, which has been our sole source of revenues from the sales of produced U₃O₈ during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012, with no revenues from sales of produced U₃O₈ during other fiscal years.

During Fiscal 2022, we continued to operate our ISR Mines at a reduced pace to align our operations to a weak uranium commodity market in a challenging post-Fukushima environment. This strategy has included the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures and remaining in a state of operational readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices. Our ability to generate revenue from our Palangana and recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mines is subject to a number of factors which include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (iv) significantly lower than expected uranium extraction; (v) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vi) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Furthermore, continued mining activities at our ISR Mines will eventually deplete the mines or cause such activities to become uneconomical, and if we are unable to directly acquire or develop existing uranium projects, such as our Moore Ranch, Reno Creek, Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, into additional uranium mines from which we can commence uranium extraction, it will negatively impact our ability to generate revenues. Any one or more of these occurrences may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

Exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ significantly from expectations or anticipated amounts. Furthermore, exploration programs conducted on our projects may not result in the establishment of ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium.

Exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, with many beyond our control and including, but not limited to: (i) unanticipated ground and water conditions and adverse claims to water rights; (ii) unusual or unexpected geological formations; (iii) metallurgical and other processing problems; (iv) the occurrence of unusual weather or operating conditions and other force majeure events; (v) lower than expected ore grades; (vi) industrial accidents; (vii) delays in the receipt of or failure to receive necessary government permits; (viii) delays in transportation; (ix) availability of contractors and labor; (x) government permit restrictions and regulation restrictions; (xi) unavailability of materials and equipment; and (xii) the failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations. These risks and uncertainties could result in: (i) delays, reductions or stoppages in our mining activities; (ii) increased capital and/or extraction costs; (iii) damage to, or destruction of, our mineral projects, extraction facilities or other properties; (iv) personal injuries; (v) environmental damage; (vi) monetary losses; and (vii) legal claims.

17

Success in mineral exploration is dependent on many factors including, without limitation, the experience and capabilities of a company’s management, the availability of geological expertise and the availability of sufficient funds to conduct the exploration program. Even if an exploration program is successful and commercially recoverable material is established, it may take a number of years from the initial phases of drilling and identification of the mineralization until extraction is possible, during which time the economic feasibility of extraction may change such that the material ceases to be economically recoverable. Exploration is frequently non-productive due, for example, to poor exploration results or the inability to establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material, in which case the project may be abandoned and written-off. Furthermore, we will not be able to benefit from our exploration efforts and recover the expenditures that we incur on our exploration programs if we do not establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material and develop these projects into profitable mining activities, and there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so for any of our projects.

Whether an ore body contains commercially recoverable material depends on many factors including, without limitation: (i) the particular attributes, including material changes to those attributes, of the ore body such as size, grade, recovery rates and proximity to infrastructure; (ii) the market price of uranium, which may be volatile; and (iii) government regulations and regulatory requirements including, without limitation, those relating to environmental protection, permitting and land use, taxes, land tenure and transportation.

We have not established proven or probable reserves through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as our ISR Mines. Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials from our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, it may result in our mining activities at our ISR Mines, and at any future projects for which proven or probable reserves are not established, being inherently riskier than other mining activities for which proven or probable reserves have been established.

We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain of our projects, including our ISR Mines. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining. Since we commenced the extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated. Any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.

On October 31, 2018, the SEC adopted the Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants (again, the New Rule), introducing significant changes to the existing mining disclosure framework to better align it with international industry and regulatory practice, including NI 43-101. The New Rule became effective as of February 25, 2019, and issuers are required to comply with the New Rule as of the annual report for their first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and earlier in certain circumstances. The Company believes that it is presently in compliance with the New Rule.

Since we are in the Exploration Stage, pre-production expenditures including those related to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred, the effects of which may result in our consolidated financial statements not being directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Despite the fact that we commenced uranium extraction at our ISR Mines, we remain in the Exploration Stage (as defined by the SEC) and will continue to remain in the Exploration Stage until such time as proven or probable reserves have been established, which may never occur. We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) under which acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while pre-production expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the Exploration Stage. Expenditures relating to exploration activities are expensed as incurred and expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred until such time as proven or probable reserves are established for that uranium project, after which subsequent expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred.

18

We have neither established nor have any plans to establish proven or probable reserves for our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining. Companies in the Production Stage, (as defined by the SEC), having established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold. As we are in the Exploration Stage, it has resulted in us reporting larger losses than if we had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing processing facility and mine pre-extraction activities. Additionally, there would be no corresponding amortization allocated to our future reporting periods since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage. Any capitalized costs, such as acquisition costs of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Estimated costs of future reclamation obligations may be significantly exceeded by actual costs incurred in the future. Furthermore, only a portion of the financial assurance required for the future reclamation obligations has been funded.

We are responsible for certain remediation and decommissioning activities in the future, primarily for our Hobson Processing Facility, our Palangana Mine and our recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigary Processing Facility, and have recorded a liability of $17.3 million on our balance sheet at July 31, 2022, to recognize the present value of the estimated costs of such reclamation obligations. Should the actual costs to fulfill these future reclamation obligations materially exceed these estimated costs, it may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results, including not having the financial resources required to fulfill such obligations when required to do so.

During Fiscal 2015, we secured $5.6 million of surety bonds as an alternate source of financial assurance for the estimated costs of the reclamation obligations of our Hobson Processing Facility and Palangana Mine, of which we have $1.7 million funded and held as restricted cash for collateral purposes as required by the surety. In connection with the U1A Acquisition, we assumed $13.7 million of restricted cash as surety bond collateral for total estimated reclamation costs of $18.6 million for the Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility. During Fiscal 2020, $8.6 million of surety bond collateral related to the Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility was released. We may be required at any time to fund the remaining $17.4 million or any portion thereof for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (i) the terms of the surety bonds are amended, such as an increase in collateral requirements; (ii) we are in default with the terms of the surety bonds; (iii) the surety bonds are no longer acceptable as an alternate source of financial assurance by the regulatory authorities; or (iv) the surety encounters financial difficulties. Should any one or more of these events occur in the future, we may not have the financial resources to fund the remaining amount or any portion thereof when required to do so.

We cannot provide any assurance that our Physical Uranium Program involving the strategic acquisition of physical uranium will be successful, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We have used or allocated a large portion of our cash on hand in order to fund the acquisition of drummed uranium. This strategy will be subject to a number of risks and there is no assurance that the strategy will be successful. Future deliveries are subject to performance by other parties and there is a possibility of default by those parties, thus depriving us of potential benefits.

Due to the fluctuation of uranium prices, the price of uranium will fluctuate and we will be subject to losses should we ultimately determine to sell the uranium at prices lower than the acquisition cost. The primary risks associated with physical uranium will be the normal risks associated with supply and demand fundamentals affecting price movements.

We may be required to sell a portion or all of the physical uranium accumulated to fund our operations should other forms of financing not be available to meet our capital requirements.

19

Since there is no public market for uranium, selling the uranium may take extended periods of time and suitable purchasers may be difficult to find, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and may have a material adverse effect on our securities.

There is no public market for the sale of uranium, although there are several trading and brokerage houses that serve the industry with bid and ask data as well as locations and quantities. The uranium futures market on the New York Mercantile Exchange does not provide for physical delivery of uranium, only cash on settlement, and that trading forum does not offer a formal market but rather facilitates the introduction of buyers to sellers.

The pool of potential purchasers and sellers is limited, and each transaction may require the negotiation of specific provisions. Accordingly, a sale may take several weeks or months to complete. If we determine to sell any physical uranium that we have acquired, we may likewise experience difficulties in finding purchasers that are able to accept a material quantity of physical uranium at a price and at a location that is compatible with our interests. The inability to sell on a timely basis in sufficient quantities and at a desired price and location could have a material adverse effect on our securities.

As part of our Physical Uranium Program, we have entered into commitments to purchase U₃O₈ and may purchase additional quantities. There is no certainty that any future purchases contemplated by us will be completed.

Storage arrangements, including the extension of storage arrangements, along with credit and operational risks of uranium storage facilities, may result in the loss or damage of our physical uranium which may not be covered by insurance or indemnity provisions and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Currently, the uranium we purchased will be stored at the licensed uranium conversion facility of ConverDyn owned by Honeywell. There can be no assurance that storage arrangements that have been negotiated will be extended indefinitely, forcing actions or costs not currently contemplated. Failure to negotiate commercially reasonable storage terms for a subsequent storage period with ConverDyn may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

By holding our uranium inventory at the ConverDyn conversion facility we are exposed to the credit and operational risks of the facility. There is no guarantee that we can fully recover all of our investment in uranium held with the facility in the event of a disruptive event. Failure to recover all uranium holdings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Any loss or damage of the uranium may not be fully covered or absolved by contractual arrangements with ConverDyn or our insurance arrangements, and we may be financially and legally responsible for losses and/or damages not covered by indemnity provisions or insurance. Such responsibility could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

The uranium industry is subject to influential political and regulatory factors which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

The international uranium industry, including the supply of uranium concentrates, is relatively small, competitive and heavily regulated. Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for electricity produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to extensive government regulation and policies. In addition, the international marketing and trade of uranium is subject to political changes in governmental policies, regulatory requirements and international trade restrictions (including trade agreements, customs, duties and/or taxes). International agreements, governmental policies and trade restrictions are beyond our control. Changes in regulatory requirements, customs, duties or taxes may affect the availability of uranium, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We do not insure against all of the risks we face in our operations.

In general, where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. We currently maintain insurance against certain risks, including securities and general commercial liability claims and certain physical assets used in our operations, subject to exclusions and limitations, however, we do not maintain insurance to cover all of the potential risks and hazards associated with our operations. We may be subject to liability for environmental, pollution or other hazards associated with our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities, which we may not be insured against, which may exceed the limits of our insurance coverage or which we may elect not to insure against because of high premiums or other reasons. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that any insurance coverage we currently have will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will adequately cover any resulting liability.

20

Acquisitions that we may make from time to time could have an adverse impact on us.

From time to time we examine opportunities to acquire additional mining assets and businesses. Any acquisition that we may choose to complete may be of a significant size, may change the scale of our business and operations and may expose us to new geographic, political, operating, financial and geological risks. Our success in our acquisition activities depends on our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, negotiate acceptable terms for any such acquisition and integrate the acquired operations successfully with those of our Company. Any acquisitions would be accompanied by risks which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For example: (i) there may be a significant change in commodity prices after we have committed to complete the transaction and established the purchase price or exchange ratio; (ii) a material ore body may prove to be below expectations; (iii) we may have difficulty integrating and assimilating the operations and personnel of any acquired companies, realizing anticipated synergies and maximizing the financial and strategic position of the combined enterprise and maintaining uniform standards, policies and controls across the organization; (iv) the integration of the acquired business or assets may disrupt our ongoing business and our relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and contractors; and (v) the acquired business or assets may have unknown liabilities which may be significant. In the event that we choose to raise debt capital to finance any such acquisition, our leverage will be increased. If we choose to use equity as consideration for such acquisition, existing shareholders may suffer dilution. Alternatively, we may choose to finance any such acquisition with our existing resources. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with such acquisitions.

The uranium and titanium industries are subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards, including environmental protection laws and regulations If any changes occur that would make these laws, regulations and standards more stringent, it may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Uranium and titanium exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards at the federal, state and local levels governing permitting, pre-extraction, extraction, exports, taxes, labor standards, occupational health, waste disposal, protection and reclamation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, mine safety, hazardous substances and other matters. Our compliance with these requirements requires significant financial and personnel resources.

The laws, regulations, policies or current administrative practices of any government body, organization or regulatory agency in the United States, or any other applicable jurisdiction, may change or be applied or interpreted in a manner which may also have a material adverse effect on our operations. The actions, policies or regulations, or changes thereto, of any government body or regulatory agency or special interest group may also have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Uranium and titanium exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are subject to stringent environmental protection laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels. These laws and regulations include permitting and reclamation requirements, regulate emissions, water storage and discharges and disposal of hazardous wastes. Uranium mining activities are also subject to laws and regulations which seek to maintain health and safety standards by regulating the design and use of mining methods. Various permits from governmental and regulatory bodies are required for mining to commence or continue, and no assurance can be provided that required permits will be received in a timely manner.

Our compliance costs, including the posting of surety bonds associated with environmental protection laws and regulations and health and safety standards, have been significant to date, and are expected to increase in scale and scope as we expand our operations in the future. Furthermore, environmental protection laws and regulations may become more stringent in the future, and compliance with such changes may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations.

While the very heart of our business – uranium extraction, which is the fuel for carbon-free, emission-free baseload nuclear power – and our recycling programs, help address global climate change and reduce air pollution, the world’s focus on addressing climate change will require the Company to continue to conduct all of its operations in a manner that minimizes the use of resources, including the unnecessary use of energy resources, in order to continue to minimize air emissions at our facilities, which can also increase mine and facility, construction, development and operating costs. Regulatory and environmental standards may also change over time to address global climate change, which could further increase these costs.

21

To the best of our knowledge, our operations are in compliance, in all material respects, with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. If we become subject to liability for any violations, we may not be able or may elect not to insure against such risk due to high insurance premiums or other reasons. Where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. However, we cannot provide any assurance that such insurance will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will be adequate to cover any resulting liability.

We may not be able to obtain, maintain or amend rights, authorizations, licenses, permits or consents required for our operations.

Our exploration and mining activities are dependent upon the grant of appropriate rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents, as well as continuation and amendment of these rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents already granted, which may be granted for a defined period of time, or may not be granted or may be withdrawn or made subject to limitations. There can be no assurance that all necessary rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents will be granted to us, or that authorizations, licences, permits and consents already granted will not be withdrawn or made subject to limitations.

Major nuclear and global market incidents may have adverse effects on the nuclear and uranium industries.

The nuclear incident that occurred in Japan in March 2011 had significant and adverse effects on both the nuclear and uranium industries. If another nuclear incident were to occur, it may have further adverse effects for both industries. Public opinion of nuclear power as a source of electrical generation may be adversely affected, which may cause governments of certain countries to further increase regulation for the nuclear industry, reduce or abandon current reliance on nuclear power or reduce or abandon existing plans for nuclear power expansion. Any one of these occurrences has the potential to reduce current and/or future demand for nuclear power, resulting in lower demand for uranium and lower market prices for uranium, adversely affecting the operations and prospects of our Company. Furthermore, the growth of the nuclear and uranium industries is dependent on continuing and growing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation.

In March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a black swan event impacting about 50% of the world’s uranium production and has accelerated the market rebalancing. In 2020 significant production cuts were announced in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, including uranium facilities in Canada, Kazakhstan and Namibia. In 2022, although most production impacted by COVID-19 has returned to an operating status, some production has continued to be affected. It is unknown at this time exactly how long all the impacts will last or how much uranium production will ultimately be removed from the market as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company also believes that a large degree of uncertainty exists in the market, primarily due to the size of mobile uranium inventories, transportation issues, premature reactor shutdowns in the U.S. and the length of time of any uranium mine, conversion or enrichment facility shutdowns.

The marketability of uranium concentrates will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control which may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital.

The marketability of uranium concentrates extracted by us will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control. These factors include: (i) macroeconomic factors; (ii) fluctuations in the market price of uranium; (iii) governmental regulations; (iv) land tenure and use; (v) regulations concerning the importing and exporting of uranium; and (vi) environmental protection regulations. The future effects of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but any one or a combination of these factors may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital.

22

The titanium industry is affected by global economic factors, including risks associated with volatile economic conditions, and the market for many titanium products is cyclical and volatile, and we may experience depressed market conditions for such products.

Titanium is used in many “quality of life” products for which demand historically has been linked to global, regional and local GDP and discretionary spending, which can be negatively impacted by regional and world events or economic conditions. Such events are likely to cause a decrease in demand for products and, as a result, may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. The timing and extent of any changes to currently prevailing market conditions is uncertain, and supply and demand may be unbalanced at any time. Uncertain economic conditions and market instability make it particularly difficult for us to forecast demand trends. As a consequence, we may not be able to accurately predict future economic conditions or the effect of such conditions on our financial condition or results of operations. We can give no assurances as to the timing, extent or duration of the current or future economic cycles impacting the industries in which we operate.

Historically, the market for large volume titanium applications, including coatings, paper and plastics, has experienced alternating periods of tight supply, causing prices and margins to increase, followed by periods of lower capacity utilization, resulting in declining prices and margins. The volatility this market experiences occurs as a result of significant changes in the demand for products as a consequence of global economic activity and changes in customers’ requirements. The supply-demand balance is also impacted by capacity additions or reductions that result in changes of utilization rates. In addition, titanium margins are impacted by significant changes in major input costs, such as energy and feedstock. Demand for titanium depends in part on the housing and construction industries. These industries are cyclical in nature and have historically been impacted by downturns in the economy. In addition, pricing may affect customer inventory levels as customers may from time to time accelerate purchases of titanium in advance of anticipated price increases or defer purchases of titanium in advance of anticipated price decreases. The cyclicality and volatility of the titanium industry results in significant fluctuations in profits and cash flow from period to period and over the business cycle.

The uranium industry is highly competitive and we may not be successful in acquiring additional projects.

The uranium industry is highly competitive, and our competition includes larger, more established companies with longer operating histories that not only explore for and produce uranium, but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Due to their greater financial and technical resources, we may not be able to acquire additional uranium projects in a competitive bidding process involving such companies. Additionally, these larger companies have greater resources to continue with their operations during periods of depressed market conditions.

The titanium industry is concentrated and highly competitive, and we may not be able to compete effectively with our competitors that have greater financial resources or those that are vertically integrated, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The global titanium market is highly competitive, with the top six producers accounting for approximately 60% of the world’s production capacity. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Among our competitors are companies that are vertically-integrated (those that have their own raw material resources). Changes in the competitive landscape could make it difficult for us to retain our competitive position in various products and markets throughout the world. Our competitors with their own raw material resources may have a competitive advantage during periods of higher raw material prices. In addition, some of the companies with whom we compete may be able to produce products more economically than we can. Furthermore, some of our competitors have greater financial resources, which may enable them to invest significant capital into their businesses, including expenditures for research and development.

We hold mineral rights in foreign jurisdictions which could be subject to additional risks due to political, taxation, economic and cultural factors.

We hold certain mineral rights located in the Republic of Paraguay through Piedra Rica Mining S.A., Transandes Paraguay S.A., Trier S.A. and Metalicos Y No Metalicos S.R.L., which are incorporated in Paraguay. Operations in foreign jurisdictions outside of the United States and Canada, especially in developing countries, may be subject to additional risks as they may have different political, regulatory, taxation, economic and cultural environments that may adversely affect the value or continued viability of our rights. These additional risks include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in governments or senior government officials; (ii) changes to existing laws or policies on foreign investments, environmental protection, mining and ownership of mineral interests; (iii) renegotiation, cancellation, expropriation and nationalization of existing permits or contracts; (iv) foreign currency controls and fluctuations; and (v) civil disturbances, terrorism and war.

23

In the event of a dispute arising at our foreign operations in Paraguay, we may be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts or may not be successful in subjecting foreign persons to the jurisdiction of the courts in the United States or Canada. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Any adverse or arbitrary decision of a foreign court may have a material and adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The title to our mineral property interests may be challenged.

Although we have taken reasonable measures to ensure proper title to our interests in mineral properties and other assets, there is no guarantee that the title to any of such interests will not be challenged. No assurance can be given that we will be able to secure the grant or the renewal of existing mineral rights and tenures on terms satisfactory to us, or that governments in the jurisdictions in which we operate will not revoke or significantly alter such rights or tenures or that such rights or tenures will not be challenged or impugned by third parties, including local governments, aboriginal peoples or other claimants. The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Paraná Projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions.  Our mineral properties may be subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims, and title may be affected by, among other things, undetected defects. A successful challenge to the precise area and location of our claims could result in us being unable to operate on our properties as permitted or being unable to enforce our rights with respect to our properties.

Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to legal proceedings which may divert management’s time and attention from our business and result in substantial damage awards.

Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to numerous regulatory investigations, securities claims, civil claims, lawsuits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of our business including those described under Item 3. Legal Proceedings herein. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain and subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual costs to be incurred will depend upon many unknown factors. We may be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these suits, and we may not prevail. Defending against these and other lawsuits in the future may not only require us to incur significant legal fees and expenses, but may become time-consuming for us and detract from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. The results of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty due to the uncertainty inherent in litigation, the difficulty of predicting decisions of regulators, judges and juries and the possibility that decisions may be reversed on appeal. There can be no assurances that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or operating results.

We depend on certain key personnel, and our success will depend on our continued ability to retain and attract such qualified personnel.

Our success is dependent on the efforts, abilities and continued service of certain senior officers and key employees and consultants. A number of our key employees and consultants have significant experience in the uranium industry. A loss of service from any one of these individuals may adversely affect our operations, and we may have difficulty or may not be able to locate and hire a suitable replacement.

Certain directors and officers may be subject to conflicts of interest.

The majority of our directors and officers are involved in other business ventures including similar capacities with other private or publicly-traded companies. Such individuals may have significant responsibilities to these other business ventures, including consulting relationships, which may require significant amounts of their available time. Conflicts of interest may include decisions on how much time to devote to our business affairs and what business opportunities should be presented to us. Our Code of Conduct and Ethics provides for guidance on conflicts of interest.

24

The laws of the State of Nevada and our Articles of Incorporation may protect our directors and officers from certain types of lawsuits.

The laws of the State of Nevada provide that our directors and officers will not be liable to our Company or to our stockholders for monetary damages for all but certain types of conduct as directors and officers. Our Bylaws provide for broad indemnification powers to all persons against all damages incurred in connection with our business to the fullest extent provided or allowed by law. These indemnification provisions may require us to use our limited assets to defend our directors and officers against claims, and may have the effect of preventing stockholders from recovering damages against our directors and officers caused by their negligence, poor judgment or other circumstances.

Several of our directors and officers are residents outside of the United States, and it may be difficult for stockholders to enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors or officers.

Several of our directors and officers are nationals and/or residents of countries other than the United States, and all or a substantial portion of such persons’ assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process on such directors and officers, or enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors and officers, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. Consequently, stockholders may be effectively prevented from pursuing remedies against such directors and officers under United States federal securities laws. In addition, stockholders may not be able to commence an action in a Canadian court predicated upon the civil liability provisions under United States federal securities laws. The foregoing risks also apply to those experts identified in this document that are not residents of the United States.

Disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, no matter how well designed and operated, are designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness.

Management’s evaluation on the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures is designed to ensure that information required for disclosure in our public filings is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis to our senior management, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly authorized, assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use and transactions are properly recorded and reported. However, any system of controls, no matter how well designed and operated, is based in part upon certain assumptions designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness. Any failure to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures in the future may result in our inability to continue meeting our reporting obligations in a timely manner, qualified audit opinions or restatements of our financial reports, any one of which may affect the market price for our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets.

Proposed  and new legislation in the U.S. Congress, including changes in U.S. tax law, may adversely impact the Company and the value of shares of our common stock.

Changes to U.S. tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect the Company or holders of shares of our common stock. In recent years, many changes to U.S. federal income tax laws have been proposed and made, and additional changes to U.S. federal income tax laws are likely to continue to occur in the future.

The U.S. Congress has recently passed and is currently considering numerous items of legislation which may be enacted prospectively or with retroactive effect, and which legislation could adversely impact the Company’s financial performance and the value of shares of our common stock. In particular, we understand that new legislation known as the “Build Back Better Act” has been passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress. The legislation includes, without limitation, new corporate minimum income taxes. We understand that the proposals would be effective for 2022 or later years. The legislation and its impact on the Company and investors who purchase shares of our common stock is uncertain.

25

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Historically, the market price of our common stock has been and may continue to fluctuate significantly.

On September 28, 2007, our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE American (formerly known as the American Stock Exchange, the NYSE Amex Equities Exchange and the NYSE MKT) and prior to that, traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.

The global markets have experienced significant and increased volatility in the past, and have been impacted by the effects of mass sub-prime mortgage defaults and liquidity problems of the asset-backed commercial paper market, resulting in a number of large financial institutions requiring government bailouts or filing for bankruptcy. The effects of these past events and any similar events in the future may continue to or further affect the global markets, which may directly affect the market price of our common stock and our accessibility for additional financing. Although this volatility may be unrelated to specific company performance, it can have an adverse effect on the market price of our shares which, historically, has fluctuated significantly and may continue to do so in the future.

In addition to the volatility associated with general economic trends and market conditions, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly due to the impact of any one or more events including, but not limited to, the following: (i) volatility in the uranium market; (ii) occurrence of a major nuclear incident such as the events in Japan in March 2011; (iii) changes in the outlook for the nuclear power and uranium industries; (iv) failure to meet market expectations on our exploration, pre-extraction or extraction activities, including abandonment of key uranium projects; (v) sales of a large number of our shares held by certain stockholders including institutions and insiders; (vi) downward revisions to previous estimates on us by analysts; (vii) removal from market indices; (viii) legal claims brought forth against us; and (ix) introduction of technological innovations by competitors or in competing technologies.

A prolonged decline in the market price of our common stock could affect our ability to obtain additional financing which would adversely affect our operations.

Historically, we have relied on equity financing and, more recently, on debt financing, as primary sources of financing. A prolonged decline in the market price of our common stock or a reduction in our accessibility to the global markets may result in our inability to secure additional financing which would have an adverse effect on our operations.

Additional issuances of our common stock may result in significant dilution to our existing shareholders and reduce the market value of their investment.

We are authorized to issue 750,000,000 shares of common stock of which 289,638,307 shares were issued and outstanding as of July 31, 2022. Future issuances for financings, mergers and acquisitions, exercise of stock options and share purchase warrants and for other reasons may result in significant dilution to and be issued at prices substantially below the price paid for our shares held by our existing stockholders. Significant dilution would reduce the proportionate ownership and voting power held by our existing stockholders and may result in a decrease in the market price of our shares.

We are subject to the Continued Listing Criteria of the NYSE American and our failure to satisfy these criteria may result in delisting of our common stock.

Our common stock is currently listed on the NYSE American. In order to maintain this listing, we must maintain certain share prices, financial and share distribution targets, including maintaining a minimum amount of shareholders’ equity and a minimum number of public shareholders. In addition to these objective standards, the NYSE American may delist the securities of any issuer: (i) if in its opinion, the issuer’s financial condition and/or operating results appear unsatisfactory; (ii) if it appears that the extent of public distribution or the aggregate market value of the security has become so reduced as to make continued listing on the NYSE American inadvisable; (iii) if the issuer sells or disposes of principal operating assets or ceases to be an operating company; (iv) if an issuer fails to comply with the NYSE American’s listing requirements; (v) if an issuer’s common stock sells at what the NYSE American considers a “low selling price” and the issuer fails to correct this via a reverse split of shares after notification by the NYSE American; or (vi) if any other event occurs or any condition exists which makes continued listing on the NYSE American, in its opinion, inadvisable.

26

If the NYSE American delists our common stock, investors may face material adverse consequences including, but not limited to, a lack of trading market for our securities, reduced liquidity, decreased analyst coverage of our securities, and an inability for us to obtain additional financing to fund our operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable

27

Item 2. Description of Properties

Overview

Uranium Energy Corp. 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.

28

	Measured Mineral Resources			Indicated Mineral Resources			Inferred Mineral Resources
	Ore Tons (000s)	Grade (% eU3O8)	Pounds (000s eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	Grade (% eU3O8)	Pounds (000s eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	Grade (% eU3O8)	Pounds (000s eU3O8)
Irigaray	0	N/A	N/A	3,881	0.076	5,899	104	0.068	141
Christensen Ranch	0	N/A	N/A	6,555	0.073	9,596	0	N/A	N/A
Moore Ranch	2,675	0.060	3,210	0	N/A	N/A	46	0.047	44
Reno Creek	14,990	0.043	12,920	16,980	0.039	13,070	1,920	0.039	1,490
Ludeman	2,674	0.094	5,017	2,660	0.088	4,697	866	0.073	1,258
Allemand-Ross	246	0.085	417	32	0.066	42	1,275	0.098	2,496
Barge	0	N/A	N/A	4,301	0.051	4,361	0	N/A	N/A
Jab/West Jab	1,621	0.072	2,335	253	0.077	392	1,402	0.060	1,677
Charlie	0	N/A	N/A	1,255	0.123	3,100	411	0.120	988
Nine Mile Lake	0	N/A	N/A	0	N/A	N/A	3,405	0.036	4,308
Red Rim	0	N/A	N/A	337	0.170	1,142	473	0.163	1,539
Clarkson Hill	0	N/A	N/A	0	N/A	N/A	957	0.058	1,113
Burke Hollow	70	0.082	115	1,337	0.087	2,209	2,494	0.095	4,859
Goliad	1,595	0.053	2,668	1,504	0.102	3,492	333	0.195	1,225
Palangana	0	N/A	N/A	232	0.134	643	302	0.100/0.110 -0.300	1,001
Salvo	0	N/A	N/A	0	N/A	N/A	1,125	0.091	2,839
Yuty	0	N/A	N/A	9,074	0.049	8,962	2,733	0.040	2,203
ISR Subtotal			26,682			57,605			27,181
Anderson	0	N/A	N/A	16,175	0.099	32,055	0	N/A	N/A
Conventional Subtotal			0			32,055			0
Total Mineral Resources			26,682			89,660			27,181

Notes:	1. The Mineral Resources estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
	2. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects excluding Yuty and $65 per pound for Anderson and Yuty.
	4. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.
	5. The point of reference for Mineral Resources is in-situ at the projects.
	6. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

29

ISR Uranium Activities

The Company conducts its ISR recovery activities through its Irigaray Central Processing Plant (“CPP”) and Christensen Ranch ISR Project, located in northeast Wyoming, which it acquired in December 2021 through the acquisition of U1A, and its Hobson CPP and Palangana ISR Project, located in south Texas, which it acquired in 2009 from Uranium One.

The Irigaray CPP Project includes: (i) the Irigaray CPP (100% ownership); (ii) the Christensen Ranch Wellfields (100% ownership); (iii) the Charlie Wellfields (100% ownership); (iv) the Reno Creek ISR Project (100% ownership); (v) the Moore Ranch ISR Project (100% ownership); (vi) the Ludeman ISR Project (100% ownership); (vii) the Allemand-Ross ISR Project; (viii) the Barge ISR Project; (ix) the Jab/West Jab ISR Project (100% ownership); (x) the Nine Mile Lake ISR Project (100% ownership); (xi) the Red Rim ISR Project (100% ownership); and (xii) the Clarkson Hill ISR Project all in Wyoming. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties - Other ISR Projects.” 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.

The Hobson CPP Project includes: (i) the Hobson CPP (100% ownership); (ii) the Palangana ISR Project (100% ownership); (iii) the Burke Hollow ISR Project (100% ownership); (iv) the Goliad ISR Project (100% ownership); and (v) the Salvo ISR Project all in Texas. Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana ISR 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.

The 100% owned Yuty ISR Project, located in Paraguay, is an exploration phase project.

Internal Controls over Uranium resource estimation efforts

For Canadian and US 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 QP’s 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 and 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 an exaggerated influence on the resource model.

The reserve and 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 re-assessment when conditions change.

Conventional Uranium Activities

The Company’s Anderson Project (100% ownership) located in Arizona, is an exploration phase project containing estimated resources that are suitable for conventional open-pit and underground mining methods.

30

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.

Property Description

The Irigaray Project Area is located in Johnson County, Wyoming, northwest of Pumpkin Buttes and near Willow Creek, within the Powder River Basin (the “PRB”) at latitude 43.8683 and longitude ‑106.1186 in decimal degrees. The Irigaray Project Area covers 3,107 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, and 30 air miles east of Kaycee, Wyoming. The Irigaray Project Area can be accessed from Kaycee, Wyoming, by traveling east on State Highway 192 through the town of Sussex, and then traveling north on Streeter Road to the intersection of Irigaray Road. The Irigaray Project Area is located on Irigaray Road approximately four miles north of the intersection with Streeter Road. 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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

31

Ownership

The Irigaray Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Irigaray Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the various project areas.

Mineral rights for the Irigaray Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Irigaray
Acreage	480	0	1,640	2,120
Leases/Claims	2	0	82	84
Total Annual Cost	$1,600	$0	$13,530	$15,130

Within the Irigaray Project Area, UEC holds one State of Wyoming uranium lease on state lands and 257 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. There is one fee (private) mineral lease on the Irigaray Project Area.

Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Irigaray Project Area is within Johnson County, Wyoming. This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. The site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. In the Irigaray Project Area the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Irigaray Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Irigaray Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Irigaray Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Irigaray Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Irigaray Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

32

The nearest community to the Irigaray Project Area is Wright, a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59. Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport. Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Irigaray Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, southwest of the Irigaray Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.

A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Irigaray Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper. Specialized equipment for the Irigaray Project Area will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, the Irigaray Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

The Irigaray Project Area is a fully operational and licensed ISR processing plant for resin elution, precipitation, filtration, and drying and packaging of U₃O₈. The Irigaray Project Area has a capacity of 1.3 million lbs U₃O₈ per year, which is expandable to 2.5 million lbs U₃O₈ per year. A second elution system is also at the Irigaray Project Area for toll processing. The Irigaray Project Area is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal.

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: 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 lbs 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.

33

Permitting and Licensing

A majority of the resources in the Irigaray Project Area are not permitted. Portions of the Irigaray Project Area resources on federal lands would require BLM permitting. Permitting would include wildlife considerations, such as greater sage grouse leks and core area, which could limit development of resources. The CPP and related infrastructure are fully permitted to process loaded ion-exchange resins.

Geologic setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Irigaray Project Area resides in the PRB. 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.

● 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 ft 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.

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

34

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 contain 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 ft to 100 ft within the Irigaray Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Irigaray Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 ft (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.

Data Verification

The resource estimate is based on historic drill holes with uranium assays by gamma logging and a limited number of core holes with chemical assays. Industry standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

The Irigaray Project Area is currently on care and maintenance and has been successfully mined since 1978. Past production from both projects confirms the presence of significant mineral resources that were estimated using similar methods.

A study was conducted in 1982 that compared the chemical assays of 77 historic core holes drilled on the Irigaray Project Area with radiometric data that had been reinterpreted. Conclusions of the study indicate that the total grade thicknesses (the “GT”) are well within the margin of error expected in such calculations, but that radiometric interpretations showed a bias. The original estimates underestimated the in-place grades and overestimated the in-place thicknesses of mineralized zones. It was concluded that these biases effectively offset one another.

Another study in 1994 was conducted with Prompt Fission Neutron (“PFN”) logging equipment to determine equilibrium and to determine the extent of remobilized uranium in a producing wellfield. Core samples were also collected and chemically assayed to check the accuracy of the PFN logging and further determine disequilibrium. The study found that the PFN logging determined the same vertical and horizontal mineralization limits as the gamma logs. Core hole chemical assays were also compared with historic gamma logs, and the results overall indicated reasonably good correlations between the two.

A WWC professional previously worked at the Irigaray Project Area from 1995 until 1999. During that time, he was the only on-staff geologist at the Irigaray Project Area and was responsible for reviewing thousands of logs for mine unit planning and development and has personal knowledge of the data quality.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Irigaray Project Area. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the disequilibrium factor (“DEF”) and the ore zone density.

35

The resource estimate method, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Irigaray Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Irigaray Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Irigaray	GT Contour Method	1.0	17.0	0.04	2	0.25

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Irigaray Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Irigaray Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of Ux Consulting (“UxC”) and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

36

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Irigaray Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Irigaray Project Area.

Table 5: Irigaray Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Irigaray	0 - 100	100 – 300	300 – 500

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Irigaray Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Irigaray Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Irigaray Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Irigaray Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Irigaray Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Irigaray
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.076	3,881	5,899,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.076	3,881	5,899,000

Table 7: Irigaray Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Irigaray
Inferred	0.25	0.068	104	141,000

Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

Irigaray is operating in a toll processing capacity with the facilities maintained for this purpose.

The Company’s Planned Work

Irigaray will be maintained to continue to serve in a toll processing capacity.

37

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”, current on 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.

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 14,163 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, and 30 air miles east of Kaycee, Wyoming. The Christensen Ranch Project Area can be accessed from Kaycee, Wyoming, by traveling east on State Highway 192 through the town of Sussex, and then traveling north on Streeter Road to the intersection of Irigaray Road. The Christensen Ranch Project Area boundary is located 1.6 miles southeast of the intersection of Streeter Road and Irigaray Road. The Christensen Ranch satellite ion exchange (IX) plant is approximately three miles north-northeast of Irigaray Road. The Christensen Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land, with two portions located on federal BLM-managed land.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

38

Ownership

This Christensen Ranch Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Christensen Ranch Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.

Mineral rights for the Christensen Ranch Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Christensen Ranch
Acreage	1,280	720	5,140	7,140
Leases/Claims	1	1	257	259
Total Annual Cost	$5,120	Confidential	$42,405	$47,525

Within the Christensen Ranch Project Area, UEC holds one State of Wyoming uranium lease on state lands and 257 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. There is one fee (private) mineral lease on the Christensen Ranch Project Area.

Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is within the Johnson and Campbell counties, Wyoming. These counties reside in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. The sites generally lie near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Bighorn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. In the Christensen Ranch Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Christensen Ranch Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Christensen Ranch Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Christensen Ranch Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Christensen Ranch Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Christensen Ranch Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

39

The nearest community to the Christensen Ranch Project Area is Wright, Wyoming, a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59. Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport. Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Christensen Ranch Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, southwest of the Christensen Ranch Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.

A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper. Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, the Christensen Ranch Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas, and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is equipped with a satellite IX plant with a 6,500 gallons per minute (gpm) installed capacity, a groundwater restoration plant with a 1,000 gpm capacity, two wastewater disposal wells and four lined evaporation ponds.

40

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: 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. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“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.

41

Table 2: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
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.

42

Permitting and Licensing

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/Land Quality Division (“LQD”).

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Christensen Ranch Project Area resides in the PRB. 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 Bighorn 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, the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”) 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.

● 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. The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.

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 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lenses. 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 ft 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 PRB 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.

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

43

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 ft to 100 ft within the Christensen Ranch Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 ft (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.

Data Verification

The resource estimate is based on historic drill holes with uranium assays by gamma logging and a limited number of core holes with chemical assays. Industry standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is currently on care and maintenance and has been successfully mined since 1978. Past production confirms the presence of significant mineral resources that were estimated using similar methods.

A study was conducted in 1982 that compared the chemical assays of 77 historic core holes drilled on the Christensen Ranch Project Area with radiometric data that had been reinterpreted. Conclusions of the study indicate that the total GT are well within the margin of error expected in such calculations, but that radiometric interpretations showed a bias. The original estimates underestimated the in-place grades and overestimated the in-place thicknesses of mineralized zones. It was concluded that these biases effectively offset one another.

Another study in 1994 was conducted with PFN logging equipment to determine equilibrium and to determine the extent of remobilized uranium in a producing wellfield. Core samples were also collected and chemically assayed to check the accuracy of the PFN logging and further determine disequilibrium. The study found that the PFN logging determined the same vertical and horizontal mineralization limits as the gamma logs. Core hole chemical assays were also compared with historic gamma logs, and the results overall indicated reasonably good correlations between the two.

A WWC professional previously worked at the Christensen Ranch Project Area from 1995 until 1999. During that time, he was the only on-staff geologist at the Christensen Ranch Project Area and was responsible for reviewing thousands of logs for mine unit planning and development and has personal knowledge of the data quality.

44

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Christensen Ranch Project Area. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

The resource estimate method, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Christensen Ranch Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Christensen Ranch Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Christensen Ranch	GT Contour Method	1.0	17.0	0.04	2	0.25
Note	Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Christensen Ranch Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Christensen Ranch Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

45

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Christensen Ranch Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. Table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Christensen Ranch Project Area.

Table 5: Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Christensen Ranch	0 - 100	100 – 300	300 – 500

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Christensen Ranch Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Christensen Ranch Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals, and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Christensen Ranch Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Christensen Ranch Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in table following.

46

Table 6: Christensen Ranch Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Christensen Ranch
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.073	6,555	9,596,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.073	6,555	9,596,000

Table 7: Christensen Ranch Project Area inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Christensen Ranch
Inferred	N/A	N/A	0	0

Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is currently under care and maintenance. Mine Units 2, 3, 4 and 6 were determined restored by the WDEQ/LQD in 2021. Mine Units 5, 7, 8 and 10 are in a standby mode awaiting restart, and Mine Units 9, 11 and 12 have yet to be constructed.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is currently under care and maintenance, pending market conditions improving sufficiently to resume production.

47

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”, current on 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.

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 6,281 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, WY, along State Highway 387. The Moore Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of state-managed land.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

48

Ownership

This Moore Ranch Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Moore Ranch Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.

Mineral rights for the Moore Ranch Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Moore Ranch
Acreage	1,200	1,740	1,754.1	4,694.1
Leases/Claims	2	5	86	93
Total Annual Cost	$3,600	Confidential	$14,190	$17,790

Within the Moore Ranch Project Area, UEC holds two State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands and 86 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. There are five fee (private) mineral leases with private mineral owners on the Moore Ranch Project Area.

Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Moore Ranch Project Area is within Campbell County, Wyoming. This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. In the northern Moore Ranch Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Moore Ranch Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Moore Ranch Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Moore Ranch Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Moore Ranch Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Moore Ranch Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

49

The nearest community to the Moore Ranch Project Area is Wright, Wyoming a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59. Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport. Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Moore Ranch Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, approximately 20 to 30 miles southwest of the Moore Ranch Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.

A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Moore Ranch Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper. Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Moore Ranch Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

At the Moore Ranch Project Area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the Moore Ranch Project Area. Water extracted as part of ISR will be recycled for reinjection. Four Class I Underground Injection Control (UIC) disposal wells have been permitted for disposal of limited quantities of fluids that cannot be returned to the production aquifers. The Moore Ranch Project Area is adjacent to paved, public roadways which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and products. Electrical power lines extend into and across the Moore Ranch Project Area.

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.

50

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

Table 2: 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 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.

51

Permitting and Licensing

The Moore Ranch Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/LQD.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Moore Ranch Project Area resides in the PRB. 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.

● 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 ft 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 PRB 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.

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

52

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 ft below this coal bed and at a depth of 200–350 ft below the surface. The host sandstone is 80-150 ft 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.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Moore Ranch Project Area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs and lithologic logs developed by Conoco, a major US company, intent on developing the property as a production center. Standard industry methods were used at the time of data collection.

Paper records of historic radiometric data were input into a spreadsheet. Radiometric log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.

Historic drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps. Historic drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the North American Datum (“NAD”) 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes. Approximately 10% of the historic drill holes were resurveyed.

Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey grade GPS equipment.

Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historic data.

Since no historic core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the Moore Ranch Project Area was conducted in 2006 and 2008. The cores were assayed to verify historic data and two were used for leach testing.

WWC prepared an independent Canadian NI 43-101 technical report on resources for this Moore Ranch Project Area in April of 2019 (WWC, 2019a). The current resource estimate is based, in part, on that report.

53

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The GT contour method was used to estimate resources at the Moore Ranch Project Area. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Moore Ranch Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Moore Ranch Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Moore Ranch	GT Contour Method	1.0	16.0	0.02	2	0.30

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Moore Ranch Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Moore Ranch Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports; (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

54

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Moore Ranch Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Moore Ranch Project Area.

Table 5: Moore Ranch Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Moore Ranch	0 – 70	70 – 200	200 – 400

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Moore Ranch Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Moore Ranch Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Moore Ranch Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Moore Ranch Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 6: Moore Ranch Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Moore Ranch
Measured	0.30	0.060	2,675	3,210,000
Indicated	N/A	N/A	0	0
Total Measured and Indicated	0.30	0.060	2,675	3,210,000

The estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table below.

Table 7: Moore Ranch Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Moore Ranch
Inferred	0.30	0.047	46	43,700

Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Moore Ranch Project Area is currently under care and maintenance with the license renewal process in public notice.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company intends to continue to keep the Moore Ranch Project Area in a care and maintenance mode.

55

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”, current on 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, despite a history of commercial production.

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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

56

Ownership

This Reno Creek Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Reno Creek Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.

Mineral rights for the Reno Creek Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and (fee) private mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Reno Creek
Acreage	3,200	4,583	10,980	18,763
Leases/Claims	4	36	549	589
Total Annual Cost	$9,600	Confidential	$90,585	$100,185

Within the Reno Creek Project Area, UEC holds four State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands and 549 unpatented lode claims on federally (BLM) administered minerals. The BLM administers no surface rights at the Reno Creek Project Area, only mineral rights. UEC has 36 fee (private) mineral leases on the Reno Creek Project Area.

Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Reno Creek Project Area is within Campbell County, Wyoming. This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south, and the Black Hills to the east. In the Reno Creek Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Reno Creek Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Reno Creek Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Reno Creek Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Reno Creek Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Reno Creek Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the “last freeze” occurs during late May and the “first freeze” occurs in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

57

The nearest community to the Reno Creek Project Area is Wright, Wyoming, a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59. Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport. Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Reno Creek Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, approximately 20 to 30 miles southwest of the Reno Creek Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.

A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Reno Creek Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper. Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, the Reno Creek Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

UEC owns 40 acres of land near the intersection of Wyoming State Highway 387 and the Clarkelen County Road to build and operate a future satellite facility. This land is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal. A well will be drilled to provide potable water for the Reno Creek Project Area.

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.

58

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

Table 2: 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.

59

Table 2: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Reno Creek Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
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.

60

Permitting and Licensing

The Reno Creek Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/LQD.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Reno Creek Project Area resides in the PRB. 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.

● 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 ft 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 PRB 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.

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

61

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 ft thick. Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body accumulations over 200 ft thick.

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.

Data Verification

WWC prepared an independent TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project Campbell County, WY USA”, which was completed and was current on March 31, 2022. That TRS details the resource estimate data verification for the Reno Creek Project Area. A summary of the data verification found in that TRS is provided below.

The UEC database contains 10,151 drill holes drilled by RCH and other former operators on and adjacent to the resource areas. Electric log gamma data are available for more than 75% of these holes, and interval data (thickness, grade, and grade-thickness) are available for about 95% of the mineralized holes.

Approximately 50 drill holes were not used in the current resource estimate due to identification of problematic data during recent data validation processes.

Data for 6,191 drill holes were used in the current resource estimate; however, more or less all of the holes supported geological model construction, so essentially all holes were used to support mineral resource estimation. Within the data set, 6,061 holes are within the Reno Creek Project Area. The drill hole data consists of logs, surveys and data generated for those holes.

UEC personnel entered the data into the database and constantly monitored data quality during data entry and when data are extracted for any purposes.

62

As previously discussed, industry standard methods were utilized at the time of data collection. Available data were from drill maps, cross sections, geophysical logs and lithologic logs. WWC has worked with UEC contacts to obtain and verify exploration drilling and sampling data was complete, thorough and accurate. Geophysical logs for historic drill holes were analyzed and evaluated for completeness and sufficiently quality check in the process of developing the drill hole database for the resource modeling. Surveyed monuments or markers documenting the location of abandoned drill holes were not able to be physically inspected during the site visit, however, the database of drill hole locations was checked against the hole location identified on geophysical logs.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The estimation method was a two-dimensional (2D) Delaunay Triangulation implemented in RockWorks, a comprehensive software program for creating 2D and 3D maps and is an industry standard in the environmental, geotechnical, petroleum and mining industries. The Delaunay Triangulation method connects data points (drill holes) via a triangular network with one data point at each triangle vertex and constructs the triangles as close to equilateral as possible. Once the network was determined, the slope of each triangular plate was computed using the three vertex point values. Next, a 25 ft x 25 ft grid was superimposed over the triangular network, and each grid node (grid center) was assigned a Z-value, based on the intercept of the node and the sloping triangular plate. Only grid nodes falling within the boundary of the triangular network (convex hull) were estimated. The distance of the grid node from a drill hole location was computed and used to determine whether the node was located within UEC’s property boundary. Triangulations and grids for both grade and thickness were constructed. Next, the thickness and grade grids were multiplied to obtain a GT grid. Finally, the mineral resource classification criteria was applied to the GT grid to obtain a classified mineral resource. Resource pounds were determined by taking the average GT in each GT contour interval and multiplying it by the area and a conversion factor, then dividing that value by the tonnage factor. The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Reno Creek Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Reno Creek Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Reno Creek	Delaunay Triangulation Method	1.0	17.0	0.01	1	0.20

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Reno Creek Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

63

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Reno Creek Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021 due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Reno Creek Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Reno Creek Project Area.

Table 5: Reno Creek Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Reno Creek	0 – 50	50 – 250	250 – 500

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Reno Creek Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Reno Creek Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals, and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Reno Creek Project Area.

64

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Reno Creek Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Reno Creek Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Reno Creek Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Reno Creek
Measured	0.20	0.043	14,990	12,920,000
Indicated	0.20	0.039	16,980	13,070,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.20	0.041	31,970	25,990,000

Table 7: Reno Creek Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Reno Creek
Inferred	0.20	0.039	1,920	1,490,000

Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Reno Creek Project Area is currently under care and maintenance with additional areas currently being added to the Reno Creek Project Area through the amendment process overseen by the state of Wyoming.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to complete permit and license amendments to add new mineable acreage to the Reno Creek Project Area. Drilling plans are also in the initial stages of development.

65

Ludeman ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Ludeman Project (the “Ludeman Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” 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.

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 19,888 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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

66

Ownership

This Ludeman Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Ludeman Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the Ludeman Project Area.

Mineral rights for the Ludeman Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Ludeman
Acreage	1,440	1,749.9	17,586.1	20,768
Leases/Claims	4	2	746	752
Total Annual Cost	$4,320	Confidential	$123,090	$127,410

Within the Ludeman Project Area, UEC holds four State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands with a combined acreage of 1,440 acres. UEC also holds 746 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. An additional two fee mineral leases are held with private mineral owners. In total, the project mineral holdings total approximately 20,768 acres in the Ludeman Project Area.

Payments for state and private leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Ludeman Project Area is within Converse County, Wyoming. This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south, and the Black Hills to the east. In the Ludeman Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Ludeman Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Ludeman Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Ludeman Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Ludeman Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Ludeman Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the “last freeze” occurs during late May and the “first freeze” occurs in mid- to late September.

67

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Douglas, Glenrock and Casper. Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Ludeman Project Area have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

The Ludeman Project Area has been historically used for livestock grazing. Nearby uranium operations have occurred historically. Non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the Ludeman Project Area. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection. Ponds are the primary permitted wastewater disposal method at the Ludeman Project Area. However, typical ISR mining operations use disposal wells, which are permitted as a secondary wastewater disposal method at the Ludeman Project Area. The proximity of the Ludeman Project Area to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and products. High voltage transmission lines from the Dave Johnston Power Plant pass within the Ludeman Project Area.

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.

68

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

Table 2: 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.

69

Table 2: Historic Ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired Energy Metals in late 2007 and continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area from 2007 through 2012. The primary goals of drilling included exploration to establish continuity of regional ore trends, development drilling to determine the lateral extents of the ore body, stratigraphic investigation, confirmation of the location and nature of mineralization, and collection of cores for leach testing and analysis of uranium, mineralogy, trace metals, disequilibrium, permeability, porosity and density. Acquired the WDEQ/LQD mine permit and NRC license.	Approximately 2,180	Continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area. Additional holes included boreholes, core holes, and monitor wells.
2021	UEC	The Ludeman Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

70

Permitting and Licensing

The Ludeman Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/LQD.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Ludeman Project Area resides in the PRB. 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.

● 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.

The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.

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 ft 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 PRB 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.

71

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.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Ludeman Project Area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs, reports and digital databases. Standard industry methods were used at the time of data collection.

Historic radiometric data log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.

Historic drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps. Historic drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the NAD 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes. Approximately 10% of the historic drill holes were resurveyed.

Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey grade GPS equipment.

Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historic data.

The Ludeman Project Area has been host to two successful pilot plant studies. The Leuenberger Pilot was in production for 12 months from two wellfields which recovered a combined 14,600 lbs U3O8. Recovery rates in the two wellfields were 68 percent and 27 percent of estimated in-place resources, and peak head grades were 175 ppm and 32 ppm (UNC Teton-Nedco, 1983). The North Platte Pilot was in production for five months with total recovery of 1,515 lbs of U3O8 at a recovery rate of 27 percent. Baseline investigations for a third pilot study were conducted by the APS Commission; however, actual pilot scale production was never conducted. Laboratory leach testing noted that the overall recovery averaged 76 percent of estimated in-place resource.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Ludeman Project Area. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.

72

The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Ludeman Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Ludeman Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Ludeman	GT Contour Method	1.0	17.0	0.02	2	0.25

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Ludeman Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Ludeman Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

73

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Ludeman Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Ludeman Project Area.

Table 5: Ludeman Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Ludeman	0 – 70	70 – 200	200 – 400

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Ludeman Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, as shown on the geologic cross sections the sub-surface geology within the Ludeman Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Ludeman Project Area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production, and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Ludeman Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Ludeman Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Ludeman Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Ludeman
Measured	0.25	0.094	2,674	5,016,900
Indicated	0.25	0.088	2,660	4,696,900
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.091	5,334	9,713,800

Table 7: Ludeman Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Ludeman
Inferred	0.25	0.073	866	1,258,000

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Ludeman Project Area is fully permitted and in a care and maintenance mode.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the Ludeman Project Area in a care and maintenance status.

74

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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).

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 10,757 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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

75

Ownership

This Allemand-Ross Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Allemand-Ross Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.

Mineral rights for the Allemand-Ross Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Allemand-Ross
Acreage	318	2,773.9	8,518.2	11,610.1
Leases/Claims	2	7	452	461
Total Annual Cost	$683	Confidential	$74,580	$75,263

Within the Allemand-Ross Project Area, UEC holds two State of Wyoming uranium leases with a combined acreage of 318 acres. UEC also holds 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. An additional seven fee (private) mineral leases are held with private mineral owners. In total, the net mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross Project Area comprise 11,610.1 acres.

Payments for state and private leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Allemand-Ross Project Area is within Converse County, Wyoming. This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. In the northern Allemand-Ross Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Allemand-Ross Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Allemand-Ross Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Allemand-Ross Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Allemand-Ross Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Allemand-Ross Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

76

The Allemand-Ross Project Area is accessible via two-wheel drive on existing county and/or two-track roads as follows: from Douglas, Wyoming, proceed northwesterly on WY Highway 93, approximately 21 miles to the junction with WY Highway 95. From the junction of WY Highways 93 and 95, proceed northerly approximately 32 miles on Converse County Road 31, also known as the Ross Road. The Ross Road is an all-season road that is maintained by Converse County. The southern section of which is paved, and the northern section is gravel surface. A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Allemand-Ross Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Glenrock, Douglas and Casper. Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Allemand-Ross Project Area have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

At the Allemand-Ross Project Area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the Allemand-Ross Project Area. Water extracted as part of ISR will be recycled for reinjection. At least two Class I UIC deep disposal wells are planned for the Allemand-Ross Project Area. The Allemand-Ross Project Area is adjacent to all-weather roadways which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. Electrical power lines extend into and across the Allemand-Ross Project Area.

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.

77

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

Table 2: 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 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.

78

Permitting and Licensing

The Allemand-Ross Project Area is not permitted.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Allemand-Ross Project Area resides in the PRB. 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 as 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.

● 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.

The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.

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 ft 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 PRB 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.

79

The Allemand-Ross Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation and is part of the thick PRB sedimentary series. 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.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Allemand-Ross Project Area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs and historic reports developed by Conoco intent on developing the property as a production center. Standard industry methods were used at the time of data collection.

Paper records of historic radiometric data were input into a spreadsheet. Radiometric log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.

Historic drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps. Field checks of historic drill hole locations were conducted, with the locations found to be within acceptable tolerances. Historic drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the NAD 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes. Approximately 10% of the historic drill holes were resurveyed.

Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey grade GPS equipment.

Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historic data.

Since no historic core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the project was conducted in 2005 with the completion of 11 holes.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

80

The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Allemand-Ross Project Area. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density. The GT Contour method was used to estimate the resources at all the Christensen Ranch Project Area.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters, and mineralized cutoffs used at the Allemand-Ross Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Allemand-Ross Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Allemand-Ross	GT Contour Method	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.25

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Allemand-Ross Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Allemand-Ross Project Area with the unique aspects of each Allemand-Ross Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Allemand-Ross Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

81

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Allemand-Ross Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.

Table 5: Allemand-Ross Project Area Drill Hole Information

Project Area	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Allemand-Ross	0 – 70	70 – 200	200 – 400

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Allemand-Ross Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Allemand-Ross Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● commercial production at the Smith Highland Mine is just south of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Allemand-Ross Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Allemand-Ross Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Allemand-Ross Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Allemand-Ross
Measured	0.25	0.085	246	417,000
Indicated	0.25	0.066	32	42,400
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.083	278	459,400

82

Table 7: Allemand-Ross Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Allemand-Ross
Inferred	0.25	0.098	1,275	2,496,000

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Allemand-Ross Project Area is not permitted.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the mineral leases and mining claims in the Allemand-Ross Project Area.

83

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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).

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 7,014 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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

84

Ownership

This Barge Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Barge Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.

Mineral rights for the Barge Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and (fee) private mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Barge
Acreage	640	0	6,374.2	7,014.2
Leases/Claims	1	0	342	343
Total Annual Cost	$1,920	$0	$56,430	$58,350

Within the Barge Project Area, UEC holds one State of Wyoming uranium leases of 640 acres. UEC also holds 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. In total, the net mineral holdings in the Barge Project Area comprise 7,014 acres.

Payments for state leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Barge Project Area is within Converse County, Wyoming. This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB. This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin. The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. In the northern Barge Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the Barge Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Barge Project Area. Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the Barge Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush. The Barge Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Barge Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches. The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.

85

The site is accessible via two-wheel drive. From Glenrock, Wyoming, proceed northeast on WY Highway 95 approximately 18 miles to the junction with WY Highway 93. From Douglas, Wyoming, proceed northwesterly approximately 21 miles to the junction with WY Highway 95. From the junction of WY Highways 93 and 95, proceed northerly approximately 25 miles on Ross Road. The site is then approximately two miles west of Ross Road. A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Barge Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper. Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Barge Project Area have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

Near the Barge Project Area, historical uranium operations in the late 1970s and early 1980s brought access and electrical power to the area, which remain. Water supply needs to be reestablished in the Barge Project Area. Loaded resin would be transported to the Irigaray CPP for final concentrate production. The Barge Project Area is adjacent to all-weather roadways which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product.

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.

86

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

Table 2: 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.

87

Permitting and Licensing

The Barge Project Area is not permitted.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Barge Project Area resides in the PRB. 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 (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.

● 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.

The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.

Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation and Wasatch 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 ft 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 PRB 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.

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

88

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.

Mineralization and Deposit Type

Uranium mineralization at the Barge 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.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Barge Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

The TRS QP reviewed the mineral resource model and in the QP’s opinion the model is accurate and reliable.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Barge Project Area. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

89

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Barge Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Barge Project Area Resources Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Barge	GT Contour Method	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.25

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Barge Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Barge Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Barge Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Barge Project Area.

Table 5: Barge Project Area Drill Hole Information

Project Area	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Barge	-	50 – 100	-

90

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Barge Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, as shown on the geologic cross sections the sub-surface geology within the Barge Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas; and

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Barge Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Barge Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Barge Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Barge
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.051	4,301	4,361,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.051	4,301	4,361,000

Table 7: Barge Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Barge
Inferred	N/A	N/A	0	0

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Barge Project Area is not permitted.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the mineral leases and federal mining claims within the Barge Project Area.

91

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”, current on March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).

Property Description

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in the Great Divide Basin (“GDB”) in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, USA.

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. Jab is located entirely in Sweetwater County in all or portions of 11 sections (4,006 acres) at latitude 42.2209 and longitude -108.0439 in decimal degrees.

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in both Fremont and Sweetwater Counties in all or portions of 11 sections (3,509 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 are located on federal BLM and state-managed land.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

92

Ownership

This Jab/West Jab Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Jab/West Jab Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

Mineral rights for the Jab/West Jab Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims) and State of Wyoming mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law and state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Jab/West Jab
Acreage	960	0	4,483.4	5,443.4
Leases/Claims	3	0	217	220
Total Annual Cost	$2,880	$0	$35,805	$38,685

Within the Jab/West Jab Project Area, UEC holds three State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands and 217 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals. There are no fee (private) minerals in the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

Payments for state leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of this TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is in Sweetwater and Fremont Counties, Wyoming. These counties are in the north-central portion of the GDB, which is the major physiographic feature of southwestern Wyoming. The GDB is an oval-shaped structural depression that encompasses nearly 3,500 square miles in south-central Wyoming. Regional structural features also include the Granite Mountains and Wind River Range to the North, the Rawlins Uplift to the east, Rock Springs Uplift to the west and the Wamsutter Arch to the south.

The topography in Sweetwater County ranges from flat plains to gentle slopes that are dissected by southerly-flowing ephemeral washes. Elevations in the area ranges from approximately 6,900 ft to 7,400 ft above mean sea level. Vegetation on the Jab/West Jab Project Area mostly consists of sagebrush but includes some native perennial grasses, cushion plants, cacti, perennial forbs and lichens. Yearly precipitation in the Jab/West Jab Project Area is approximately 8 to 12 inches.

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in Sweetwater and Fremont Counties in the GDB. The nearest community is the small, incorporated town of Bairoil, Wyoming, with a population of 68, which is approximately 22 miles from the Jab/West Jab Project Area. The Jab/West Jab Project Area is accessed from State Highway 287 and through Bairoil by traveling west on Bairoil Road (County Road 22). Alternatively, the Jab and West Jab Project Area may be accessed by traveling south from Jeffrey City following Crooks Gap Road. The Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed from Rawlins an incorporated community with population of 8,221, which is located on Interstate 80 approximately 45 air miles southeast. Alternatively, the Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed from Casper, by traveling southwest on Wyoming Highway 220 to the intersection with Wyoming Highway 287. The Jab/West Jab Project Area may then be accessed from Wyoming Highway 287 by County Road 22. Bairoil is approximately 90 miles from Casper.

A major east-west railroad (the Union Pacific) lies approximately 40 air miles south of the Jab/West Jab Project Area. The Union Pacific generally parallels the alignment of Interstate 80 south of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

93

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as Rawlins and Casper.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

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.

94

Table 2: 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.

95

Permitting and Licensing

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is not permitted.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located within the north-central part of the GDB. The GDB and the Washakie Basin (“WB”) in the southwest together compromise the Greater Green River Basin (the “GGRB”). These basins contain up to 25,000 ft of cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.

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

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

The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses 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.

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 – Battle Spring Hosted Mineralization

One of the primary stratigraphic units in the Jab/West Jab Project Area is in the Battle Spring Formation, which is the host to uranium mineralization. The Battle Spring Formation is overlain by erosional remnants of the Laney Member of the Green River Formation and the Bridger Formation. The Battle Spring Formation was deposited by a large alluvial fan system consisting of deposits of very fine- to very coarse-grained arkosic sandstones with interbedded think shales, mudstones and localized conglomerates. The Battle Spring Formation is relatively flat in the Jab/West Jab Project Area. In the Jab/West Jab Project Area, there is a high-angle normal fault, which forms the northern limit of mineralization in the Silverbell portion of the deposit. The displacement along the fault is approximately 80 ft. The Silverbell portion of the mineralization is on the down-thrown side of the fault, while the Red Desert portion of the mineralization is on the up-thrown side of the fault. Within the Jab/West Jab Project Area, mineralization occurs within a single sandstone unit. At the Jab/West Jab Project Area, most of the mineralization occurs within a single unit; however, in the northeast portion of the Jab/West Jab Project Area, there is also mineralization in a lower sand unit.

Mineralization and Deposit Type

Uranium mineralization at the Jab/West Jab 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.

96

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Jab/West Jab Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

The TRS QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable. The TRS QP reviewed a random sampling of 10 percent of the original logs and compared the GT, intercept depth, and location to the mineral intercept table used in the GT contour mineral resource estimate.

Confirmation drilling to validate historic data on the Jab portion of the Jab/West Jab Project Area was conducted by previous owners in 2006 and 2007. 20 offset holes were drilled within 10 ft of the surface location of historic holes. With respect to total GT of all 20 verification holes, the variance from historic holes was less than one percent; however, variation in individual holes was higher. The GT variation of offset holes ranged from 39 percent less to 142 percent more than the historic holes.

In the opinion of the TRS QP, the methods used and results of the exploration potential for the Jab/West Jab Project Area are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry. However, exploration potential does not meet the SEC standards identified in S-K 1300 to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and as such, there is no certainty that the exploration potential provided herein will be realized.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the Jab/West Jab Project Area include the GT contour method and the Delaunay Triangulation Method. Each method is briefly discussed below.

The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Jab/West Jab Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Methods, Parameter, and Cutoff Summary by Jab/West Jab Project Area

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Jab/West Jab	GT Contour Method	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.25

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

97

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Jab/West Jab Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Jab/West Jab Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Jab/West Jab Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

Table 5: Jab/West Jab Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Jab/West Jab	50 – 100	50 – 100	-

98

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Jab/West Jab Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Jab/West Jab Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Jab/West Jab Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Jab/West Jab Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 6: Jab/West Jab Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Jab/West Jab
Measured	0.25	0.072	1,621	2,335,000
Indicated	0.25	0.077	253	392,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.073	1,874	2,727,000

The estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table below.

Table 7: Jab/West Jab Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Jab/West Jab
Inferred	0.25	0.060	1,402	1,677,000

Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● density assignments; and

● changes to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

99

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Jab/West Jab Project Area:

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any three-dimensional location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several automated techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present. A few uncertain roll-front interpretations were noted. Some of the interpretations were revised, but additional work is needed to ensure a remaining small percentage of interpretations are verified; and

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The QP and coworkers supervised by the QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Project that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The QP expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is not permitted.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the State of Wyoming mineral leases and lode claims within the Jab/West Jab Project Area.

100

Charlie ISR Project

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

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 720 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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

101

Ownership

This Charlie Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Charlie Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the Project Area.

Mineral rights for the Charlie Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Charlie
Acreage	720	0	0	720
Leases/Claims	1	0	0	1
Total Annual Cost	$2,880	$0	$0	$2,880

UEC controls the state mineral lease.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The site is accessible from Casper via Interstate 25, then U.S. Highway 87 to Lynch, State Highways 387 and 192 and along 18 miles of secondary unpaved roads. Access from Gillette is via Highway 50, Campbell County Highway 14 and the “Black and Yellow” road to Heldt Draw. All roads are shared by oilfield and other uranium ISR operators and are usually maintained during the winter. The site is readily accessible year-round.

The Charlie Project is located at an average elevation of 4,615 feet above mean sea level. The property is dissected by Willow Creek, which is a tributary of the Powder River and carries intermittent seasonal flow. Topography of the area consists of gently rolling hills to the east of the Willow Creek drainage and steep sided drainage features to the west.

Climate at the Charlie Project Area is continental semi-arid, with an average annual precipitation of approximately 14 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100°F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards. Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt. The Project is located approximately midway between Casper and Gillette, Wyoming. Casper and Gillette, Wyoming average weather conditions follow:

Table 2: Property Climatological Summary

	Casper	Gillette
Average Annual high temperature	59.2°F	59.9°F
Average Annual low temperature	31.3°F	33°F
Average Annual temperature	45.25°F	46.15°F
Average annual precipitation – rainfall	12.48 inches	16.93 inches
Average annual snowfall	75 inches	59 inches

102

Most common native vegetation is sagebrush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush. No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area. There is no cultivation for crops within 10 miles of the site. The general area is subject to grazing by sheep and cattle.

Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors. Small rodents and rabbits are common. The Greater Sage Grouse are present in the general area of the Charlie Project Area, however, the Charlie Project Area is not within a Sage Grouse Core area.

Mine development will require access, power and water supply. Infrastructure in the immediate vicinity includes an electrical substation and coal-bed methane gas plant. There is also a 14.4 kVa electrical supply at the Willow Creek ISR mine operated by the Sheridan-Johnson Rural Electrical association approximately two miles from the Charlie Project Area. Water is typically supplied through ground water wells. Several industrial water wells are located in the vicinity of the Charlie Project Area.

The nearest major communities include Casper and Gillette, Wyoming. Casper is the second-largest city in Wyoming, with a population of approximately 55,000. Gillette is the third largest city in Wyoming with a population of approximately 29,000.

Casper and Gillette are, respectively, the county seats of Natrona and Campbell counties. Both areas have a long history of both an oil and gas development and uranium and coal mining. Several oilfield and mining service companies are located in Casper, including a caterpillar dealership, several drilling companies and industrial supply companies. Casper and/or Gillette has an adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Charlie Project Area.

Surface ownership is held by the Christensen Ranch. UEC will need to develop a surface use agreement with the Christensen Ranch.

Wyoming has granted surface use for open pit mining in a portion of the Charlie Project Area in the past and is not expected to hinder ISR mine development including necessary surface facilities subject to appropriate permitting and licensing.

For future mining and mineral processing, the author concludes that UEC can obtain through permitting and licensing of site activities, sufficient surface rights for possible future mining operations, including potential waste disposal areas, ISR wellfields and potential plant sites.

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.

103

Table 3: 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.

104

Permitting and Licensing

The Charlie Project Area is not permitted for ISR, but does have a permit to mine using open-pit methods.

Geologic setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Charlie Project Area resides in the PRB. The PRB extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana, and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline, with the basin axis located to the west of the Charlie Project Area. 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, Tertiary geology includes the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, which conformably overlies the Lance Formation and is a fluvial-sedimentary stratigraphic unit that consists of fine to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone, which is interbedded with siltstone, mudstone and carbonaceous materials. 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.

● 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.

The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.

Fort Union Formation uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands. 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 across much of the PRB. The Wasatch is 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 ft 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 PRB 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.

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

105

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.

Data Verification

Exploration potential was estimated for several of the sand units at the Charlie Project Area. Exploration targets were defined for the E, F and G sand units. These units are deeper and were not as extensively drilled as the upper sand units A through D. While mineralization is present in drilling for the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands. Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored. Within the E sand, there are areas where the drill data reflects sufficient thickness, grade and continuity to estimate indicated and inferred mineral resources.

Exploration targets were estimated by applying a range of GT values, determined from available drill data to an interpreted trend of mineralization. A trend for each of the exploration target areas was defined from drilling and/or geologic data based on a redox front interpreted from the drill data by the TRS QP.

Specific parameters used:

● The average GT by sand varied from a low value of 0.63 (7.0 feet @ 0.09 %eU3O8) to a high value of 1.28 (8.5 feet @ 0.151 %eU3O8);

● A width across the redox front of 50 feet was assumed for both the low and high cases; and

● The length of trend was interpreted as 10,060 feet without accounting for the typical sinuosity observed along roll-fronts.

In the opinion of the TRS QP, the methods used and results of the exploration potential for the Charlie Project Area are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry. However, exploration potential does not meet the SEC standards identified in S-K 1300 to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and, as such, there is no certainty that the exploration potential provided herein will be realized.

106

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The primary method for estimating Charlie Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters, and mineralized cutoffs used at the Charlie Project Area are summarized below.

Table 4: Charlie Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters1
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Charlie	GT Contour (Indicated) Projected (Inferred)	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.20

Note Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness, and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Charlie Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Charlie Project Area with the unique aspects of each Charlie Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Charlie Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 5:         UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

107

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Charlie Project Area are classified based on the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The specific criteria for classifying resources as measured, indicated or inferred vary by Charlie Project Area depending on the methodology used. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Charlie Project Area.

Table 6:         Charlie Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Charlie	-	Up to 400	N/A

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Charlie Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Charlie Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Charlie Project Area.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Charlie Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Charlie Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 7: Charlie Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Charlie
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.2	0.123	1,255	3,121,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.2	0.123	1,255	3,121,000

108

The estimates of inferred mineral resources for the Charlie Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 8: Charlie Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Charlie
Inferred	0.2	0.12	411	988,000

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

A WDEQ Permit to Mine exists for the Charlie Project Area, which UEC intends to update to current standards for ISR mining and incorporate the Charlie Project Area as two additional Mine Units of the Christensen Ranch Project Area.

The Company plans to maintain the State of Wyoming mineral lease for the Charlie Project Area.

109

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”, current on 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.

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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

110

Ownership

This Nine Mile Lake Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed fee mineral leases with landowners who hold mineral ownership within and outside the various Nine Mile Lake Project Area boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the various project areas.

UEC has a possessory right to explore, develop and produce on the unpatented lode mining claims and must pay an annual maintenance fee to the Bureau of Land Management of $155.00 per claim on or before September 1. Surface use on mining claims on BLM lands are allowed subject to 3809 regulations and require both BLM and WDEQ/LQD permitting. Surface use on private lands is subject to the terms of the respective surface owner leases and/or agreements.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Nine Mile Lake
Acreage	1,280	5,084	3,800	10,164
Leases/Claims	2	7	190	199
Total Annual Cost	$5,760	N/A	$29,450	$39,335

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The site is accessible from either Interstate Highway 25 or from the Salt Creek highway. The site is readily accessible year-round. Infrastructure was established for past pilot ISR mining operations and currently exists for nearby residents, including power lines and water wells.

The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is characterized as rolling prairie and dissected river breaks. Regional structural features include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. At the northernmost Nine Mile Lake Project Area in the PRB the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams that dissect the area. Elevations range from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level. Nine Mile Lake for which the project is named is located approximately 2 miles south of the project.

Vegetation within the Nine Mile Lake Project Area consists primarily of grassland with areas of sagebrush. Some of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area lies within the mixed grass ecoregion of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25° F in the winter to 100° F in the summer. Typically, the “last freeze” occurs during late May and the “first freeze” in mid- to late September.

Yearly precipitation averages about 13 inches. The region is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year) but provides much less moisture than rain events.

Most common native vegetation is sagebrush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush. No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area. Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north facing slopes.

111

Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors. Small rodents and rabbits are common. The Greater Sage Grouse, present in the general area of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area, however, the project is not within a Sage Grouse Core area.

Mine development will require access, power and water supply. Infrastructure is present and/or readily proximate to the Project. The nearest community is the town of Casper, Wyoming. Casper is the second-largest city in Wyoming, according to the 2010 census, with a population of 55,316. Several oilfield and mining service companies are located in Casper including a caterpillar dealership, several drilling companies, and industrial supply companies. Casper has an adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Nine Mile Lake Project.

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 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.

112

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

Table 2: 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.

113

Permitting and Licensing

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is not permitted.

In order to conduct exploratory drilling UEC would be required to obtain a Drilling Notification (“DN”) approved by the WDEQ/LQD and the BLM. The DN would allow for surface use for the purposes of exploration by drilling on BLM surface. Separate surface leases and/or agreements would be required for drilling on private lands.

Although not required at this stage, mine development would require a number of permits depending on the type and extent of development, the most significant permits being the Permit to Mine issued by the WDEQ/LQD and the Source Materials License also from the WDEQ/LQD required for mineral processing of natural uranium. Any injection or pumping operations will require permits from the WDEQ which has authority under the Safe Water Drinking Act that stems from a grant of primacy from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for administering UIC programs in Wyoming.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area resides in the PRB. 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.

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located along the southwestern flank of the PRB which is a 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.

Surface exposures, in order of prevalence, include the Cretaceous Lewis Shale, Quaternary sand and gravel deposits and the Cretaceous Mesa Verde Formation. Uranium mineralization occurs within the upper portions of the Mesa Verde Formation which is overlain by the Lewis Shale and underlain by the Cody Shale. Locally the Mesa Verde Formation is subdivided into the Teapot Sandstone and Nine Mile Lake Facies.

Uranium mineralization occurs in the Teapot Sandstone which is locally 50- to 100-ft thick and occurs at depths ranging from 50 to 600 feet below the ground surface. The Teapot Sandstone is further subdivided into two major stratigraphic horizons termed the Upper and Lower sands which are separated by a relatively thin (approximately 4 foot) layer of lignite and carbonaceous shale. The Teapot Sandstone is sub-arkosic, medium to fine grained, angular to sub-angular, and moderate to well sorted. Uranium mineralization occurs in both the Upper and Lower sands. Uranium mineralization is of the roll-front type with an average thickness of 9 feet. The principal uranium mineral is uraninite (UO2) with minor amounts of coffinite a uranium silicate. The principal reductant appears to be carbonaceous material and lignites interspersed in zones of mineralization.

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. However, the occurrence of uranium mineralization is only known to occur in the vicinity of the project.

The sedimentary host sandstone formed in a deltaic environment and is interfingered with thin shale, carbonaceous shale, and liginite units. The carbonaceous material considered the primary reductant although seepage of H2S gas from underlying oil and gas deposits reacting with iron in the ground water could account for the presence of pyrite which would also serve as a reductant.

Potential sources of uranium would include leaching of uranium from oligocene volcanic detritus in the White River Formation and leaching of uranium from Granite Mountains. Roll-front deposits are characterized by oxidized or altered rock on one side of the roll-front and reduced or unaltered rock on the opposite side of the front. Based on review of geologic reports and the drill data including geophysical logs and lithological descriptions, the TRS QP concludes that at the oxidized tongue of the geochemical system is located to the west of the mineralization with the reduced side of the roll-front to the east. Mineralization occurs in multiple fronts trending generally from south southeast to north north-west.

114

The key components for the formation of roll-front type deposits according to Granger and Warren (1979) include:

● a permeable host formation;

● a source of soluble uranium;

● oxidizing ground waters to leach and transport the uranium;

● adequate reductant within the host formation;

● time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface;

● both the Upper and Lower members of the Teapot Sandstone are permeable;

● both the White River Formation and Granite Mountains are in reasonable proximity and could have provided the source of uranium;

● oxidation of the sandstone host is evident from the lithologic descriptions from drilling and field examination of the outcrop;

● carbonaceous material is described to occur within the host; and

● drilling demonstrates the presence of uranium mineralization at an oxidation/reduction interface (“REDOX”) indicating that favorable hydrologic and geochemical conditions were present for sufficient time to concentrate uranium.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area was host to several pilot scale ISR studies in the 1970s performed by RME, including a joint study with U.S. Bureau of Mines from 1977 to 1979. Pilot scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50-foot radius. The testing demonstrated that uranium recovery using a sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide lixiviant was successful.

An independent NI 43-101 for the project was prepared in April of 2019 by BRS Inc. The TRS QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Currently available drill data for the main resource area consists of radiometric equivalent data (%eU3O8) for 1,100 drill holes completed primarily between 1972 and 1978. Of these 1,100 drill holes, 26 were cored. In addition, in 2006 EMC drilled 45 holes on a separate mineral lease. All original drill data including geophysical logs and lithological logs are available for the Nine Mile Lake Project Area. The drill hole databased utilized for the estimation of mineral resources was developed directly from the original geophysical logs by the TRS QP. The estimation of Indicated Mineral Resources was limited to this area where the original drill data was available.

Additional drilling was completed outside the main resource area. This includes areas along the REDOX north and south of the mean resource area and on both the east and west sides of I25. In these areas, available data includes maps showing drill hole locations, REDOX boundaries, GT data, and polygonal blocks used for historic resource estimation. While this data demonstrates the location and general nature of mineralization outside the main resource areas the drill data cannot be sufficiently verified, in the opinion of the TRS QP, to justify estimation of Indicated Mineral Resources. Thus, in these areas, where the available data clearly indicated a mineralized trend the TRS QP projected Inferred Mineral Resources.

115

Pre-2000 drill data generally consists of geophysical logs of drill holes including of copies (blueprints) of original drill logs and copies of digital printouts of depth and counts per second (“CPS”) in one-half foot increments within the mineralized zones. The geophysical logs include natural gamma, resistivity, and spontaneous potential (“SP”). All drill holes were drilled with fluid and logged in the open hole with no casing. All drill holes were vertical. Drift data was available from 82% of the geophysical logs. Downhole drift shifted the downhole location with respect to the surface collar location by an average of 11.4. Variation in true depth ranged from 0 to 0.5 feet and averaged 0.2 feet. Radiometric equivalent data is available for all the drill holes used in the mineral resource estimate and is incorporated into the drill hole database.

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U238 for the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope. Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed as a result of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters. Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated and uranium is depleted. The DEF is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1 and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.

Except in cases where uranium mineralization is exposed to strongly oxidized conditions, most of the sandstone roll-front deposits reasonably approximate radiometric equilibrium. The nose of a roll-front deposit tends to have the most positive DEF and the tails of a roll-front would tend to have the lowest DEF. Available data shows a range in DEF from 0.835 to 1.125 and generally shows depletion of the tails or altered portions of the roll-front and enrichment near the REDOX boundary or nose of the roll-front.

Only 2% of the drilling was completed by coring, while the TRS QP does not consider the available core data sufficiently conclusive to apply a correction for DEF, an assumption of radiometric equilibrium (DEF = 1) is considered reasonable with respect to mineral resources as the mineralization is well below the ground water table and not subject to surficial oxidation. It is recommended that in the future assessment of mineral reserves additional data relative to radiometric equilibrium be collected and radiometric equilibrium conditions be evaluated.

The density of mineralization used in the resource estimation was 16 cubic feet per ton. This is the most common figure used for sandstone hosted, roll-front uranium deposits in Wyoming and Colorado, as noted extensively throughout the literature on these deposits, and from the QP’s working experience from mining similar sandstone-hosted deposits. Specific rock density studies are not available for the project.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The primary method for estimating Nine Mile Lake Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the disequilibrium factor and the ore zone density.

At the Nine Mile Lake Project Area inferred mineral resources were estimated by projecting along an identified redox boundary or mineral trend.

116

The resource estimate method, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area are summarized below.

Table 3: Nine Mile Lake Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Nine Mile Lake	GT Contour (Inferred) Projected (Inferred)	1.0	16.0	0.015	-	0.25

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Nine Mile Lake Project Area with the unique aspects of each Nine Mile Lake Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb. from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb.); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

117

Inferred resources at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area are classified based on the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The specific criteria for classifying resources as measured, indicated or inferred vary by Nine Mile Lake Project Area depending on the methodology used. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.

Table 5: Nine Mile Lake Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Nine Mile Lake	-	-	50-100

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Nine Mile Lake Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Nine Mile Lake Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas; and

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design.

Inferred mineral resources were estimated for the Nine Mile Lake Project Area and are summarized in the following table.

Table 6: Nine Mile Lake Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Nine Mile Lake
Inferred	0.25	0.036	3,405	4,308,000

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is not currently permitted and work includes maintaining the mineral leases and mining claims.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the leases and mining claims comprising the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.

118

Red Rim Project

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

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 1,000 acres, including all (or portions of) 4 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 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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

119

Ownership

The Red Rim Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC holds unpatented BLM lode claims for the Red Rim Project Area.

Mineral rights for the Red Rim Project Area are comprised of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims). Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Red Rim
Acreage	0	0	1000	1,000
Leases/Claims	0	0	49	49
Total Annual Cost	$0	$0	$8,085	$8,085

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim Project Area include 49 unpatented federal mining lode claims (1,000 acres).

Payments for all claims are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Red Rim Project Area is located in the GGRB in Carbon County, Wyoming. The Red Rim Project Area is located in the northeast portion of the GGRB. The GGRB is a structural basin that encompasses nearly 21,000 square miles in southwest Wyoming and northwest Colorado. Regional structural features include the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south.

The topography at the Red Rim Project Area has a prominent low-lying ridge with a southwest/northeast orientation, and Separation Creek, which generally forms the southern boundary of the Red Rim Project Area. Elevations range from approximately 6,000 to slightly over 7,000 feet above mean sea level.

The Red Rim Project Area is located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion and are characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe. This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands. The Red Rim Project Area is rangeland with vegetation also consisting primarily of sagebrush and grasses.

Yearly precipitation in the Red Rim Project Area is approximately 8 to 12 inches. Precipitation is predominantly in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100° F, dry and clear, except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.

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.

120

Table 2: 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.

121

Permitting and Licensing

The Red Rim Project Area is not permitted.

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. These basins contain up to 25,000 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks. 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 ft 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 GGRB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. To the southwest, the GGRB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation. These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GGRB. The Paleocene Fort Union Formation Underlies the Wasatch or Battle Springs formation, depending on position within the basin. Uranium deposits occur in the GDB/WB predominantly in roll-front redox deposits, but also desert evaporite. Roll-front deposits occur in the Battle Spring, Wasatch and Fort Union Formations.

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.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Red Rim Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

122

The original radiometric drill data was available as a paper record. This data was inputted as electronic data via a spreadsheet into the computer programs utilized in the development of this report. Data entry was checked and confirmed. Drill hole locations were scanned and digitally rectified. The resultant drill maps were then checked and confirmed by overlaying with the original maps. Radiometric log interpretation was confirmed from available geophysical logs. Geologic interpretation and correlation of lithology was completed by the QP by personally examining each drill log. The TRS QP worked on the Red Rim Project Area in 1980 and 1981 when the exploratory drilling was being conducted and can personally verify that the drill data was collected according to recognized standards of the industry.

Limited data is available for the evaluation of radiometric equilibrium. The Red Rim occurs at depth, is more than 1,000 feet below the modern water table and is not subjected to oxidizing surface waters. As a result, the mineralization is not expected to exhibit significant disequilibrium. Available chemical data from two core holes is summarized in the following table.

Table 3: Radiometric Equilibrium

Hole	Mineralization	Radiometric			Chemical		Equilibrium
Identification	Depth	Thickness	% U3O8	G.T.	% U3O8	G.T.	Ratio
RR-126 C-3	1814.0	4.0	0.063	0.252	0.05	0.215	0.85
RR-126 C-3	1853.5	1.5	0.211	0.317	0.15	0.225	0.71
RR-127 C-2	1922.5	1.5	0.050	0.075	0.06	0.11	1.47
RR-127 C-2	1947.0	3.5	0.089	0.312	0.10	0.335	1.08

It should be noted that the core holes intercepted thin intervals of mineralization and the equilibrium ratios varied from 0.71 (depletion) to 1.47 (enrichment) of chemical U3O8 assayed versus the radiometric equivalent. The TRS QP concludes that the available information does not warrant adjustment of the radiometric data and that a DEF of 1 be applied to the mineral resource estimate.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The primary method for estimating Red Rim Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

123

The resource estimate methods, general parameters, and mineralized cutoffs used at the Red Rim Project Area are summarized below.

Table 4: Red Rim Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Red Rim	GT Contour (Indicated) Polygonal (Indicated) GT Contour (Inferred) Projected (Inferred)	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.20

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Red Rim Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Red Rim Project Area with the unique aspects of each Red Rim Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 5:         UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Table 6:         Red Rim Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Red Rim	-	N/A	N/A

124

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Red Rim Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within the Red Rim Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;

● third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design; and

● finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Red Rim Project Area.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Red Rim Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Red Rim Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 7: Red Rim Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Red Rim
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.17	337	1,142,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.17	337	1,142,000

The estimates of inferred mineral resources for the Red Rim Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 8: Red Rim Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Red Rim
Inferred	0.25	0.163	473	1,539,000

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Red Rim Project Area remains undeveloped and unpermitted. Current work is claim maintenance only.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the federal lode claims comprising the Red Rim Project Area.

125

Clarkson Hill Project

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

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.

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

126

Ownership

This Clarkson Hill Project Area is owned by UEC. UEC acquired the property from Anfield in 2022. Land ownership consists of federal lands administered by the BLM, state lands and private lands. The mineral ownership is comprised of unpatented mining lode claims held by UEC. The 25 mining claims are unpatented mining lode claims, comprise some 500 acres and are located on federal lands.

Table 1: Property Characteristics Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Fee Mineral Leases	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Total
Clarkson Hill
Acreage	N/A	N/A	500	500
Leases/Claims			25	25
Total Annual Cost			$3,875	$3,875

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Clarkson Hill Project Area is in the Wind River Basin (the “WRB”) in Natrona County, Wyoming. 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. The Clarkson Hill Project Area is located in a broad synclinal valley northeast of the North Granite Mountain Fault. The Clarkson Hill Project Area extends from the base to the top of a small mesa known as Clarkson Hill. Although the site is situated on public lands administered by the BLM, site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private land owners for ingress/egress. Although past mining on a limited scale was completed on the site in the 1950s, no infrastructure is present at the site. Utility corridors exist along the Oregon Trail Road, including power and gas transmission lines. The principal access roads to the site are maintained year-round and year round operations could be conducted at the Clarkson Hill Project Area.

The Clarkson Hill Project Area is located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion, which is characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe. This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands. Most common native vegetation is sage brush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush. No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area. Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north facing slopes. Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt. The North Platte River some 4-5 miles south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area, is perennial and is one of the major river systems in Wyoming.

The top of the mesa is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level. The mesa has approximately 200 feet of vertical relief with some relatively steep slopes, in excess of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The currently defined area of mineralization is at the base and along the slope of the mesa.

Climate at the Clarkson Hill Project Area is continental semi-arid, with annual precipitation of 8-12 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100° F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.

Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors. Small rodents and rabbits are common. The Greater Sage Grouse, present in the general area of the Clarkson Hill Project Area, has been considered for listing as a threatened or endangered species.

In addition to site access, mine development will require utilities and water supply. No current infrastructure is present at the site. The nature and scope of the mine operations will greatly influence utility and water supply demands. The closest utility services are along the right of way of the Oregon Trail Road. Water supply could be obtained from locally permitted and constructed wells or from surface water sources, including the Platte River south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area. Water rights for both surface and ground water are administered by the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office and are subject to prior water rights. Options for on-site power demands would include extension of existing utilities to the Clarkson Hill Project Area or the generation of power on site.

127

The nearest community is the town of Casper, Wyoming. Casper is the second-largest city in Wyoming, according to the 2010 census, with a population of 55,316. Casper is the County Seat and has a long history as an oil boomtown. Several oilfield and mining service companies are located in Casper, including a caterpillar dealership, several drilling companies and industrial supply companies. Casper has an adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Clarkson Hill Project Area.

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 U.S. Bureau or 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.

128

Table 2: 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.

129

Permitting and Licensing

The Clarkson Hill Project Area is not permitted.

In order to conduct exploratory drilling, UEC would be required to obtain a DN approved by the State of Wyoming WDEQ/LQD and the BLM to allow surface use for the purposes of exploration by drilling.

Although not required at this stage, mine development would require a number of permits depending on the type and extent of development, the most significant permits being the Permit to Mine issued by the WDEQ/LQD and the Source Materials License also issued by the WDEQ/LQD, which is required for mineral processing of natural uranium. Any injection or pumping operations will require permits from the WDEQ, which has authority under the Safe Water Drinking Act that stems from a grant of primacy from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for administering UIC programs in Wyoming.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Data Verification

Data used for the resource estimate at the Clarkson Hill Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

130

The TRS QP has reviewed the data verification procedures and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Currently available drill data consists of radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 255 drill holes; 250 pre-2008 and five completed in 2008. No additional recent drilling is known. Of the total 238 drill holes, 17 were cored. All original drill data including geophysical logs, lithological logs, and chemical assay certificates are available for the Clarkson Hill Project Area.

The pre-2008 drill data was originally collected by MEC, using company logging trucks and several third party contractors. The pre-2008 drill data includes geophysical logs from MEC (40%), Century Geophysical (4%), Birdwell (20%), Master Logging Inc. (10%), Velocity Radiation Surveys (22%) and GEO Nuclear Services (4%). It was standard industry practice at the time, and it is the current practice, to maintain calibration of geophysical logging equipment through use of the AEC/ERDA (now DOE) standard calibration pits located at Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado, for quality control and assurance with respect to radiometric equivalent data.

The geophysical logs include natural gamma, resistivity and spontaneous potential. All drill holes were drilled with fluid and logged in the open hole with no casing. All drill holes were vertical with no drift data.

Radiometric equivalent data is available for all the drill holes used in the mineral resource estimate (pre- and post-2008) and is incorporated into the drill hole database. The pre-2008 drill data was combined with data from 2008 drilling in an electronic database. During the preparation of the Clarkson Hill Project Area’s TRS, the available electronic data was reviewed for each of the mineral resource areas. This process included:

● Plotting of the drill hole locations and comparing these to drill maps prepared by previous operators;

● Screening the drill hole data and preparing a subset of the data containing mineralized intercepts meeting grade, thickness and GT cut-off criteria;

● Correlating the mineralized intercept data such that mineral resource estimates reflected only continuous horizons within the Fort Union Formation;

● Excluding any spurious mineralized horizons (laterally or by depth from the continuous horizons) from the mineral resource estimate. This process excluded mineralization in the overlying Wind River Formation; and

● Examining any mineralized intercepts which were either substantially higher or lower than the surrounding values to insure the data was considered reliable and therefore suitable to be used.

Radiometric equivalent (%eU3O8) drill data from a total of 255 drill holes was available for the Clarkson Hill Project Area. Of the total 255 drill holes, 110 expressed uranium mineralization greater than 0.02 %eU3O8 and a GT greater than 0.10 and thus were included in the mineral resource estimate.

For verification purposes, 10% of the drill holes used in the mineral resource estimate (5% of total drill holes) were selected, representing the range of mineralization observed and year drilled. The earliest year was 1968 and the latest was 1981. Mineralization in the selected drill holes ranged from a high GT value of 3.5 to a low value of 0.16. Barren holes were examined but not included in the analysis.

Examination of these drill holes confirmed that the drill hole database reasonably reflects the depth, thickness and radiometric equivalent uranium grade from the original geophysical logs. The only discrepancy noted was the omission of isolated mineralized intercepts of lower grade and thickness, which were not included in the database, which the TRS QP concurs with. Re-calculation by the QP shows the original interpretation of radiometric equivalent uranium grade is approximately 8.2% less the re-calculated values, which means that the database is conservative with respect to grade as compared to the re-calculated holes.

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U238 for the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope. Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed as a result of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters. Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated and uranium is depleted. The DEF is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1 and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.

131

Except in cases where uranium mineralization is exposed to strongly oxidized conditions, most of the sandstone roll-front deposits reasonably approximate radiometric equilibrium. The nose of a roll-front deposit tends to have the most positive DEF and the tails of a roll-front tend to have the lowest DEF. The great majority of the data available for estimation of mineral resources is radiometric geophysical logging data from which the uranium content is interpreted. Radiometric equilibrium conditions may affect the grade and spatial location of uranium in the deposit. Generally an equilibrium ratio (Radiometric eU3O8 to Chemical U3O8) is assumed to be 1, i.e. equilibrium is assumed. For the Clarkson Hill Project Area, data is available for the evaluation of radiometric equilibrium. Available chemical data includes 17 core holes, however, only 13 were mineralized. The table below summarizes the results of the data available for evaluation of radiometric equilibrium conditions:

Table 3: Evaluation of Radiometric Equilibrium Conditions

Grade Cutoff Weight % eU3O8	Number of Core Holes	Number of Samples	Equilibrium Ratio Chemical: Radiometric
>0.03 % eU3O8	13	75	0.96
>0.05 % eU3O8	11	44	1.06

In summary, based on available data and considering typical grade cutoffs in the range of 0.03 to 0.05 Weight % eU3O8, an assumption of radiometric equilibrium (DEF = 1) is reasonable with respect to mineral resources. It is recommended that in the future assessment of mineral reserves, additional data relative to radiometric equilibrium be developed and equilibrium be evaluated for each potential mining area by elevation with respect to the water table.

The density of mineralization used in the Clarkson Hill Project Area resource estimation was 16 cubic feet per ton. This is the most common figure used for sandstone hosted, roll-front uranium deposits in Wyoming and Colorado, as noted extensively throughout the literature on these deposits. Density studies were completed by a previous operator MEC based on limited data from 17 core holes (13 of which were mineralized). This study stated an average density of 16.9 cubic feet per ton.

Based on the limited number of core sampled for density, and the overall average being very similar to the 16 ft3/ton average used historically, the TRS QP has assumed a density factor of 16 ft3/ton for the mineral resource estimates reported in Section 14. The variance in the use of a density factor of 16 versus 16.9 cubic feet per ton is 5%.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The primary method for estimating Clarkson Hill Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.

132

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Clarkson Hill Project Area are summarized below.

Table 4: Clarkson Hill Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Clarkson Hill	GT Contour	1.0	16.0	0.02	2	0.20

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Clarkson Hill Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Project Area with the unique aspects of each Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 5: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

The Clarkson Hill Project Area only contains inferred mineral resources.

Table 6:         Clarkson Hill Project Area Drill Hole Information

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Clarkson Hill	-	-	50-100

The estimates of inferred mineral resources for the Clarkson Hill Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 7: Clarkson Hill Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Clarkson Hill
Inferred	0.2	0.58	957	1,113,000

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Clarkson Hill Project Area remains unpermitted and work includes maintaining the federal lode claims.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company intends to maintain the federal lode claims comprising the Clarkson Hill Project Area.

133

Hobson CPP

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

Property Description

The Hobson Project Area is located in Karnes County, Texas, northwest of Karnes City, within the Gulf of Mexico Basin (the “GMB”) approximately 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 40 miles southeast of San Antonio at latitude 28.9447 and longitude -97.9887 in decimal degrees. 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 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 11e.(2) 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. The Hobson CPP is permitted for one million lbs per year of uranium concentrates (yellowcake or U3O8). With an average dryer cycle time of 40 hours and a current dryer loading capacity of 8 to 10 drums, the plant appears capable of yielding up to 1.5 million lbs per year without requiring physical modifications. However, an increase would require a license modification, which UEC is currently pursuing with an amendment to its current license being under review for an increased capacity of up to 4.0 million lbs per year. 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.’ For the purposes of the TRS, 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.

134

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

135

Ownership

This Hobson Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements within the Project.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Hobson Project Area can be accessed off Texas Highway 44 toward Freer. Halfway between San Diego and Freer is a turn-off to the south called Ranch Road 3196 that runs through the Hobson Project Area. The road continues south, after passing Palangana, for about six miles to the town of Benavides. Access is excellent with major two-lane paved roads connecting the three surrounding towns and dirt secondary roads connecting to Palangana. For water supply, shallow wells in the Goliad Formation in Duval County generally yield mineralized water, whereas deeper wells yield water of comparatively low mineral content and are used for water supply. Corpus Christi, with a population of 317,773 and Alice, with a population of 17,761, are the largest nearby cities that should provide an ample workforce and any necessary supplies for the Hobson Project Area.

The Hobson CPP is about 40 miles west of the Goliad Project Area, about 55 miles northwest of the Burke Hollow Project Area, about 50 miles north northwest of the Salvo Project Area, and about 90 miles north of the Palangana Project Area.

Equipment, supplies and personnel needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Specialized equipment for the wellfields is often available in Texas, but may need to be acquired from outside of the state. The local economy for all five project areas is geared toward oil and gas exploration, energy production and ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily. As a result of energy development since the early 1900s, all the project areas have existing or nearby electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

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.

136

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

Table 1: 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

Permitting and Licensing

The Hobson CPP is fully permitted as necessary to process loaded resins from nearby satellite facilities.

Table 2: Permits

	Permits
Property	RRC (Surface Mining and Reclamation Division) Exploration Permit	TCEQ Class I Waste Disposal Well Permit(s)	TCEQ UIC Mine Area Permit	TCEQ Area Permit and Production Area Authorization	TCEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption	TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
Hobson CPP	N/A	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	✔

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Hobson Project Area is located in the South Texas Uranium Province (“STUP”), which lies along the GMB. 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.

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 ft, 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.

137

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).

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.

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

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

Data Verification

No data verification is necessary though a site visit by the TRS QP was performed on November 2, 2021.

Mineral Resource Estimates

No mineral resources or reserves are present at the Hobson Project Area.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Hobson Project Area remains in a care and maintenance status. The radioactive materials license is currently in timely renewal with the TCEQ.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to maintain the Hobson Project Area and related Hobson CPP in a care and maintenance status pending restart of uranium recovery operations.

138

Palangana ISR Project

The independent TRS for the Palangana ISR Project (the “Palangana ISR Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” 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 ISR Project Area. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Palangana ISR Project Area.

Property Description

The Palangana ISR Project Area is 25 miles west of the town of Alice, Texas and 15 miles to the southeast of Freer, Texas in Duval County at latitude 27.6732 and longitude -98.3934, in decimal degrees. Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana ISR Project Area. The Palangana ISR Project Area has been developed by several operators since the 1950s and has several wellfields that are drilled and ready for operations. In addition, the Palangana ISR Project Area produced 563,600 lbs U3O8 from 2010 to 2016 and currently has the infrastructure to begin mining immediately. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana ISR Project Area boundary. There are no reserves associated with the Palangana ISR Project Area and it is considered a remote ‘satellite’ to the Hobson CPP.

139

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

140

Ownership

There are nine current leases covering the area of interest of the Palangana ISR Project Area, which total to 6,987 acres. The PA-1 deposit is on the DeHoyos lease, while the PA-2 deposit, the Dome trend and the CC Brine trend are on the Palangana ISR Project Area Ranch Lease. Bordering the east side of the Palangana ISR Project Area Ranch Lease is the White Bell Ranch Lease, comprised of 1,000 acres, which contains the Jemison Fence and Jemison East trends. The fourth major lease is the Garcia/Booth lease, which borders the east side of the DeHoyos property. It contains the NE Garcia and SW Garcia trends.

Current lease ownership is in STMV, which is a Texas limited partnership that is wholly and indirectly owned by UEC through its subsidiary URN Resources Inc. (as to 99%), and through its direct acquisition of the remaining 1% of STMV from EEI. The PA-1 deposit is on the DeHoyos lease, while the PA-2 deposit is on the Schallert lease.

Table 1: Palangana ISR Project Area Mineral Lease Summary

Project Area	Fee Mineral Leases	County	Expires
Palangana
Acreage	6,987
Leases	9	Duval	Held by shut-in royalty

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Palangana ISR Project Area uranium ISR, of which PA-1 and PA-2 are a part, occurs in the South Texas Uranium Belt between San Antonio and Corpus Christi in Duval County. Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana ISR Project Area property. It can be accessed off Texas Highway 44 toward Freer. Halfway between San Diego and Freer is a turn-off to the south called Ranch Road 3196 that runs right through the property about eight miles from the turn. The road continues southward about six miles to the town of Benavides. Access is excellent, with major two lane roads connecting the three surrounding towns and dirt secondary roads connecting the Palangana ISR Project Area to these. Corpus Christi, 65 miles east, is the largest nearby metropolitan district.

The region’s subtropical climate allows uninterrupted, year-round mining operations. Temperatures during the summer range from 75° to 95°F, although highs above 100°F are common; winter temperatures range from 45° to 65°F. Humidity is generally over 85% year-round, and commonly exceeds 90% during the summer months. Average annual rainfall is 30 inches. The climate is characterized by a warm desert-like to subtropical climate and low gentle relief with elevations of 300 to 500 ft above sea level.

The dome area to the west of the PA-1 and PA-2 deposits is a concentric collapsed area with the surrounding landscape being hilly and elevated. Surface water generally drains away from the dome area although no prominent creeks or rivers are evident.

The uranium leaseholders under most of the current leases have conveyed the surface rights under certain conditions of remuneration. These conditions essentially require payments for surface area taken out of usage.

Excepting the wellfield development, much of the infrastructure is in place, including roads and power maintenance faculties. A portion of the well control facilities and wellfields are yet to be constructed.

History

Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana ISR Project Area Dome’s gypsum-anhydrite cap rock in 1952 by Columbia Southern Inc. (“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 ft and widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200 ft exploration grid.

141

Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) acquired the Palangana ISR 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 ISR 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 lbs 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 US$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 ISR Project Area property and later joint ventured with Energy Metals through the formation of STMV. An independent consultant prepared a historical resource estimate for 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 ISR 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.

142

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

Table 2: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1952	CSI	Original controller of Palangana ISR 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 ISR 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 ISR 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 completed a historical estimate on the entire site within unclassified material containing 0.125% eU3O8.
Unknown to late 1990’s	General Atomics	General Atomics acquired the Palangana ISR Project Area for restoration work.	N/A	General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort. Upon formal approval of the clean up by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the NRC, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990s.
Late 1990’s to 2005	N/A	The Palangana ISR 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) completed a historical estimate 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.

143

Table 2: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
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.

144

Permitting and Licensing

All of the environmental baseline studies were completed as required by the permitting process. Completed studies include cultural resources (including archaeology), socioeconomic impact and soils mapping. Flora and fauna studies are completed as are background radiation surveys. The cultural resources study found no adverse impacts to the site and socioeconomic impacts are projected to be positive for the community.

The permitting process commenced in the summer of 2006 and was fully completed in January 2010. In November 2008, the larger Area Mine Permit was issued by TCEQ. In January 2009, PA-1 Permit was approved by TCEQ. The Class I disposal well permits for WDW-418 and WDW-419 were issued in March 2009. The Radioactive Material License was issued by the TCEQ in January 2010. This would complete all of the permitting requirements to begin operation at the Palangana ISR Project Area.

As far as the studies have shown, the Palangana ISR Project Area has no environmental liabilities. The UCC ISR field and plant site, partially on the DeHoyos tract, have been fully restored and reclaimed and are not hierologically linked to PA-1 and PA-2. The TRS QP has not assessed the potential for environmental liability associated with the Hobson Plant. UEC, as part of the acquisition of STMV has obtained all necessary permits and licenses to begin ISR mining operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

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

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 Palangana ISR 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 ft moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Palangana ISR Project Area between the Rio Grande Embayment and East Texas Basin, is a broad area of lesser subsidence and a subsurface extension of the Llano Uplift. 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 indicates 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).

All mineralization at the Palangana ISR 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 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 ft to 500 ft. Above the Goliad Formation lies the Deweyville Formation, Beaumont Clay, Lissie Formation, Montgomery Formation and the Willis Sand, which are composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay.

Uranium mineralization occurs 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.

145

Uranium mineralization at the Palangana ISR Project Area 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 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.

The local geology at the Palangana ISR 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 ISR Project Area dome is marked at the surface by a shallow circular basin surrounded by low hills rising above the basin floor. The Palangana ISR Project Area dome has an almost perfectly circular salt core with a remarkably flat top that is approximately 10,000 ft across and occurs from 800 to 850 ft below ground surface (“bgs”). 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.

The Goliad Formation at the Palangana ISR Project Area is composed of fine- to medium-grained, often silty, channel sands interbedded with lenses of mudstone and siltstone. 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 ISR Project Area stratigraphy is horizontal to sub-horizontal, with a 2o to 3o southeasterly dip at most.

Data Verification

A review was made of UEC’s project files at their office in Corpus Christi, Texas. Review of information included both analog and digital gamma ray logs with conversions to chemical equivalents by interval, PFN logs with gamma and chemical equivalents, edited SP and resistivity logs flagging correlated sand zones and marker clays, interpretive GT maps, historical reports, memos, field photographs cuttings and invaluable discussions with experienced field personnel.

Over 100 drill logs, numerous cross-sections and analytical data were reviewed in detail and cross checked against input files in access for computer entry by Sean Muller. Some errors in correlation were discovered particularly for PA-2, not of a technical nature but of a correlation nature. Early interpretations of the mineralized sand zone had called the “E” sand, the “C”. This miscoding was recognized during computer validation runs and corrected with the assistance of UEC’s geologists. Other potential data miscodings were found where early rotary samples were either mixed with drilling mud or field interpretation of the oxidation-reduction zone was poor. To validate and correct these data entries to the model, the PFN tool proved invaluable providing disequilibrium data supporting either oxidized or reduced samples where neither could be discerned in the field. This was coordinated and corrected in the database.

As far as could be determined, the down-hole eU3O8 data from the Palangana ISR Project Area exploration programs are reliably represented by the continuous gamma-logs from the various drilling programs. These logs were run by in-house and independent contract logging companies. The procedure followed was standard to uranium industry practice and all required correction factors were recorded on the headings of the logs reviewed.

146

To further quantify the corrected DEF data, the areal distribution by roll-front zone was mapped and integrated into the DEF adjusted resource estimate. This was done by taking half the distance of the average PFN hole spacing per hole in a zone for defining an area of influence on all of the gamma holes in a resource trend. Next, modeled blocks that fell outside of this range but still fell in the block were assigned the average DEF for the block. This technique far surpasses the older methodology of taking a deposit-wide average of the DEF for the conversion to chemical.

Quality control measures for PFN logging could be improved with periodic calibration of the probes. Adjustment of the data using the relogging of a core hole with known chemical values partially compensated for this QC omission. It has been concluded that adjustment of the DEF values to account for the PFN drift is acceptable.

Generally, the DEF of a deposit is based upon an average of the disequilibrium in core holes. This practice is a limitation in roll-front deposits that are in disequilibrium such as those found in South Texas. UEC has compensated for this limitation by using the PFN probe. To increase the accuracy of the application of the post-probing calibration, UEC employed a site and mineralized zone specific application of the DEF results rather than the averaging method. This method compensates for a limitation commonly used by the industry by increasing the accuracy of the prediction of grade in a specific area.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the Palangana ISR Project Area include the GT contour, GT outline, block model using VULCAN software and Delaunay Triangulation method using RockWorks software. Each method is briefly discussed below.

The GT contour and outline methods are some of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of these methods is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours or a GT outline are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and logs data trends. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour/outline boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density. The GT outline method was used to estimate the mineral resources at portions of the Palangana ISR Project Area (Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East).

147

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Palangana ISR Project Area are summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Palangana ISR Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

					Cutoff Parameters
Project Area		Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
	PA-1 and PA-2	Block Models (VULCAN) Method	1.453 - 2.4241	17.00	0.00	None2	None
Palangana	Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, OC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East	GT Contouring in Conjunction with 3D Block Models	None	17.00	0.02	None2	0.10

Notes 1.    A range of disequilibrium data is presented because each production area/trend was divided into multiple zones that were each assigned a separate DEF. For more data on the Palangana ISR Project Area, please see NI 43-101 TRS on Resources, Uranium Energy Corp., Palangana ISR Uranium Project, Deposits PA-1, PA-2 and Adjacent Exploration Areas, Duval County, Texas.  2.    Minimum thickness was not reported for several of the project areas. However, minimum thickness is inherent in minimum GT which is reported in every estimate other than PA-1 and PA-2 for the Palangana ISR Project Area.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness, and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Palangana ISR Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Palangana ISR Project Area with the unique aspects of each project area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

148

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Palangana ISR Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Palangana ISR Project Area.

Table 5: Resource Classification Criteria by Palangana ISR Project Area

		Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area		Measured	Indicated	Inferred
	PA-1 and PA-2	< 50	50 – 100	> 100
Palangana	Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, OC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East	-	-	≤ 400

There are several reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Palangana ISR Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within each Palangana ISR Project Area is very well characterized, with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the Palangana ISR Project Area;

● third, mineralization in the Goliad Formation occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends; and

● finally, historic production has occurred commercially at the Palangana ISR Project Area from 1977 to 1979 and again from 2010 to 2016 (UEC). Approximately 340,000 lbs of U3O8 were produced during historic operations and 563,600 lbs U3O8 were produced from 2010-2016.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit models, successful production and the variety of data collected led the TRS QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Palangana ISR Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Palangana ISR Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons  (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Palangana
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	None	0.134	232	643,100
Total Measured and Indicated	None	0.134	232	643,100

Notes 1.         Pounds reported with DEF applied. 2.         Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 3.         All reported resources occur below the static water table. 4.         The point of reference for mineral resources is in situ at the Palangana ISR Project Area. 5.         Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

149

Table 7: Palangana ISR Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Palangana
PA-1 and PA-2 Inferred	None	0.100	96	192,500
Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East Inferred	0.10	0.110 – 0.300	206	808,800
Total Inferred	None	0.100-0.300	302	1,001,300

Notes 1.        Pounds reported with DEF applied. 2.        A range of grades is presented for the Palangana ISR Project Area inferred mineral because the resource estimation methods differed between PA-1/PA-2 and the rest of the trends. There was no cutoff for PA-1 and PA-2 block models. 3.        Inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 4.        All reported resources occur below the static water table. 5.        The point of reference for mineral resources is in situ at the Palangana ISR Project Area. 6.        Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● host formation density assignments; and

● changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Palangana ISR Project Area:

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any 3D location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present; and

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The TRS QP and coworkers supervised by the TRS QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records, and prior work at the Palangana ISR Project Area that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Palangana ISR Project Area.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Palangana ISR Project Area.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The TRS expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

150

In the opinion of the TRS QP, it is virtually impossible that all issues relating to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with future work. However, the work undertaken on the Palangana ISR Project Area to date, both through historical in situ and recent laboratory testing demonstrates that uranium can be extracted using common industry methods and standard leaching technology. Further, through work conducted in support of receiving regulatory authorization, UEC has demonstrated that the host sandstones have the hydraulic properties required for in situ extraction with adequate confinement by overlying and underlying intervals. Finally, the host sandstones of the Goliad Formation have been mined in South Texas since the 1970s using ISR technology with significant production under similar conditions to those of the Palangana ISR Project Area.

Block models were constructed for the resource estimates at the Palangana ISR Project Area. UEC developed its resource estimates within distinct sand and roll-front zones utilizing detailed computer block modeling of grade and GT modeling. For PA-1 and PA-2, the targeted mineralized sands were differentiated and evaluated at each trend. The block model was derived from the stratigraphic Jemison East trends at the Palangana ISR Project Area, and GT contouring was conducted, which became the basis for the block models for each of the trends. Using the top and bottom elevations for each of the zone composite intercepts, digital terrain models for the top and bottom of the surfaces were created and loaded into the block models to create a thickness representation for each zone of each trend. The horizontal extent of the zones was limited by the respective zone outlines/contours. After the blocks were generated, GT data and other attributes were assigned to each block.

UEC resumed ISR production at the Palangana ISR Project Area in 2010. In addition to PA-1 and PA-2, UEC permitted PA-3 in the CC Brine Trend. Between these three Pas, 563,600 lbs U3O8 were produced from 2010 to 2016. A list of production in each PA can be seen in the table below. For the current estimate, production from 2010-2016 was subtracted from the 2010 estimate.

Table 8: Palangana Production from 2010 to 2016

Production Area	Pounds
PA-1	345,600
PA-2	67,800
PA-3 (CC Brine Trend)	150,200
Total Pounds Produced (2010-2016)	563,600

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Palangana ISR Project Area is in a care and maintenance status.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company intends to continue the care and maintenance of the Palangana ISR Project Area pending restart of uranium recovery operations.

151

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. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Burke Hollow Project Area. There are no reserves associated with the Burke Hollow Project Area.

Property Description

UEC’s Burke Hollow Project property is located within the extensive STUP at latitude 28.2677 and longitude ‑97.5152. The Burke Hollow Project currently consists of a 19,335-acre lease area, after the addition of the 1,825-acre Welder lease, which was taken in December 2012. This lease area would allow for the mining of uranium by ISR methods while utilizing the land surface (with variable conditions) as needed, for mining wells and above ground surface facilities for fluid processing and uranium production during the mining and groundwater restoration phases of the Burke Hollow Project Area. The UEC Burke Hollow Project Area is about 18 miles southeast of the town of Beeville and is located on the western side of US 77 and northeasterly of US 181, which links with US 59 in Beeville. 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.

152

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

153

Ownership

This Burke Hollow Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners within and outside the various Burke Hollow Project Area boundaries.

Virtually all uranium mining in Texas is on private lands, with leases negotiated between companies and each individual landowner/mineral owner. The Burke Hollow Project Area consists of two fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 19,336 acres.

Payments for the private lease are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.

The lease is a paid-up lease for a primary term of five years and allows for an extension term of an additional five years and so long thereafter as uranium or other leased substances are being produced. This lease term was extended on January 20, 2017. The lease has various stipulated fees for land surface alterations, such as per well or exploration hole fees (damages). The primary lease stipulation is the royalty payments as a percentage of production. Because the lease is negotiated with a private land and mineral owner and none of the property is located on government land, some of the details of the lease information and terms are considered confidential.

Table 1: Burke Hollow Project Area Mineral Lease Summary

Project Area	Fee Mineral Leases	County	Expires
Burke Hollow
Acreage	19,336
Leases	2	Bee	2/2027 and 12/2022

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The southern portion of the Burke Hollow Project Area can be accessed from US Highway 181 and Farm to Market (FM)-797. The Burke Hollow Project Area has several other secondary gravel roads that provide access to the Burke Hollow Project Area. The nearest population centers are Skidmore (about three miles east with a population of 863), Tynan (about four miles south with a population of 254) and Beeville (about 10 miles north with a population of 13,641). While Skidmore and Tynan are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Beeville is a much larger city and provides a well-developed infrastructure, resulting from regional oil and gas exploration and production.

The nearest population centers are Skidmore, approximately 11 miles west, Refugio, about 15 miles east, and Beeville, approximately 18 miles northwest. Refugio is a relatively small town but offers basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. The Burke Hollow Project Area has good accessibility for light to heavy equipment. There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region. The topography with dominantly sandy, well-drained soils provides satisfactory construction conditions for building gravel access site roads.

The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in Bee County in a rural setting but includes excellent county, state and federal highways that serve the region and good construction conditions. Water supply in the Burke Hollow Project Area is from private water wells, mostly tapping sands of the Goliad Formation. Water supply for potential future mine development would be from the same sources. The Burke Hollow Project Area is about 30 to 35 miles north of Corpus Christi, the closest metropolitan district to the Bee County Project Area.

The Burke Hollow Project Area is situated in the interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The area is characterized by rolling topography with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. There is a maximum of 47 feet of relief at the site, with ground surface elevations ranging from a low of 92 feet to a high of 139 feet above mean sea level. The leased property for the Burke Hollow Project Area is used mostly for petroleum production, ranching and game management. Access by vehicular traffic is provided from Highway 77 into the property by private gravel roads.

154

Bee County has a climate characterized by long, hot summers and cool to warm winters. The moderate temperatures and precipitation result in excellent conditions for developing an ISR mine. The average annual precipitation is approximately 32 inches with the months from November to March, normally the driest period, and May through October typically having more precipitation due partly to more intense tropical storms. From June through September, the normal high temperatures are routinely above 90° Fahrenheit, while the months from December through February are the coolest, with average low temperatures below 50° Fahrenheit. Periods of freezing temperatures are generally quite brief and infrequent. Tropical weather from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the site area with large rain storms. The infrequent freezing weather and abnormally large rainfalls are the primary conditions that could cause temporary shutdowns at an operating ISR mine. Operations can be conducted year around.

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.

155

Table 2: 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 were 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 were 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 utilized these data to develop a resource estimate for the combined Graben and Eastern Lower B trends.

156

Table 2: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Burke Hollow Project Area (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
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.

157

Permitting and Licensing

UEC has completed all the required environmental baseline studies required for the Mine Area and Aquifer Exemption permits. The studies included cultural resources, archeology, socioeconomic, soil, flora and fauna. Environmental baseline and radiological samples for the Radioactive Material License application have also been collected, but the application is still in technical review with the TCEQ. At this time, UEC is not aware of any environmental liabilities on the property.

To date, the TCEQ has issued two Class I Waste Disposal Well Permits, the Mine Area Permit and the Aquifer Exemption Order. The EPA has also concurred with the TCEQ Aquifer Exemption Order, which finalized the regulatory review process. Currently, the Burke Hollow Project Area only requires submittal of the Production Area Authorization.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

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

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 Burke Hollow 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 ft moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Burke Hollow 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 indicates 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).

All mineralization at the Burke Hollow 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 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 ft to 500 ft. Above the Goliad Formation lies the Deweyville Formation, Beaumont Clay, Lissie Formation, Montgomery Formation and the Willis Sand, which are composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay.

Uranium mineralization occurs 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.

158

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.

There are two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow Project Area that are likely related to the formation of the 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.

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.

Uranium mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area 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 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.

Data Verification

Data verification efforts are summarized below.

● The resource estimate is based on data from 707 UEC drill holes completed from 2012 to 2017 and supplemented with data from subsequent infill drill holes completed from 2020 to present. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, SP and resistance. PFN logging was conducted in approximately 150 drill holes. QA/QC documentation indicates this data were collected in accordance with current industry standard methods (Karrus and Yancey, 2017).

● In 2012, duplicate PFN logs were run by an independent contractor in 11 drill holes to provide confirmation of the UEC logs. Records indicate that the confirmation logging found a difference in DEFs of less than 0.5% (Carothers et al., 2013).

● The TRS QP reviewed approximately 10% of the logs used to prepare the resource estimate and confirmed that the log data was presented correctly and interpreted in accordance with industry standards.

● The TRS QP reviewed UEC roll-front mapping and confirmed that this work was supported by the underlying data and prepared in accordance with industry standards.

● The TRS QP reviewed the methodology used in UEC’s resource estimates and confirmed that it is valid and consistent with industry standards.

159

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

The GT contour and outline methods are some of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of these methods is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours or a GT outline are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and logs data trends. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour/outline boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density. The GT outline method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Burke Hollow Project Area (2022 estimate).

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Burke Hollow Project Area are summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Burke Hollow Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Burke Hollow	GT Outline Method	2.07 (not used in 2022 estimate)	17.00	0.02	2.0	0.30

Note A range of disequilibrium data is presented because each production area/trend was divided into multiple zones that were each assigned a separate DEF.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Burke Hollow Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Burke Hollow Project Area with the unique aspects of each Burke Hollow Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Burke Hollow Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

160

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Burke Hollow Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model. The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Burke Hollow Project Area.

Table 5: Resource Classification Criteria by Burke Hollow Project Area

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Burke Hollow	< 50	50 – 250	250 – 500

There are several reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Burke Hollow Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within each Burke Hollow Project Area is very well characterized, with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across each Burke Hollow Project Area; and

● third, mineralization in the Goliad Formation occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit models, successful production and the variety of data collected led the TRS QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the Burke Hollow Project Area. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Burke Hollow Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.

Table 6: Burke Hollow Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8  (lbs)
Burke Hollow
Measured	0.30	0.082	70	114,700
Indicated	0.30	0.087	1,337	2,209,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.30	0.086	1,407	2,323,700

Notes 1.         Pounds reported with DEF applied. 2.         Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 3.         All reported resources occur below the static water table. 4.         The point of reference for mineral resources is in situ at the Burke Hollow Project Area. 5.         Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

161

Table 7: Burke Hollow Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8  (lbs)
Burke Hollow
Inferred	0.30	0.095	2,494	4,859,000

Notes 1.         Pounds reported with DEF applied. 2.         All reported resources occur below the static water table. 3.         The point of reference for mineral resources is in situ at the Burke Hollow Project Area. 4.         Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● host formation density assignments; and

● changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Burke Hollow Project Area.

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any 3D location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined.

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present; and

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The TRS QP and coworkers supervised by the QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Burke Hollow Project Area that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the project.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Project.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The TRS expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Burke Hollow Project Area is fully permitted.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to complete the monitor well network and production patterns for PAA-1 and submit an application for the PAA-1.

162

Goliad ISR 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. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Goliad Project Area. There are no reserves associated with the Goliad Project Area.

Property Description

The Goliad Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP at latitude 28.8686 and longitude -97.3433, in decimal degrees. 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 as of the effective date of the TRS. 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.

163

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

164

Ownership

This Goliad Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners within and outside the various Goliad Project Area boundaries.

Virtually all mining in Texas is on private lands with leases negotiated with each individual landowner/mineral owner. A listing of individual leases that make up the Goliad Project Area are shown on the following table. The Goliad Project Area consists of seven fee leases comprised of approximately 636 acres. Payments for the private lease are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.

Table 1: Goliad Project Area Mineral Lease Summary

Project Area	Fee Mineral Leases	County	Expires
Goliad
Acreage	636
Leases	7	Goliad	10/2024, 8/2023, 8/2025, and 12/2025

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Goliad Project Area is in Goliad County. The Goliad Project Area is accessed using route US 77A / 183 that runs north-south to the west of the Goliad Project Area. FM-1961 intersects with 77A-183 at the crossroad town of Weser. FM-1961 to the east of the intersection trends along the south side of the Goliad Project Area. Access onto the Goliad Project Area is via vehicular traffic on private gravel roads. The Goliad Project Area is in a rural setting at the north end of Goliad County. The nearest population centers are Goliad (14 miles south), Cuero (16 miles north) and Victoria (about 30 miles east). While Goliad and Cuero are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Victoria is a larger city, provides excellent infrastructure and serves as a regional support center for oil and gas exploration and production. The Goliad Project Area has very good accessibility for light to heavy equipment. There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region and the moderate topography with dominantly sandy, well-drained soils provides good construction conditions for building gravel roads necessary for site access. Groundwater from the Goliad Project Area is used for water supply over much of the northern portion of Goliad County. Water quality in the Goliad Project Area is variable and wells typically can yield small to moderate amounts of water. The Goliad Project Area is about 60 miles from San Antonio (population of 1,451,853), the closest metropolitan district to the Goliad Project Area.

The Goliad Project Area is situated in the interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The area is characterized by rolling topography with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. There is about 130 feet of relief at the site with ground surface elevations ranging from a low of 150 to a high of 280 feet above mean sea level. The leased property for the Goliad Project is used mostly for livestock grazing pasture and woodland. The overall property area is shown as having a Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic vegetation/cover type.

The climate in Goliad County is mild with hot summers and cool to warm winters. The moderate temperatures and precipitation result in excellent conditions for developing an ISR mine. Periods of freezing temperatures are generally very brief and infrequent. Tropical weather from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the site area with large rain storms. The periodic freezing weather and abnormally large rainfalls are the primary conditions that can cause temporary shutdowns. Otherwise, there is not a regular non-operating season.

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.

165

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.

166

Table 2: 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. Addition 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 developed a historical resource estimate with an average grade of 0.05% eU3O8 and an average DEF of 1.494 (Moore, 1986).
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.

167

Permitting and Licensing

The Goliad Project Area is fully permitted with the radioactive materials license in timely renewal.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

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

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 Goliad 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 ft, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Goliad 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 indicates 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).

All mineralization at the Goliad 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 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 ft to 500 ft. 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.

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 grays. 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.

168

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 ft.

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 Goliad Project Area target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.

Uranium mineralization at the Goliad Project Area 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 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.

Data Verification

Data verification efforts are summarized below:

● The resource estimate is based on data from 599 UEC drill holes completed from 2006 to 2008. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, SP and resistance. QA/QC documentation indicates these data were collected in accordance with current industry standard methods;

● UEC drill hole data was supplemented with data from 479 historic drill holes completed in 1983 and 1984. These drill holes were logged with gamma ray, SP and resistance. 32 drill holes were logged with PFN; and

● To verify disequilibrium conditions, PFN and gamma-ray data from recent and historic logs was correlated with chemical assays of 263 core samples collected from 2006 to 2008. QA/QC documentation indicates these samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with industry standard methods.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the Goliad Project Area includes the Delaunay Triangulation method using RockWorks software.

In 2022, mineral resources at the Goliad Project Area were estimated using computerized geologic and volumetric modeling methods. The estimation method was a 2D Delaunay Triangulation implemented in RockWorks, a comprehensive software program for creating 2D and 3D maps and is an industry standard in the environmental, geotechnical, petroleum and mining industries. The Delaunay Triangulation method connects data points (drill holes) via a triangular network with one data point at each triangle vertex and constructs the triangles as close to equilateral as possible. Once the network was determined, the slope of each triangular plate was computed using the three vertex point values. Next, a 25 ft x 25 ft grid was superimposed over the triangular network, and each grid node (grid center) was assigned a Z-value, based on the intercept of the node and the sloping triangular plate. Only grid nodes falling within the boundary of the triangular network (convex hull) were estimated. The distance of the grid node from a drill hole location was computed and used to determine whether the node was located within UEC’s property boundary. Triangulations and grids for both grade and thickness were constructed. Next, the thickness and grade grids were multiplied to obtain a GT grid. Finally, the mineral resource classification criteria was applied to the GT grid to obtain a classified mineral resource. Resource pounds were determined by taking the average GT in each GT contour interval and multiplying it by the area and a conversion factor, then dividing that value by the tonnage factor.

169

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Goliad Project Area are summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Goliad Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Goliad	2D Delaunay Triangulation using RockWorks Software	A Sand = 1.722 B Sand = 1.409 C Sand = 1.393 D Sand = 1.729	16.90 (A, B, and C Zones) and 15.2 (D Zone)	0.02	0.5	0.20

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Goliad Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each project area with the unique aspects of each project area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Goliad Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

170

Measured, indicated, and inferred resource classifications at the Goliad Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model. The following table details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Goliad Project Area.

Table 5: Resource Classification Criteria by Goliad Project Area

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Goliad	< 50	50 – 250	250 – 350

There are several reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Goliad Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within each Goliad Project Area is very well characterized, with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across each Goliad Project Area; and

● third, mineralization in the Goliad Formation occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit models, successful production and the variety of data collected led the TRS QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Goliad Project Area are reported in the table below.

Table 6: Goliad Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8  (lbs)
Goliad
Measured	0.20	0.053	1,595	2,667,900
Indicated	0.20	0.102	1,504	3,492,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.20	0.085	3,099	6,159,900

The estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table below.

Table 7: Goliad Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8  (lbs)
Goliad
Inferred	0.20	0.195	333	1,224,800

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● host formation density assignments; and

● changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

171

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Goliad Project Area.

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any 3D location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present; and

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The TRS QP and coworkers supervised by the QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Goliad Project Area that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Goliad Project Area.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Goliad Project.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The TRS QP expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Goliad Project Area is currently in a care and maintenance status.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company intends to continue the care and maintenance of the Goliad Project Area.

172

Salvo ISR Project

An independent TRS for the Salvo Project (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. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Salvo Project Area. There are no mineral reserves associated with this Salvo Project Area.

Property Description

The Salvo Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP at latitude 28.2632 and longitude -97.7889, in decimal degrees. 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 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.

173

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Areas

174

Ownership

This Salvo Project Area is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners within and outside the various Salvo Project Area boundaries.

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 the Salvo Project Area , UEC will need to acquire all the necessary permits from the RCC, TCEQ and EPA.

There are two mineral leases comprised of 800 acres at the Salvo Project Area. Payments for the private lease are up to date as of the current date of the TRS.

Table 1: Salvo Project Area Mineral Lease Summary

Project Area	Fee Mineral Leases	County	Expires
Salvo
Acreage	800
Leases	2	Bee	9/2026 and 7/2027

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Salvo Project Area is located in Bee County. The Salvo Project Area can be accessed from several routes including I-37, Texas Route 359, and FM-79a, which runs northwest to southwest through the Salvo Project Area. The southern portion of the Salvo Project Area can also be accessed from US Highway 181 and FM-797. The Salvo Project Area has several other secondary gravel roads that provide access to the Salvo Project Area. The nearest population centers are Skidmore (about three miles east with a population of 863), Tynan (about four miles south with a population of 254) and Beeville (about 10 miles north with a population of 13,641). While Skidmore and Tynan are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Beeville is a much larger city and provides a well-developed infrastructure, resulting from regional oil and gas exploration and production. The Salvo Project Area has very good accessibility for light to heavy equipment.

Water supply in the Salvo Project Area is from private water wells, mostly tapping sands of the Goliad Formation. Water supply for potential future mine development would be from the same sources. The Salvo Project Area is about 30 to 35 miles north of Corpus Christi, the closest metropolitan district to the Bee County Project Area.

North-south rail lines (Union Pacific) and east-west rail lines (Kansas City Southern Railway) are located about 10 to 20 air miles from the Salvo Project Area.

Equipment, supplies and personnel needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Specialized equipment for the wellfields is often available in Texas but may need to be acquired from outside of the state. The local economy for Salvo Project Area is geared toward oil and gas exploration, energy production and ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily. As a result of energy development since the early 1900s, the Salvo Project Area has existing or nearby electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

The Salvo Project area is situated in the interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The area is characterized by rolling topography with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. There is about 36 feet of relief at the site with ground surface elevations ranging from a low of 188 to a high of 224 feet above mean sea level. The leased property for the Salvo Project is used mostly for farming and agriculture.

175

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.

176

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

Table 2: 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 completed a historical estimate 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.

177

Table 2: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Salvo Project Area (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
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.

178

Permitting and Licensing

The Salvo Project Area is not permitted.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

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

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 Salvo 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 ft, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Salvo 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).

All mineralization at the Salvo 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 BEG in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.

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

Uranium mineralization occurs 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 ft 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 ft.

179

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 ft 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 antithetic 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-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.

Data Verification

The resource estimate is based on 105 drill holes completed in 2010 and 2011. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, SP and resistance. Drill holes with significant gamma-ray response were also logged with PFN. QA/QC documentation indicates these data were collected in accordance with current industry standard methods.

To verify disequilibrium conditions, PFN and gamma-ray logs were correlated with historical chemical assays from the 1970s and 1980s. This work is believed to have been performed in accordance with industry standards for 1984. The current drilling files were in excellent condition with original geophysical logs of resistance, self-potential and gamma ray along with the geological description of cuttings, grade calculation sheets and various site maps and geologic cross sections.

A field inspection of the Salvo Project Area was conducted on November 2, 2021 by the TRS QP.

The radiometric data from the gamma ray logging of each hole has provided the primary tool to determine the approximate grade of uranium in the subsurface. Additionally, PFN logs for selected boreholes provided evidence of a positive DEF. The TRS QP’s primary verification that uranium mineralization is present at the site is from the large number of exploration/confirmation boreholes and the geophysical logs that document the presence of eU₃O₈ with the gamma logs and lithology with the resistance logs. Based on the QP’s review and evaluation of the historic and the current UEC files, and procedures, the records and files from the drilling programs have been well documented and the information is suitable for upgrading the estimated historical mineral resource determination to a current Inferred Mineral Resource.

180

DEF values developed from the PGT logging done by URI complemented by current PFN logs for several UEC drill holes appear to be suitable for use in resource determinations. As additional exploration drilling continues there should be a continuing verification program by PFN logging of a suitable percentage of drill holes. Some amount of core analyses and suitable quality control methods should be included as drilling proceeds at the Salvo Project Area. Based on the review of historic data files and current UEC drilling data, the standard geophysical logs, the historic PGT logs and the current UEC PFN uranium assay tool logs are proper and in order. The TRS QP is of the opinion that there are no significant limitations to verification of the available drilling and geologic data for the Salvo Project Area.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;

● the point of reference for the resources are in-situ at the Project; and

● resources are located below the water table.

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the Salvo Project Area include the GT outline method.

The GT contour and outline methods are some of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of these methods is the GT values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours or a GT outline are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and logs data trends. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour/outline boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density. The GT outline method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Salvo Project Area.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Salvo Project Area are summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Salvo Project Area Resources Estimate Methodology

				Cutoff Parameters
Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	DEF	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Salvo	GT Outline Method	1.100 - 2.000 (1)	16.18	0.02	None (2)	0.30

Notes 1.        A range of disequilibrium data is presented because each production area/trend was divided into multiple zones that were each assigned a separate DEF. 2.        Minimum thickness was not reported for several of the project areas. However, minimum thickness is inherent in minimum GT.

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Salvo Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each Salvo Project Area with the unique aspects of the Salvo Project Area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Salvo Project Area. This is based on: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’ combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb); (iii) UxC’s price forecast; and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

181

Table 4: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;

● second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;

● third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium; and

● finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Salvo Project Area.

Table 5: Resource Classification Criteria by Salvo Project Area

	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
Project Area	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Salvo	-	-	≤ 500 (1)

Notes 1.         All minerals at the Salvo Project Area are classified as Inferred.

There are several reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Salvo Project Area:

● first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;

● second, the sub-surface geology within each Salvo Project Area is very well characterized, with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals, and reliable aquitards across the Salvo Project Area; and

● third, mineralization in the Goliad Formation occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit models, successful production and the variety of data collected led the TRS QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

182

The estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table below.

Table 6: Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Salvo
Inferred	0.30	0.091	1,125	2,839,000

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● host formation density assignments; and

● changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Salvo Project Area:

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any 3D location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present; and

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The TRS QP and coworkers supervised by the QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Salvo Project Area that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Salvo Project Area.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling, and testing and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Salvo Project Area.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The QP expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Salvo Project Area is not permitted and is currently used for agricultural purposes.

The Company’s Planned Work

Currently, the Company has no planned work for the Salvo Project Area.

183

Yuty ISR Project

An independent TRS for the Yuty Project (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. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Yuty Project Area. There are no mineral reserves associated with this Yuty Project Area.

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 comprises 117,232 ha in southeastern Paraguay. 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. 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.

184

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Area

185

Ownership

In March 2012, UEC acquired CUE. CUE, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, TPSA holds a 100% interest in the Yuty Concession.

Title to the concessions is now held through the Contract with the Republic of Paraguay, which grants mining rights for a minimum period of 20 years. This Contract was signed into the Law as an Act of Congress in August 2008. The Law calls for payment of a 2.5% royalty to the Republic on all production, based on the FOB value of the production.

Localtion, Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Project 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 Property, 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 Area is by roads or fixed wing aircraft. The Yuty Project Area is adjacent to Yuty, a town of approximately 3,000 people. Supplies and heavy equipment are brought to the community by trucks.

The climate in southeastern Paraguay is sub-tropical to temperate, with little difference in seasonal temperature. The mean temperature during the winter months (June to September, the dry season) is 20°C and ranges from 15°C to 30°C. The mean temperature during the summer months (December to March, the rainy season) is 30°C and ranges from 25°C to 35°C. The average annual precipitation ranges from 75 cm to 150 cm. Exploration in the Yuty Project Area may be carried out throughout the year, although there may be heavy rains during the summer months, which affects transportation and exploration activities.

Local infrastructure is available at Yuty and nearby towns. Infrastructure at the site includes electrical power, a cell phone network and road building equipment. Water, both industrial and potable, is drawn from wells. Drilling equipment for the current exploration program is brought from Peru, since there are no core drills available at present in Paraguay. Rotary drilling rigs are available in Asunción.

Vegetation consists predominantly of tall grass and fruit trees, typical of the pampas in Argentina and Paraguay. Overburden cover ranges from 5 m to 15 m.

The land in the southeastern part of Paraguay, and in particular the Yuty Project Area, is used mainly for agriculture by local villagers. Wildlife in the area includes various species of frogs, turtles, snakes, birds (including white swan, parrots, hawk, field dove, Tucán and owl) foxes, ocelot (wild cat), tapir, wild boar, deer and various species of insects.

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. This 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 km apart. The station spacing for the Track Etch survey was subsequently reduced to 5 km 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.

186

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 m to 200 m and geochemical stream sediment and soil sampling. Flight line spacing for the airborne radiometric survey was 5 km with a clearance of 100 m 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.

In March 2012, UEC acquired 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 m of core and rotary drilling was available and a NI 43-101 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 San Antonio area is at an advanced stage, since it has received considerable drilling in the past by Anschutz and recently by CUE.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Yuty Project Area is situated within the Paraná Basin in Southeastern Paraguay. The property 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 m thick;

● Tapyata Formation: 125 m thick;

● Tacuary Formation: 280 m thick; and

● San Miguel Formation: 20 m to 90 m thick.

Local sandstone units in descending stratigraphic order are:

● Upper Sand Unit: Estimated to be approximately 50 m thick;

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

● Massive Sand Unit: Estimated to be 60 m to 100 m thick;

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

● Wavy Unit: Estimated to be up to 20 m thick.

187

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 – 15 m 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 m to 90 m 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 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.

188

Data Verification

Industry-standard methods were utilized at the time of data collection. Geophysical logs for historic drill holes were analyzed and evaluated for completeness and sufficiently quality checked in the process of developing the drill hole database for the resource modeling. Original geophysical logs for pre-2000 drilling were publicly available and were scanned and digitized. Downhole gamma measurements were converted to gamma equivalent values in %eU₃O₈ using standard methods. Post-2000 geophysical logs and drill data was provided in digital format and converted to gamma equivalent values using the same method as applied to the pre-2000 data.

Spatial locations and elevation of drill holes were available from multiple surveys. This data was reconciled where possible. Some discrepancies existed in elevations and, for these drill holes, the collar elevations were corrected to modern digital elevation models.

For the drilling program initiated in 2007, prior to calculating the %eU₃O₈ content of the mineralized intersections encountered in the recent drilling, CUE calibrated the down-hole probe by frequent testing of an Anschutz hole with known mineralization. Only after repeat results gave reliable values was the probe used to calculate %eU₃O₈ values for the new holes. Subsequently, during the 2011 drilling program, the on-site calibration procedures were followed, and at the end of the program, the geophysical logging equipment was shipped to the U.S. for calibration at the standard calibration facility administered by the DOE in Grand Junction, Colorado. The calibration was supervised by the manufacturer of the equipment, Mt. Sorpis, of Delta, Colorado. Only slight variations were observed in the calibration factors.

For the 2007 drilling program by CUE, check assays and QA/QC procedures were followed both at the Yuty Project Area site as well as at Energy Labs and SGS Laboratory (“SGS”). These included the insertion of standards and blanks by SGS staff, as well as by SGS staff. In addition, Energy Labs conducts its own internal check program. Details of this work have been previously reported by Scott Wilson (2008). These results are consistent with a properly functioning laboratory and are deemed acceptable.

In 2007, CUE completed 13 drill holes close to the Anschutz holes in an area 100 m by 100 m in the Yuty Project Area. The purpose of this initial program was to compare the new drill hole results with the Anschutz data and to determine if they are part of the same statistical population. Results indicate both datasets are similar.

In 2010, the drilling program was not specifically designed to verify historical drilling. However, the drill results were compared to the GT contour mineral resource model developed in 2009, and were found to be comparable with respect to grade and thickness of mineralization.

Mineral Resource Estimates

The mineral resource calculations presented herein have been completed in accordance with SK-1300 guidance and definitions. With respect to the commodity price and cutoff criteria, uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed since buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately.  Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC.  UEC has not begun any negotiations of any contracts to develop the property, including those associated with uranium sales, which is appropriate for a project at this level of development. The following provides a Long Term Uranium Price Forecasts from TradeTech LLC™ (“TradeTech™”) 2022: Issue 3. The Forward Availability Model (FAM 2) forecasts how future uranium supply enters the market assuming restricted project development because of an unsupportive economic environment.

TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM2 (Nominal US$)

From TradeTech™ 2022

The Term price projections for uranium oxide (USD) from TradeTech™ 2022, for 2023, FAM 2, Term Ref, exceed $75/lb. Projections of uranium price through 2040 increase from these values. The author recommends, as a conservative measure, the use of a long-term uranium price of $65.00 USD per pound uranium oxide for the consideration of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.

Based on the author’s experience, typical operating costs for similar sandstone-hosted mineralization recovery production costs by ISR methods are approximately $25 per pound. At a grade of 0.02 %U3O8, a ton of mineralized material contains 0.4 pounds of uranium. At a commodity price of $65 per pound the gross value of 0.4 pounds of uranium is $26 per pound. Thus, a cutoff grade of 0.02 %U3O8 is appropriate for projected uranium market conditions.

Based on the drilling density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic correlation and modeling of the deposit, the mineralization herein meets CIM criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource. The Indicated Mineral Resource estimate at a 0.02 %eU₃O₈ grade cutoff and variable GT cutoffs of 0.1 and 0.2 %ft GT (0.030 and 0.061 %m GT) is provided in the table below, to illustrate the sensitivity of GT cutoff on the estimate. Although each GT cutoff scenario has reasonable prospects of economic extraction, the 0.1 %ft GT (0.061 %m GT) cutoff for the Indicated Mineral Resource is recommended by the TRS QP, based on reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

In addition to the above Indicated Mineral Resource, Inferred Mineral Resources may be projected, primarily as extensions of the Indicated Mineral Resource, along the geologic trends of the mineralization. By CIM definition, Inferred Mineral Resources are the part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be calculated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. Based on the drill density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic correlation and modeling of the deposit, the following Mineral Resource calculation meets CIM criteria as an Inferred Mineral Resource. The quantity of Inferred Mineral Resource is projected at a 0.02 %eU₃O₈ grade cutoff and estimated at 0.1 and 0.2 ft% GT cutoffs using the sensitivity analyses of the indicated portions of the resource. A summary of total Inferred Mineral Resource is provided in the table below. The TRS QP expects that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with additional drilling. However, it is not certain that additional exploration will result in discovery of an economic mineral resource on the Yuty Project Area property and/or demonstrate the continuity of mineralization within the areas of inferred mineral resources necessary for these areas to be classified as indicated mineral resources.

189

Mineral resources were calculated by stratigraphic horizon referred in this IA as units, based on geologic interpretation and correlation. These resources are reported at various cutoff grades for Indicated Mineral Resources, to illustrate the effect of varying cutoffs on the mineral resource. The preferred cutoff of 0.1 %ft GT is shaded in each table. The Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource quantities for the Yuty Project Area are presented in the tables below.

Table 1:         Yuty Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Unit	Tons (millions)	Weighted Average Thickness (ft)	Weighted Average Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds U3O8  (millions)
Massive Sand Unit
0.1 ft% GT	7.233	10.2	0.048	6.969
Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
0.1 ft% GT	1.842	3.5	0.054	1.994
Total Indicated Mineral Resource
0.1 ft% GT	9.074	7.3	0.049	8.962

Notes 1.         SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. 2.         Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per lb. 3.         Numbers may not add up to the finalized amount due to rounding. 4.         Metallurgical Recovery 70% from CIM guidelines for ISR projects.

Table 2:         Yuty Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Unit	Tons (millions)	Weighted Average Thickness (ft)	Weighted Average Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds U3O8  (millions)
Massive Sand Unit
0.1 ft% GT	1.690	14.5	0.045	1.528
Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
0.1 ft% GT	1.043	6.8	0.032	0.675
Total Inferred Mineral Resource
0.1 ft% GT	2.733	10.1	0.040	2.203

Notes 1.         SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. 2.         Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per lb. 3.         Numbers may not add up to the finalized amount due to rounding. 4.         Metallurgical Recovery 70% from CIM guidelines for ISR projects

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

Within the Yuty Project Area, the San Antonio area is at the pre-development stage. Other parts of the Yuty Project Area are at an intermediate stage of exploration, with extensive regional exploration work, followed by reconnaissance scale drilling.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to complete a preliminary drilling and testing plan for the Yuty Project Area.

190

Anderson Uranium Project

A TRS was prepared for UEC on the Anderson Project (the “Anderson Project Area”), located in Arizona.

This TRS was prepared for UEC by BRS under the supervision of Douglas Beahm, PE, PG (collectively, the “QP” herein), and co-authored by Clyde Yancey, PG, Vice President of Exploration, UEC.

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. 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.

The Anderson Project Area covers 8,268 acres (12.9 square miles) and is comprised of 386 contiguous, unpatented lode mining and placer claims and one Arizona State land section. 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.

191

Figure 1: Map of UEC Project Area

192

Ownership

In May of 2011, UEC entered into a merger agreement with Concentric (the “Merger”). According to the terms of the agreement, UEC Concentric Merge Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC, was the surviving corporation of the Merger and was vested with all of Concentric’s assets and property, including the Anderson Project Area.

UEC staked an additional 89 lode mining claims in June and July of 2011 and acquired mineral leases on Arizona State Sections 16 (exploration permit 08-115674) and 36 (exploration permit 08-115675) of Township 11 North, Range 10 West, Gila and Salt River Base Meridian. Subsequently, in 2018, UEC dropped 73 claims and State Section 36 in order to streamline their land position. The entire claim block and the State mineral lease comprise an area of approximately 8,268 acres (12.9 square miles).

Unpatented mining claims, either lode or placer, are located under the authority of the Mining Law of 1872 (the Mining Law) on Federal lands administered by the BLM. Under the Mining Law, the locator has the right to explore, develop and mine minerals on unpatented mining claims without paying production royalties to the Federal Government. Claim maintenance fees of $165 per claim are due on September 1 of each year.

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.

Surface rights on all of the Anderson Project Area mining claims are on public lands administered by the BLM. Arizona State sections are administered by the Arizona State Land Department. UEC has surface rights on these lands as outlined in their exploration permits. Under BLM regulations, surface use for the development and exploitation of mineral resources is permitted, subject to environmental permitting requirements, including the use of the surface for development of access and infrastructure, mine waste and mineral tailings disposal.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Anderson Project Area is accessed by paved, all-weather gravel and dirt roads. The Anderson Project Area is reached by taking the Alamo Lake turnoff, located approximately 21 miles northwest of Wickenburg on Arizona State Highway 93 (Joshua Tree Parkway), then driving 0.25 miles north of mile marker 179, and then following the Alamo Road for 5.8 miles to the Pipeline Ranch Road turnoff. The road passes through the Pipeline Ranch, located in the bottom of Date Creek Wash and continues for approximately 6.3 miles to FR 7581. The Anderson Project Area property boundary is located 1.4 miles north on FR 7581. There are alternate dirt roads, including a 15-mile primitive road from Highway 93 over Aso Pass (2,900 ft elevation).

The climate is arid, with hot summers and mild winters. Annual rainfall averages 10 to 12 inches with rain showers from January through March and thunderstorms during the summer months. Snowfall is rare. On average, temperatures range between a low of 31°F during winter months and a high of 104°F during summer months. Temperature extremes of 10°F in winter and 120°F in summer have been recorded. The climate is favorable for year-round mining operations and requires no special operational or infrastructure provisions that relate to weather.

The Anderson Project Area is undeveloped, with the exception of various access and drill roads and various water wells previously constructed. No utilities exist on or adjacent to the Anderson Project Area. A transmission power line runs northwest-southeast along Highway 93, approximately 8 miles to the east; however, direct access to the power line may be obstructed by the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness and Tres Alamos Wilderness located between the power line and the Anderson Project Area. The construction of a power line would require routing along one of the existing road corridors, a distance of 16.2 miles to the Anderson Project Area boundary.

Various water wells exist on and near the Anderson Project Area that can support large-scale mining operations. There is plenty of usable land space to locate processing plants, heap leach pads, tailings storage areas, waste disposal areas and other infrastructure development associated with large-scale mining. The Anderson Project Area includes most of a 195-acre area designated by the BLM as “disturbed” resulting from surface mining in the 1950s. It may be possible to expedite the permitting process for future metallurgical exploration and mining activities, including waste disposal, within the disturbed area.

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 Anderson Project Area 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. UEC’s surface rights encompass 15.4 square miles; this is sufficient for the surface structures associated with any proposed mining operation.

193

Arizona currently has a number of operating open pit mines and, historically, has had a number of operating underground mines. As a result, personnel with the required skill set exist in the state.

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 m (19,000 ft) drilling program on 250 m 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 m (74,000 ft) drill and core program on 120 m 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 km 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 m (402,773 ft) 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 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.

194

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. Exploration and mining activities on Arizona state land are administrated by the Arizona State Land Office. 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 the recommended program for BLM administered ground UEC needs to submit a plan of operations, a minimal impact exploration permit and a special use permit. There are no royalties.

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. 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. 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 ft 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.

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

195

Another set of faults trending more westerly (N65^oW) are present in the south-central portion of the Anderson Project Area. A fault set trending northeast-southwest has been speculated by Urangesellschaft and others but has not been observed in the field. Many of the north-westerly surface water drainage tributaries are developed partially along fault traces.

Minor faults and shear zones occur throughout the Anderson Project Area. These probably represent fractures with slight offset of strata during differential compaction of the underlying sediments or local adjustment to major faulting.

The largest fold in the area is a broad, gentle, northwest-trending syncline in the south-eastern quarter of Section 9, T11N, R10W. Dips reach a maximum of 13^o, except where modified by shearing. Many smaller folds with amplitudes of several feet are present in the lacustrine strata.

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 have a tendency to hinge. Minor faulting across the mineralized area is often difficult to discern from variations in sedimentary dips. The lacustrine sediments dip south to south-westerly from 2^o to 5^o, to a maximum of 15^o. Much of this dip is attributed to recurrent faulting during deposition.

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 m thick;

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

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

● Upper Conglomerate: cobble and boulder conglomerate, partly indurate and locally calcite cemented, averaging about zero to 60 m 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 Mioceneage 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.

Evidence suggests that deposition of the lacustrine sediments occurred in a restricted basin less than three miles wide by six to eight miles long on the northern edge of an old Paleogene lake. Moving southward, these sediments inter-tongue with siltstones and sandstones. The lakebed sediments represent time-transgressive facies deposited within a narrow, probably shallow, basinal feature. This type of depositional environment exhibits complex relationships between individual facies, lensing out, vertical and horizontal gradation and interfingering.

The lake sediments include green siltstones and mudstones, white calcareous siltstones and silty limestone or calcareous tuffaceous material. Much of this material is silicified to varying extents and was derived in part from volcanic ashes and tuffs common throughout the lakebeds. Also present in the lacustrine sequence are zones of carbonaceous siltstone and lignitic material. Along the boundary between the former MinEx and Urangesellschaft properties drill holes encounter the basal arkosic sandstone. To the south and southwest, lakebeds interfinger with and eventually are replaced by a thick, medium to coarse-grained, arkosic sandstone unit.

196

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).

Of special note is the detection of high-grade, low-reflecting uraniferous material occurring with carbonaceous material in the siltstone. Similar assemblages in unoxidized mineralization have also been reported for the former MinEx property.

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 the syngenetic mineralization is observed along faults and at outcrops.

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 m to more than 500 m in thickness. This section has been tentatively correlated westward with the Chapin Wash Formation and most probably inter-tongues with the Chapin Wash Formation.

The Anderson Project Area mineralization is of syngenetic origin and similar in style to deposits found in Argentina and Lake Maitland, Australia. Most or all of the lakebeds on the property facies exhibit some uranium mineralization. The highest grades and most continuous mineralization are confined to the carbonaceous siltstones and lignitic materials. Occasional mineralization has also been noted in the basal sandstone of the lacustrine sediments and in the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit. Carbonaceous material is known to interfinger with the basal sandstone, and carbon has been noted in the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit. Remobilization of the uranium has resulted in the deposition of uranium as fracture fillings around and below the main mineralized zones.

Carbon tends to immediately fix uranium when it comes into contact with uranium in solution; therefore, much of the mineralization is restricted to the top or bottom of the carbonaceous facies. However, mineralization can occur in the middle of some carbonaceous zones; this relationship implies that mineralization occurred during the deposition of the carbonaceous material. Mineralization is also prevalent in calcareous facies.

197

Various origins were suggested for the uranium mineralization:

1. devitrification of volcanic tuffs in and around the lacustrine environment that hosted the mineralized sediments;

2.	solution, mobilization and deposition from coarse-grained Precambrian biotite granites (with anomalous uranium values as high as 0.025%) that occur along the northern margins of the Date Creek Basin;
3.	a combination of 1 and 2;
4.	hot springs that may have been present along tectonically active zones; and
5.	hypogene deposition.

The most likely scenario for mineralization may be from alteration of tuffaceous sediments that were deposited in the lacustrine environment combined with solution, mobilization and deposition of uranium contained in the granitic highlands to the north. Liberation of uranium in proximity to organic material resulted in the formation of the semi-cyclic blanket deposits with the richer grades being associated with organic-rich facies. The uranium in the lacustrine host rocks has not been remobilized by geochemical cells, such as those responsible for the well-known roll-front deposits of Wyoming and south Texas. This lack of mobility is demonstrated by the absence of uranium mineralization in the barren sandstone unit, which should be an ideal host for roll-front type deposits.

Data Verification

Geophysical logs for historic drill holes were analyzed and evaluated for completeness and sufficiently quality checked in the process of developing the drill hole database for the resource modeling. Original geophysical logs for pre-2010 drilling were scanned and digitized. Downhole gamma measurements were converted to gamma equivalent values in %eU₃O₈ using standard methods. Post-2010 geophysical logs and drill data were provided in digital format and converted to gamma equivalent values using the same method as applied to the pre-2010 data.

To confirm that the conversion of the CPS to eU₃O₈ was done correctly, Agapito and Associates compared the converted eU₃O₈ data with the chemical assays for the 109 holes containing chemical assay data. The correlation between the assayed U₃O₈ and the eU₃O₈ values showed a wide scatter and the correlation is not very clear.

A comparison of the Q-Q plot of the same data, however, demonstrates that for quartiles greater than 0.07%, the eU₃O₈ value is slightly less than the corresponding U₃O₈ assay value, which indicates that the eU₃O₈ values may be slightly underestimated or conservatively estimated.

UEC validated the collar locations provided by Concentric using aerial image interpretation/remote sensing and global navigation satellite system measurements. The first phase of data validation used the database coordinate locations: each drill hole location was reviewed in relation to the high-resolution orthoimagery in an ESRI ArcMap. Drill pads and areas of disturbance are easily identified on the orthoimagery. The location was deemed to be valid based on the following criteria: if the location of the drill hole matched a drill pad, the location and the elevation from the DEM were accepted; and if the location of a drill hole did not match an area of disturbance in the image, the drill hole was flagged and rechecked in the field. Of the 1,336 drill hole locations originally provided in the database, approximately 20% (269 drill holes) were flagged for field-checking. An additional 27 areas were identified on the orthoimagery that showed disturbance but were not correlated with a drill hole location.

The second phase of data validation involved locating and measuring drill hole locations in the Anderson Project Area using a Trimble GeoXH mapping-grade GPS unit. The following drill hole classifications were used:

● located, if the drill hole was found and measured;

● location probable, if the original location was accepted after relocation in the field; and

● wrong location, if the drill hole could not be relocated or the site was obviously not suitable for drilling, such as on a steep hillside.

198

Mineral Resource Estimates

The mineral resource estimation described herein utilizes geological interpretation methodologies, which have been employed by the TRS QP for similar projects while working at operating mines within similarly hosted uranium mineralization. The primary method utilized in estimating the uranium mineral resources is the GT contour method, which is the CIM method recommended for sandstone-hosted deposits, such as those within the Anderson Project Area. The resource estimate was generated using drill hole sample results and the interpretation of a geologic model that relates and constrains the spatial distribution of U₃O₈. Mineral resources in the lacustrine sediment hosted deposits within each of six Resource Zones of the Anderson Project Area were estimated using the same GT contour modeling methodology. Mineral resource estimates are presented for each Resource Zone separately.

With respect to the commodity price and cutoff criteria, uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed since buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately.  Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC.  UEC has not begun any negotiations of any contracts to develop the property, including those associated with uranium sales, which is appropriate for a project at this level of development. The following provides a Long Term Uranium Price Forecasts from TradeTech LLC™ (“TradeTech™”) 2022: Issue 3. The Forward Availability Model (FAM 2) forecasts how future uranium supply enters the market assuming restricted project development because of an unsupportive economic environment.

TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM2 (Nominal US$)

From TradeTech™ 2022

The Term price projections for uranium oxide (USD) from TradeTech™ 2022, for 2023, FAM 2, Term Ref, exceed $75/lb. Projections of uranium price through 2040 increase from these values. The author recommends, as a conservative measure, the use of a long-term uranium price of $65.00 USD per pound uranium oxide for the consideration of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.

The Anderson Project Area is within a well-known mining district. The Anderson Mine was first discovered in 1955 due to anomalous surface radioactivity and the discovery of uranium oxide in outcrop. The Anderson Mine is a Brownfield site with historic open pit mine production and extensive exploration, which resulted in the disturbance of approximately 195 acres of lands. These lands are federally administered by the BLM. The disturbances pre-date environmental regulatory regulations and standards and, as a result, there is no current obligation for reclamation of the site. In some states, such disturbances would be addressed by the state Abandoned Mine Lands program, which is funded through the Office of Surface Mining and based on a tax on current coal mine production. The Arizona program has not addressed this site and is not likely to do so. Both the BLM and the USGS have and/or are considering the development of AML-like programs, however, it is not known whether the historic mine related disturbances at the Anderson Mine would be addressed. Although some local opposition is expected, the TRS QP is not aware of any factors, including environmental, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political or other factors that would materially affect the mineral resource estimate herein.

Historical drilling on the Anderson Project Area for which the data is available and has been obtained by UEC total 1,431-boreholes, including 105 core holes with chemical assay. The total reported footage drilled is approximately 702,330 ft. In addition, chemical assays are reported from a total of 3,577 samples.

Data preparation included locating, validating and compiling drill hole locations and downhole mineralized interval data within the Anderson Project Area. Data verification is discussed in detail in Section 9 of the TRS. From the overall dataset grade, thickness and X, Y and Z locations were derived for all mineralized intercepts. These mineralized intercepts were then screened by 3D location and geologically interpreted into six stratigraphically discrete and laterally continuous Resource Zones.

Approximately 260 drill holes were dropped due to missing or conflicting data. The modeled drill hole database consists of 1,175 drill holes. These drill holes contained 9,279 unique intercepts, which were categorized in the following table.

Table 1: Drilling Intercept Data by Resource Zone

Resource Zone	No. Boreholes Intercepting Zone	Total No. Intercepts	No. Intercepts meeting 0.02% eU3O8 cutoff
A	232	657	310
B	811	3625	1822
C	619	3350	1548
D	212	720	426
E	198	761	488
F	47	166	103

199

The following criteria were used to build databases for the six Resource Zones referred to as A, B, C, D, E and F.

● Individual mineralized intervals were identified in each drill hole using characteristics of shape and position of natural gamma radiation from electric logs and chemical assay of core holes, where available. Cutoff criteria were applied to screen out intervals below 0.02% eU3O8;

● Mineralized Bedding Thickness Cutoffs and compositing of intercept data into sum grade x thickness values for each Resource Zone varied dependent upon the intended mining extraction method;

● Surface Mining extraction methods applied to Zones A and B are assumed to allow for recovery of mineralized beds under 0.5 ft in thickness. As such, an idealized sum GT compositing method was applied to Zones A and B, with no minimum intercept thickness; and

● Highwall mining and underground mining extraction methods require a minimum mining thickness of 3 ft. This compositing criterion was applied to intercepts within Resource Zones C, D, E and F. Intercepts below 3 ft in thickness were recomposited to a minimum of 3 ft using 0.005% interstitial background grades. Intercepts overlapping within 3 ft were composited together. The resulting composited intercepts with average grades lower than the 0.02% eU3O8 were then screened out. Only intercepts with average grades greater than 0.02% were used to produce a sum GT product to model resource.

Following application of screening and compositing criteria, a single composited thickness, grade and GT value for each Resource Zone in each drill hole was calculated. Digital database records thus consist of X-Y-Z coordinates and composited interval data (thickness, grade and sum GT values) for each of the six modeled Resource Zones.

The TRS QP considers the data used for the mineral resource estimate to be adequately prepared and is satisfied that the digital data are adequate for 2D mineral resource estimation.

The mineral resource estimate for the Anderson Project Area was completed using the inverse distance squared GT contour method for each of mineralized zones of the deposit. The GT method is a well-established approach for estimating uranium resources and has been in use since the 1950s in sedimentary hosted uranium deposits in the U.S. The technique is most useful in estimating tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies where lateral extent of the mineralized body is much greater than its thickness, as is observed with the data for Anderson Project Area.

The indicated mineral resources for the Anderson Project Area are provided in the table below. There are no measured or inferred resources assigned to the Anderson Project Area. Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Project can be reasonably and economically recoverable through a combination of surface and underground mining methods using a long-term price of $65/lb. An additional portion of resource, outside of the pit shell, can be reasonably extracted through highwall mining and underground mining methods where justified.

Table 2: Anderson Project Area Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource Estimates (0.1% Sum GT Cutoff)	Tons (millions)	Average Sum Thickness (ft)	Average Grade (%eU3O8)	Pounds eU3O8 (millions)
Indicated Resource	16.175	8.2	0.099	32.055

Notes 1.         Mineral Resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. 2.         Economic factors have been applied to the estimates in consideration of reasonable prospects for economic extraction. 3.         Totals may not sum due to rounding. 4.         Metallurgical Recovery estimated at 90%.

Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date

The Anderson Project Area remains unpermitted and in an exploration phase.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company plans to continue to evaluate the Anderson Project Area.

200

Non-Material Mineral Properties

This section describes certain non-material mineral properties held by the Company. As these properties are not considered material to the Company’s business, the Company may choose to pursue or to take under consideration the potential sale, joint venture, trade or other transaction involving one or more of these projects.

The Company holds the following non-material mineral properties:

Other ISR Projects

Coronel Oviedo Uranium Project

Project Overview

The Coronel Oviedo Uranium Project (the Coronel Oviedo Project Area) is located within the Paraná Basin and is underlain mainly by sedimentary rocks of undivided Permo-Carboniferous age. The Coronel Oviedo Project Area was explored on a reconnaissance basis by Anschutz in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Paraná Basin is host to a number of known uranium deposits, including Figueira and Amorinópolis in Brazil, and the San Antonio deposit on the Yuty concession in Paraguay. The Coronel Oviedo Project Area is an exploration project.

Ownership

The Coronel Oviedo Project Area has a Mining Prospecting Permit covering a total area of approximately 100,000 Há hectares (247,100 acres) in southeastern Paraguay. This mineral concession consists of the RI 3 Corrales (Tres Corrales) and Cecilio Baez blocks. The Coronel Oviedo Project Area is located about 130 km (81 miles) east of Asuncion, Paraguay’s capital, and immediately to the north and east of the city of Coronel Oviedo, capital of the department of Caaguazú.

Figure 1: General Location Map

201

Other Conventional Projects

Diabase

Project Overview

The Diabase Project (the “Diabase Project Area”) is a large, early-stage exploration project 75 km west of Cameco’s Key Lake mill on the southern rim of Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin uranium district. Exploration is focused on testing the Cable Bay fault corridor, interpreted to represent a suture zone between the Archean Mudjatik and Virgin River domains within the Trans-Hudson orogeny. Historical work started in the late 1970s, with the first major programs completed by the Saskatchewan Mineral Development Corporation in 1979 and the last major program completed by NUINSCO Resources Inc. in 2011. The Diabase Project Area work completed to date includes 67 diamond drill holes, regional electromagnetic, magnetic and gravity geophysical surveys and surficial geochemistry. Anomalous uranium values have been intersected on the Diabase Project Area, primarily associated with an area intruded by a late diabase dyke, highlighted by drill holes ND0801 (707 ppm U over 0.25 m) and ND0807 (426 ppm Upartial over 0.40 m).

Ownership

UEC controls a significant land package of 21,949 hectares in 10 claim blocks which overlay the highly prospective regional Cable Bay fault corridor, located in a stable and leading jurisdiction for uranium exploration and mining.

202

Figure 1: General Location Map

203

Dalton Pass

Project Overview

The Dalton Pass Project (the “Dalton Pass Project Area”) is located on the western edge of the Grants Mineral Belt, an area containing the two most productive uranium mining regions in New Mexico; Ambrosia Lake and Laguna districts. Drilling to date indicates that the uranium mineralization occurs as both primary tabular and roll-front deposits. Mineralization is hosted by the upper Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation, a sequence of stacked sands separated by discontinuous shale breaks, at depths ranging from 1,900 to 2,100 ft. UEC staked the Dalton Pass Project Area in December 2014. 

Ownership

UEC staked the Dalton Pass Project Area in December 2014.

Figure 1: General Location Map

204

C de Baca

Project Overview

UEC’s C de Baca Project (the “C de Baca Project Area”) is located in western Socorro County, in central New Mexico, and is approximately 14 miles north of the town of Magdalena. The C de Baca Project Area consists of 30 mineral lode claims that encompass an area of approximately 600 acres. Drilling to date suggests that the uranium mineralization occurs as both primary tabular and roll-front deposits. Mineralization is hosted by the Eocene Baca Formation and ranges in depth from 150 to 300 ft.

Ownership

UEC personnel, utilizing the Company’s large historic database, staked the C de Baca Project Area in March 2013.

Figure 1: General Location Map

205

Workman Creek

Project Overview

The Workman Creek Project (the Workman Creek Project Area) consists of six claim blocks, totaling 180 unpatented mining claims, totaling approximately 3,558.4 acres, located within Gila County, in the central portion of the state of Arizona, USA. The property is named after the geological formation, which contains the majority of the uranium showings within the Sierra Ancha region. The property is geographically centered at longitude 110°57’ W and latitude 33°50’ N, and located within townships 5N, 6N and 7N; range 14E, Gila- Salt River Meridian.

Ownership

All of the UEC controlled, unpatented mining claims that comprise the Workman Creek Project Area are located within the boundaries of the Tonto National Forest, which is public land administered by the National Forest Service. A small portion of the Workman Creek Project Area claim block, adjacent to the project, is covered by private land owned by Arizona Elks Major Projects Inc., which consists of camp facilities. As this parcel does not have significant potential to contain significant uranium mineralization and is largely outside of the mining claims, a detailed deed search of mineral rights is not warranted at this time.

206

Figure 1: General Location Map

207

Los Cuatros

Project Overview

UEC’s Los Cuatros Project (formerly referred to as New River) (the “Los Cuatros Project Area”) is located in northern Maricopa County, Arizona, on state lands in an historic mining area. Teck Corporation performed geologic mapping, drilling and gamma surveys on the Los Cuatros Project Area in 1979 for Univex Mining. In addition, limited metallurgical testing was carried out by Lakefield Research of Lakefield, Ohio. 14 holes were drilled in the central portion of the Los Cuatros Project Area. The drill logs and cuttings indicate that uranium is disseminated within tuffaceous lakebed sediments typically at depths varying from 150 to 230 feet with occurrences as shallow as 65 feet below the surface.

Ownership

UEC controls the State of Arizona mineral lease that comprises the Los Cuatros Project Area.

Figure 1: General Location Map

208

Alto Paraná

Project Overview

The Alto Paraná project (the “Alto Paraná Project Area”) is a mineral project located in Eastern Paraguay in Alto Paraná province, approximately 100 km north of Ciudad del Este. The Alto Paraná Project Area consists of a proposed mining operation, beneficiation of the material to produce an ilmenite/titanomagnetite concentrate and smelting in a DC electric arc furnace to produce a high-quality titanium slag and high-quality pig iron products. The titanium slag would be sold as a feedstock for the production of titanium dioxide pigment. The pig iron would be sold to the iron and steel industry as a source of high-quality iron units for the production of steel or to the foundry industry for the production of high-quality ductile iron castings.

Ownership

On July 10, 2017, UEC exercised its option to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of CIC Resources (Paraguay) Inc. (CIC). CIC owns 100% of Paraguay Resources Inc. (Cayman) which owns and controls Metálicos y No Metálicos S.R.L. (MYNM), the holder of the 70,528 hectare property approved for prospecting and exploration. Additionally, CIC owns 100% of JDL Resources Inc. (Cayman), which owns 100% of Trier S.A. (Paraguay) (Trier). Trier S.A. controls 100% of the pilot plant and owns 30 has hectares upon which the Alto Paraná Project Area pilot plant resides.

UEC’s mineral properties are held as exploration permits. There is sufficient land available within the Alto Paraná property holdings to provide for a required mine, process plant, tailings storage and related infrastructure requirements. All MYNM and Trier properties are in good standing.

Figure 1: General Location Map

209

Longhorn

Project Overview

The Longhorn Project (the “Longhorn Project Area”) is located approximately 45 miles from Hobson Processing Plant in Live Oak County, where historic production exceeded 30 mlbs of uranium. Geologically, the Longhorn Project Area is comprised of five separate roll-fronts across the Longhorn Project Area, with over 500 historic drill logs. UEC considers the Longhorn Project Area to be an Exploration Stage project with no resources or reserves.

Ownership

UEC controls the private mineral lease at the Longhorn Project Area.

Figure 1: General Location Map

210

Other Properties

As of July 31, 2022, we owned 115 acres of real estate located in Goliad County, Texas, 22 acres of real estate in Karnes County, Texas, 40 acres of real estate in Campbell Country, Wyoming, and 76.6 acres of real estate located in the Republic of Paraguay.

As of July 31, 2022, we have entered into office rental and service agreements as follows:

● an office lease at $9,977 per month for the Corpus Christi administration office located at 500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401. The lease expires on July 31, 2022;

● an office lease at $4,363 per month for the Vancouver administration office at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3. The lease expires on March 31, 2027;

● an office lease at $5,597 per month for the Casper administration office at 907 No. Poplar St., Suite 260 Casper, Wyoming 82601. The lease expires on September 30, 2023

● an office lease at $1,800 per month for the Wyoming office at 409 West Birch Street, Glenrock, Wyoming, 82637. The lease expires on June 30, 2023; and

● an office lease at $1,240 per month for the Arizona office at 4020 E Industrial Way, Suite 150, Wickenburg, Arizona 85390. The lease expires on May 31, 2023.

Our Databases

We have acquired historical exploration data that will assist in the direction of proposed exploration program on lands held in our current property portfolio. This prior exploration data consists of management information and work product derived from various reports, drill hole assay results, drill hole logs, studies, maps, radioactive rock samples, exploratory drill logs, state organization reports, consultants, geological study and other exploratory information.

The following provides information relating to our databases:

Tronox Worldwide

Effective February 20, 2008, we acquired from Tronox Worldwide LLC certain assets, consisting of certain maps, data, exploration results and other information pertaining to lands within the U.S. (excluding New Mexico and Wyoming), Canada and Australia, and specifically including the former uranium exploration projects by Kerr McGee Corporation. The Tronox database contains records on some of our properties located in Arizona, the Colorado Plateau and Texas. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Jebsen

Our Jebsen database covers territory in Wyoming and New Mexico, including some of our existing properties. The database belonged to a pioneering uranium developer and represents work conducted from the 1950s through to the present.

This database adds over 500 drill holes and over 500,000 feet of drilling data results to our existing library of data.  Other than logs, the data set consists of volumes of maps, lithographic logs, geologic reports and feasibility studies, and many other essential tools for uranium exploration and pre-extraction.

Our geologists have linked contents of the database to some of our existing properties, specifically pertaining to our projects in the Shirley and Powder River Basins of Wyoming, and in the Grants Uranium District of New Mexico.  We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Halterman

Our Halterman database consists of exploratory and pre-extraction work compiled during the 1970s and 1980s, including extensive data on significant prospects and projects in the following known uranium districts in the States of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, including in the Grants, San Juan Basin, Chama Basin, Moab, Lisbon Valley, Dove Creek, Slick Rock and Uravan districts.

This database includes drilling and logging data from over 200,000 feet of uranium exploration and pre-extraction drilling, resource evaluations and calculations, drill-hole locations and grade thickness maps, competitor activity maps as well as several dozen geological and project evaluation reports covering uranium projects in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Texas and California. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

211

Brenniman

Our Brenniman database includes drilling and logging data from over two million feet of uranium exploration and pre-extraction drilling, resource calculation reports and various other geological reports, drill hole location maps and other mapping. This database includes approximately 142 drill hole gamma and E-logs. The data was originally compiled from 1972 to 1981 by various exploration companies, and covers over 100 uranium prospects in 15 southern U.S. states. This library will be used by our technical personnel to determine locations of where drill-indicated uranium may exist. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Kirkwood

We acquired a database of uranium exploration results covering an area of approximately 13,000 acres within the uranium zone known as the Poison Spider area, in central Wyoming. The area covered includes property already held by us, as well as by other publicly-traded uranium exploration companies. The database was compiled by William Kirkwood of North American Mining and Minerals Company, a significant participant in the uranium, coal, gold and oil and gas industries in the western United States since the 1960s. The data acquired was generated from exploration originally conducted by companies such as Homestake Mining, Kennecott Corp, Rampart Exploration and Kirkwood Oil and Gas, largely between 1969 and 1982. The database consists of drill hole assay logs for 470 holes, including 75,200 feet of drilling, 22,000 feet of gamma logs, drill hole location maps, cross sections, geological maps, geological reports and other assay data and will be used to locate possible mineralized zones in the Poison Spider area in central Wyoming. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Odell

We acquired the rights to a database containing over 50 years of uranium exploration data for the State of Wyoming. This database consists of 315,000 feet of drill logs, over 400 maps, copies of all US geological survey uranium publications dating back to 1954 and geological reports on uranium ore bodies throughout Wyoming. The database will be used to locate possible mineralized zones. The database is made available to us by Robert Odell, the compiler and publisher of the Rocky Mountain Uranium Minerals Scout since 1974. We do not own or have exclusive rights to this database.

Moore

We acquired a database of U.S. uranium exploration results from Moore Energy, a private Oklahoma-based uranium exploration company.

The Moore Energy U.S. uranium database consists of over 30 years of uranium exploration information in the States of Texas, New Mexico and Wyoming, originally conducted during the 1970s to the 1990s. It includes results of over 10,000 drill holes, plus primary maps and geological reports. It covers approximately one million acres of prospective uranium claims in the South Texas Uranium Belt, New Mexico and Powder River Basin, Wyoming, as well as zones in Texas, and will be used to locate possible mineralized zones.

The database also provides us with exploration data about our Goliad Project Area, including 250,000 feet of drill logs and further delineates zones of potential uranium mineralization. It also contains drilling results from properties that are being developed by other uranium exploration companies, and also widespread regional data from throughout the South Texas uranium trend. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Uranium Resources Inc.

We acquired the full database of historic drill results for our Salvo Project Area located in Bee County, Texas.  The database consists of 425 gamma ray/resistivity and lithology logs, PGT logs and drill plan maps. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

South Texas Goliad Project

Our South Texas Goliad database includes raw and interpreted data compiled by TOMIN and others from the mid-1980s to 1993. The database is an evaluation of the uranium potential within the Goliad Formation from south of Houston to the Mexican border.

212

Through TOMIN’s purchase of the Holiday-El Mesquite project, located in Duval County, Texas, in 1990, TOMIN acquired the Mobil uranium exploration database. Starting with this data, and earlier data purchased from Tenneco Uranium, TOMIN also acquired regional oil and gas logs (included in the database), water well driller logs and other regional information to begin their study of the Goliad Formation along the South Texas Uranium Belt.

As a result of the study TOMIN identified 62 targets and drilled 22 holes by project end in 1993. Of the 22 drilled, 19 were disproved and the remaining three await further drilling to assess trends. Another 40 targets remain to be drill-evaluated.

During Fiscal 2022, we acquired databases, via the U1A Acquisition, which were acquired primarily by U1A’s predecessors, Energy Metals Corp. and High Plains Uranium Corp. These databases are vast in scope and coverage for uranium districts in the U.S. and around the world, both from reconnaissance and project development activities by the companies or individuals listed below.

United Nuclear

Effective February 16, 2005, we acquired from United Nuclear Corporation (“UNC”) their technical data and other information pertaining to national and international uranium properties explored by and/or operated by UNC or its affiliates.

This data includes the uranium geologic files for all Teton projects both domestic and international, all UNC-Tennessee Valley Administration (“TVA”) or Teton-TVA Joint Venture Projects, and all UNC Mining Properties in New Mexico. Included are all e-logs, drift surveys, gamma work sheets, geologic maps, drill hole maps, mine maps, geologic evaluation reports, royalty holder reports, and economic evaluations of projects or properties.

This database covers numerous projects in the Company’s portfolio. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Union Carbide Uranium

The company holds the exclusive rights to the Union Carbide worldwide exploration database. This entails corporate records of reports, drill data and maps for a multitude of uranium projects and prospects around the world. The database covers numerous properties held by the company. We have an exclusive license for this database.

Wold Uranium

The Wold Uranium database was acquired in 2005 and covers numerous projects in Wyoming, Texas, and several other uranium producing states. Wold Uranium was a pioneering uranium exploration company based out of Casper Wyoming and was very active in project exploration and development. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Hecla

The Hecla database was acquired in 2004 and consists of reconnaissance and geologic reports for uranium projects in the western United States, Canada, Australia and Mexico. Drill data (logs, maps, assays and reports) are available for numerous projects primarily in New Mexico.

Fowler

Our Fowler database covers three of our Wyoming properties in the Wind River and Shirley basins. The database belonged to a pioneering uranium developer and represents work conducted from the 1970s through to present. The data includes electric logs for approximately 525,000 feet of drilling, drill hole maps, cross sections, and geologic reports and studies.

Schulte

The Company’s Schulte database was acquired from a former AEC and Homestake geologist. The database covers large portions of the Rocky Mountain region, primarily Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska and Montana. This database consists of approximately 160,000 feet of drilling as well as hundreds of maps and reports. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

213

Morris

The Company acquired the rights to a database containing uranium exploration data for the State of Wyoming. This data covers numerous projects. This database includes electric logs, drill hole maps, cross sections, geologic reports and studies. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Webb

We acquired the rights to a database containing over 50 years of uranium exploration data in the western U.S. This database includes electric logs, drill hole maps, cross sections, and geologic reports and studies. Some of this data covers properties held by the Company as well as exploration ideas for further consideration. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Cameco

The Company acquired the rights to data for several of its projects in Wyoming through Cameco Resources. Data sets for the Moore Ranch, Ludeman and Barge Project Areas were acquired in 2007 to 2008.

The data is comprised of drill hole geophysical logs (>10,000), drill hole location maps, mini-log films, drill hole summary sheets, lithologic logs, digitized drill logs, drift surveys, geologic cross-sections, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and all other regulatory agency reports and permits including the NRC; results of assaying and sampling and other geological, geophysical, environmental, engineering and operational/testing data and materials, including Teton Exploration’s reports and materials.

These project areas were previously held by Cameco. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

AUC

This geologic database was acquired by the Company in 2017 with the Company’s acquisition of AUC and primarily the Reno Creek Project Area. This database is comprised of electric logs, drill hole maps, cross sections, and geologic reports and studies. The database contains over 11,000 drill logs representing approximately four million feet of drilling done by AUC and previous operators in the Reno Creek Project Area over the past 60 years.

This data includes other prospective areas within the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District as well. UEC has exclusive ownership of this database.

Others

In addition to the databases listed above, the Company has purchased the data for numerous, specific, individual projects within the Company’s project portfolio. These are primarily in Wyoming and Texas.

In summary, the database contains nearly 80,000 Wyoming uranium drill logs comprising 34.3 million feet of drilling. Drill log data summaries for additional states and countries has yet to be compiled. A major percentage of this data has been scanned and digitally archived. Energy Metals Corp./Uranium One Inc. operated numerous data scanning groups from 2005 to 2014.

214

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

As of the date of this Annual Report, other than as disclosed below, there are no material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business, to which our Company or any of our subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is subject, and no director, officer, affiliate or record or beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock, or any associate or any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder, is: (i) a party adverse to us or any of our subsidiaries in any legal proceeding; or (ii) has an adverse interest to us or any of our subsidiaries in any legal proceeding. Other than as disclosed below, management is not aware of any other material legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against us or our properties.

On or about March 9, 2011, the TCEQ granted our Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, PAA and AE for our Goliad Project. On or about December 4, 2012, the EPA concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the AE permit. With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, our Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status. On or about May 24, 2011, a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the 250^th District Court in Travis County, Texas. A motion filed by our Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about June 14, 2013, when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position. On or about January 18, 2013, a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to appeal the EPA’s decision. On or about March 5, 2013, a motion filed by our Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The parties attempted to resolve both appeals, to facilitate discussions and avoid further legal costs. The parties jointly agreed, through mediation initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about August 8, 2013, to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about August 21, 2013, the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings. The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA’s stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval. In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE. We and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, and if granted, to be limited to a 60-day review period.  On December 9, 2013, by way of a procedural order from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to 60 days. In March of 2014, at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, our Company conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed our previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about June 17, 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of our existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than 10% of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but not denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about September 9, 2014, the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in August 2013 and to set a briefing schedule. In that Status Report the petitioners also stated that they had decided not to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. We continue to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and is continuing as planned towards uranium extraction at its fully-permitted Goliad Project.

The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Paraná Projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions. 

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Pursuant to Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, issuers that are operators, or that have a subsidiary that is an operator, of a coal or other mine in the United States, and that is subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Safety Act”), are required to disclose in their periodic reports filed with the SEC information regarding specified health and safety violations, orders and citations, related assessments and legal actions, and mining-related fatalities. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, our ISR Mines were not subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Mine Safety Act.

215

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Shares of our common stock commenced trading on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “URME” on December 5, 2005. On September 28, 2007, shares of our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE American (formerly known as the American Stock Exchange, the NYSE Amex Equities Exchange and the NYSE MKT) under the symbol “UEC”. The market for our common stock is limited and can be volatile. The following table sets forth the high and low trading prices relating to our common stock on the NYSE American on a quarterly basis for the periods indicated:

NYSE American
Quarter Ended	High	Low
July 2022	$4.25	$3.97
April 2022	$4.69	$4.23
January 2022	$2.63	$2.46
October 2021	$3.87	$3.53
July 2021	$2.34	$2.14
April 2021	$3.05	$2.85
January 2021	$1.76	$1.59
October 2020	$0.88	$0.83
July 2020	$1.01	$0.96
April 2020	$1.18	$1.10
January 2020	$0.85	$0.79
October 2019	$1.01	$0.95

The last reported closing price for our shares on the NYSE American on September 27, 2022 was $3.43 per share. As of September 27, 2022, we had 238 registered shareholders.

Dividend Policy

No dividends have been declared or paid on our common stock. We have incurred recurring losses and do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Compensation Plans

At July 31, 2022, we had one equity compensation plan, our 2022 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2022 Plan”). Our 2022 Plan was ratified by our shareholders on July 21, 2022 and thereby superseded and replaced our then 2021 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2021 Plan”); having been ratified by our shareholders on July 30, 2021; with all stock-based compensation awards granted in accordance with our 2021 Plan and each of our preceding stock incentive plans being continued under our 2022 Plan (and the 2022 Plan, the 2021 Plan and all preceding stock incentive plans being, collectively, our “Stock Incentive Plan” herein).

216

The table below sets forth information relating to our equity compensation plan at our fiscal year end July 31, 2022:

Plan Category	Number of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (1) (a)	Weighted Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (2) (b)	Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans (excluding column (a))
Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders (the 2022 Plan) (3)	10,451,143	$1.58	12,998,145
Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Security Holders	Nil	N/A	Nil
Total	10,451,143	$1.58	12,998,145

Notes:

(1) This figure represents: (i) 8,880,527 outstanding stock options having a weighted average exercise price of $1.58 and a weighted average remaining term of 6.98 years; (ii) 836,034 shares of our common stock underlying restricted stock units (the “RSUs”); and (iii) 734,582 shares of our common stock underlying performance based restricted stock units (the “PRSUs”). Shares of our common stock underlying PRSUs are included assuming maximum payout, but may be paid out at lesser amounts, or not at all, depending on the achievement of performance criteria.

(2) This price applies only to the stock options included in column (a) and is not applicable to the RSUs or PRSUs included in column (a).

(3) Under our Stock Incentive Plan, stock-based awards are granted from a pool of available shares, with: (i) every share issuable pursuant to the exercise of a stock option or SAR counting as one share of our common stock; and (ii) every share underlying restricted stock, a RSU, a PRSU or other right or benefit under our Stock Incentive Plan counting as two shares of our common stock.

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Compensation Plans

2022 Stock Incentive Plan

On June 2, 2022, our Board of Directors authorized and approved the adoption of the Company’s 2022 Plan, under which an aggregate of 25,576,693 of our shares may be issued, subject to adjustment as described in the 2022 Plan, and which, at that time, consisted of: (i) 10,462,238 shares issuable pursuant to awards previously granted that were outstanding under our 2021 Plan; (ii) 9,114,455 shares remaining available for issuance under the 2021 Plan; and (iii) 6,000,000 additional shares that may be issued pursuant to awards that may be granted under the 2022 Plan. On July 21, 2022, our shareholders approved the adoption of our 2022 Plan. The 2022 Plan supersedes and replaces our most recent and prior equity compensation plan, being the 2021 Plan.

The purpose of our Stock Incentive Plan is to enhance our long-term stockholder value by offering opportunities to our directors, officers, employees and eligible consultants to acquire and maintain stock ownership in order to give these persons the opportunity to participate in our growth and success, and to encourage them to remain in our service.

Our Stock Incentive Plan is administered by our Compensation Committee (therein our “Administrator”) which shall determine, among other things: (i) the persons to be granted awards under the Stock Incentive Plan (each an “Award” to an “Eligible Participant”); (ii) the number of shares or amount of other Awards to be granted; and (iii) the terms and conditions of the Awards granted. We may issue shares, options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units, performance restricted stock units, deferred stock units and dividend equivalent rights, among others, under our Stock Incentive Plan.

An Award may not be exercised after the termination date of the Award and may be exercised following the termination of an Eligible Participant’s continuous service only to the extent provided by the Administrator under the Stock Incentive Plan. If the Administrator of our Stock Incentive Plan permits an Eligible Participant to exercise an Award following the termination of continuous service for a specified period, the Award terminates to the extent not exercised on the last day of the specified period or the last day of the original term of the Award, whichever occurs first. In the event an Eligible Participant’s service has been terminated for “cause”, he or she shall immediately forfeit all rights to any of the Awards outstanding.

217

The foregoing summary of our Stock Incentive Plan is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Stock Incentive Plan, a copy of which has been filed electronically with the SEC, which is available under the Company’s filings at www.sec.gov.

As of September 27, 2022, there were stock options outstanding under our Stock Incentive Plan exercisable for an aggregate of 10,193,005 shares of our common stock.

Common Stock Purchase Warrants

As of September 27, 2022, there were common stock purchase warrants issued and outstanding exercisable for an aggregate of 4,816,886 shares of our common stock.

Recent Issuances of Unregistered Securities

All of our issuances of unregistered securities during our fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 were previously disclosed in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for our first, second and third quarters of our fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, and in our Current Reports on Form 8-K as filed periodically with the SEC. During our fourth quarter ended July 31, 2022, we issued the following securities that were not registered under the Securities Act:

● on July 12, 2022, we issued an aggregate of 41,350 shares of common stock to a consultant in consideration for services under a consulting agreement at a deemed issuance price of $3.26 per share.  We relied on exemptions from registration under the Securities Act provided by Rule 506 of Regulation D and/or Section 4(a)(2) with respect to the issuance of these shares; and

● on July 22, 2022, we issued an aggregate of 2,854 shares of common stock to a consultant in consideration for services under a consulting agreement at a deemed issuance price of $4.73 per share.  We relied on exemptions from registration under the Securities Act provided by Regulation S and/or Section 4(a)(2) with respect to the issuance of these shares.

218

Comparative Stock Performance

The graph below compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock assuming an investment of $100 and the reinvestment of all dividends, if any, for the years ended July 31, 2018, through to July 31, 2022, with: (i) the cumulative total return on the shares of common stock of a current peer group index comprised of Centrus Energy Corp., Comstock Resources, Inc., Denison Mines Corp., Energy Fuels Inc., Fission Uranium Corp., Global Atomic Corporation, Gulfport Energy Corporation, IsoEnergy Ltd., NACCO Industries, Inc., NexGen Energy Ltd., Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., Polymet Mining Corp. and UR-Energy Inc. (collectively, the “Peer Group”); (ii) the cumulative total return on the shares of common stock of a previous peer group index comprised of Centrus Energy Corp., Comstock Resources, Inc., Contango Oil & Gas Company, Denison Mines Corp., Energy Fuels Inc., Fission Uranium Corp., IsoEnergy Ltd., NACCO Industries, Inc., NexGen Energy Ltd., Polymet Mining Corp., Silvercorp Metals Inc., UEX Corporation and UR-Energy Inc. (collectively, the “Previous Peer Group”); and (iii) the cumulative return on the Russell 3000 Index. The change in peer group was made to address changes in the external market and to better reflect our Company’s business.

219

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share amounts)

The following tables provide selected financial data for each of the past five fiscal years, and should be read in conjunction with, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our consolidated financial statements and related notes for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, as presented under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. These historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021		July 31, 2020		July 31, 2019		July 31, 2018
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,536	$	44,313	$	5,149	$	6,058	$	6,927
Term deposits		-		-		-		11,832		-
Working capital (deficit)		93,693		61,776		4,552		16,639		(3,975	)
Total assets		354,247		169,541		91,390		101,040		89,611
Long-term obligations		18,304		4,276		24,390		23,191		13,555
Total liabilities		27,338		18,086		26,973		26,813		26,436
Stockholders' equity		326,909		151,455		64,417		74,227		63,175

 Consolidated Statements of Operations

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021			2020			2019			2018
Sales and service revenue	$	23,161	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-
Operating costs		22,710		17,512			14,334			14,977			16,314
Net income (loss) for the year		5,252		(14,813	)		(14,610	)		(17,153	)		(17,827	)
Basic income (loss) per share		0.02		(0.07	)		(0.08	)		(0.10	)		(0.11	)
Diluted income (loss) per share		0.02		(0.07	)		(0.08	)		(0.10	)		(0.11	)

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share amounts)

The following management’s discussion and analysis of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations contain forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions including, among others, statements regarding our capital needs, business plans and expectations. In evaluating these statements, you should consider various factors, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions set forth in reports and other documents we have filed with or furnished to the SEC and, including, without limitation, this Form 10-K filing for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, including the consolidated financial statements and related notes contained herein. These factors, or any one of them, may cause our actual results or actions in the future to differ materially from any forward-looking statement made in this document. Refer to “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements” and Item 1A. Risk Factors herein.

Introduction

The following discussion summarizes the results of operations for each of our fiscal years ended July 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020 and our financial condition as at July 31, 2022 and 2021, with a particular emphasis on Fiscal 2022, our most recently completed fiscal year.

Business

We operate in a single reportable segment and, since 2004, as more fully described under “General Business” of Item 1. Business herein, we have been primarily engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay.

We utilize ISR mining for our uranium projects where possible which we believe, when compared to conventional open pit or underground mining, requires lower capital and operating expenditures with a shorter lead time to extraction and a reduced impact on the environment. We have two ISR Mines which utilize ISR mining to extract U₃O₈, or yellowcake. We have two uranium processing facilities located in vicinity of our IRS Mines, which process material from our ISR Mines into drums of U₃O₈ for shipping to a third-party storage and sales facility. At July 31, 2022, we had no uranium supply or off-take agreements in place.

220

In Texas our fully-licensed and 100% owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically the South Texas Uranium Belt where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson Processing Facility, which has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually and is licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually, acts as the central processing site (the “hub”) for our Palangana Mine, and future satellite uranium mining activities, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (the “spokes”).

We acquired the fully permitted Reno Creek Project in August 2017 and expanded our operations to the strategic Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

On December 17, 2021, we completed the acquisition of all the issued and outstanding shares of U1A (now UEC Wyoming Corp.; “UEC Wyoming”) for total cash consideration of $128,495. The UEC Wyoming portfolio primarily consists of 12 projects located in Wyoming, six of which are located in the Powder River Basin with four fully permitted, and six of which are located in the Great Divide Basin (the “UEC Wyoming Portfolio”). The UEC Wyoming Portfolio also consists of dozens of under-explored, mineralized brownfield projects, backed by detailed databases of historic uranium exploration and development programs, thus greatly enhancing the potential for resource expansion. The U1A Acquisition creates a Wyoming hub-and-spoke operation for UEC, anchored by UEC Wyoming’s Irigaray Processing Facility with a licensed capacity of 2.5 million pounds U₃O₈ per year. Refer to Note 3: Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. of the Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal 2022.

On June 7, 2022, UEC completed a property swap agreement (the “Property Swap”) with Anfield Energy Inc. (“Anfield”), whereby the Company received Anfield’s portfolio of 25 ISR uranium projects in Wyoming (the “Anfield ISR Projects”) in exchange for UEC’s Slick Rock and Long Park projects located in Colorado. The Anfield ISR Projects increase UEC’s Wyoming land holdings by 50%, adding 55,119 acres of federal mining claims and state mineral leases.  The Anfield ISR Projects are comprised of the Charlie Project, located immediately adjacent to UEC’s Christensen Ranch property, along with nine projects in the Powder River Basin, seven projects in the Great Divide Basin, four projects in the Wind River Basin, three projects in the Shirley Basin and one project in Black Hills.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we completed the acquisition of UEX Corporation (“UEX”) through a plan of arrangement (the “UEX Acquisition”).  UEX is a Canadian uranium and cobalt exploration and development company involved with an exceptional portfolio of uranium projects. UEX’s directly-owned portfolio of projects is located in the eastern, western and northern perimeters of the Athabasca Basin, one of the world’s richest uranium region. In addition to advancing its uranium development projects through its ownership interest in a joint venture entity, UEX is currently advancing several other uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin which include the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora deposits at the Christie Lake Project, the Kianna, Anne, Colette and 58B deposits at its currently 49.1%-owned Shea Creek Project, the Horseshoe and Raven deposits located on its 100%-owned Horseshoe-Raven Project and the West Bear Uranium Deposit located at its 100%-owned West Bear Project.

We also hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, and in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our mineral rights in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.

Our operating and strategic framework is based on expanding our uranium extraction activities, which includes advancing certain uranium projects with established mineralized materials towards uranium extraction and establishing additional mineralized materials on our existing uranium projects or through acquisition of additional uranium projects.

Key Issues

Since commencing uranium extraction at our Palangana Mine in November 2010, we have been focused primarily on expanding our South Texas uranium mining activities. Since the completion of the U1A Acquisition in December 2021, we further expanded our footprints in Wyoming with our Wyoming hub-and-spoke operations. In the meantime, we continue to establish additional uranium mines through exploration and pre-extraction activities and direct acquisitions in both the U.S. and Paraguay, all of which require us to manage numerous challenges, risks and uncertainties inherent in our business and operations as more fully described in Item 1A. Risk Factors herein.

221

Our operations are capital intensive, and we will require significant additional financing to continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities and acquire additional uranium projects. Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and, for Fiscal 2014 and Fiscal 2013, on debt financing, in order to fund our operations. We have also relied on cash flows generated from our mining activities during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012. In the future we may also rely on cash flows generated from the sales of our uranium inventories under our Physical Uranium Program to fund our operations. However, we have yet to achieve profitability or develop positive cash flow from operations. Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electricity generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. We may also be required to seek other forms of financing, such as asset divestitures or joint venture arrangements, to continue advancing our uranium projects which would depend entirely on finding a suitable third party willing to enter into such an arrangement, typically involving an assignment of a percentage interest in the mineral project. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in securing any form of additional financing when required and on terms favorable to us. Our inability to obtain additional financing would have a negative impact on our operations, including delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our uranium projects.

We have not established proven or probable reserves through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our mineral projects. We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Since we commenced uranium extraction at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated. The Palangana Mine has been our sole source to generate sales revenues from the sales of U₃O₈ during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012. The economic viability of our mining activities, including the expected duration and profitability of our ISR Mines and of any future satellite ISR mines, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects and recently acquired Ludeman, Antelope and Charlie Projects, has many risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected capital costs to construct a mine and/or processing plant; (iv) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (v) significantly lower than expected uranium extraction; (vi) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vii) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Our mining activities may change as a result of any one or more of these risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that any ore body that we extract mineralized materials from will result in achieving and maintaining profitability and developing positive cash flow.

Response to COVID-19 Pandemic

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic for the protection of our employees, we have arranged, where and when needed from time to time, for our teams at our Vancouver, Corpus Christi and Paraguay offices to work remotely and we have implemented certain health protocols for our employees and contractors who work at the field. In the meantime, we continue to operate our Palangana Mine and recently acquired Christensen Mine at a reduced pace to capture residual uranium only and continue to advance our ISR projects with engineering and geologic evaluations that support the Company’s extraction readiness strategy.

As at July 31, 2022, we had no uranium supply or off-take agreements in place. Future sales of U₃O₈ are therefore expected to generally occur through the uranium spot market, with any fluctuations in the market price continuing to have a direct impact on our revenues and cash flows.

222

The table below provides the high/low/average/close for the uranium spot price for each of our last five fiscal years as obtained from UxC:

Fiscal Year Ended	High		Low		Average		Close
July 31, 2022	$	63.75	$	30.50	$	46.56	$	48.50
July 31, 2021		32.75		27.31		30.38		32.40
July 31, 2020		34.19		23.88		27.66		32.35
July 31, 2019		29.28		23.94		26.95		25.41
July 31, 2018		26.44		19.87		22.09		25.81

Historically, the uranium spot price has been difficult to predict and subject to significant volatility and will continue to be affected by numerous factors beyond our control.

Results of Operations

During Fiscal 2022, we recorded sales and service revenue of $23,161 and realized gross profit of $7,293. No sales and service revenues were recorded during Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020.

For Fiscal 2022, we recorded net income of $5,252 ($0.02 per share), while for Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we recorded a net loss of $14,813 ($0.07 per share) and $14,610 ($0.08 per share), respectively. Loss from operations during Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020 totaled $22,710, $17,512 and $14,334, respectively. 

During Fiscal 2022, we continued with our strategic plan for reduced operations at our Palangana Mine and, since the closing of the U1A Acquisition, we continued reduced operations at the Christensen Ranch Mine, to capture residual pounds of U₃O₈ only. 

While we remain in a state of operational readiness, uranium extraction expenditures incurred at the Palangana Mine and the Christensen Ranch Mine, which are directly related to regulatory/mine permit compliance, lease maintenance obligations and maintaining a necessary labor force, are being charged to our consolidated statement of operations. As a result, no uranium concentrate was extracted at our ISR Mines and processed at the Hobson and the Irigaray Processing Facilities, respectively, during Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021.

We established our Physical Uranium Program in Fiscal 2021.  As of the date of this Annual Report, we have 3.1 million pounds of uranium inventory purchase commitments outstanding for a total purchase price of $118.8 million. Various deliveries are scheduled to occur in December 2022 into December 2025 at a weighted average price of $38.32 per pound of uranium.

During Fiscal 2022, as part of our Physical Uranium Program, we received 1,300,000 pounds of uranium concentrates with a total cost of $52,858. As of July 31, 2022, the carrying value of our inventories was $66,570 (July 31, 2021: $29,172).

Sales and Service Revenue

During Fiscal 2022, we recorded sales of $22,946 from the sale of 500,000 pounds of uranium concentrate inventory. In addition, we recorded revenue from toll processing services of $215, which was generated from processing uranium resins according to a toll processing agreement resulting from the U1A Acquisition. As a result, we realized gross profit of $7,293, representing a gross profit margin of 31.5%. No sales and service revenues were recorded during Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020.

223

The table below provides a breakdown of sales and service revenue and cost of sales and services:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021		2020
Sales of purchased uranium inventory	$	22,946		$	-	$	-
Revenue from toll processing services		215			-		-
Total sales and service revenue	$	23,161		$	-	$	-
Cost of purchased uranium inventory	$	(15,689	)	$	-	$	-
Cost of toll processing services		(179	)		-		-
Total cost of sales and services	$	(15,868	)	$	-	$	-

Operating Costs

Mineral Property Expenditures

Mineral property expenditures consisted of expenditures relating to permitting, property maintenance, exploration and pre-extraction activities and all other non-extraction related activities on our mineral projects.

The following table provides mineral property expenditures on a project basis during the past three fiscal years:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Mineral Property Expenditures
Palangana Mine	$	1,060	$	890	$	1,343
Burke Hollow Project		3,647		1,446		1,130
Goliad Project		240		237		190
Anderson Project		108		79		71
Workman Creek Project		33		33		33
Reno Creek Project		821		672		597
Christensen Ranch Mine		1,257		-		-
Ludeman Project		219		-		-
Antelope Project		70		-		-
Moore Ranch Project		143		-		-
Barge Project		37		-		-
Yuty Project		86		31		66
Oviedo Project		619		372		350
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		574		199		230
Other Mineral Property Expenditures		1,240		520		572
	$	10,154	$	4,479	$	4,582

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures included costs directly related to maintaining operational readiness and permit compliance at our Palangana Mine and Hobson Processing Facility, which totaled $1,105, $924 and $1,130, respectively. Since the closing of the U1A Acquisition, costs directly related to maintaining operational readiness and permit compliance at our Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility totaled $1,161.

The following provides a discussion of significant mineral property expenditures on certain projects:

● Palangana Mine

224

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Palangana Mine totaled $1,060, $890 and $1,343, respectively, which were comprised of maintenance of operational readiness and permit compliance of $670, $609 and $772, permitting and property maintenance of $390, $270 and $554, and exploration and development costs of $Nil, $11 and $17, respectively.

● Burke Hollow Project

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Burke Hollow Project totaled $3,647, $1,446 and $1,130, respectively, which were comprised of permitting and property maintenance costs of $524, $388 and $385, exploration drilling costs of $1,199, $1,025 and $214, and wellfield development costs of $1,924, $33 and $531, respectively. During Fiscal 2022, we continued the drilling campaign initiated in Fiscal 2021 and drilled 91 holes and cased 40 wells totaling 63,682 feet. During Fiscal 2021, we initiated a drilling campaign and drilled 81 exploration holes totaling 38,785 feet. During Fiscal 2020, we drilled 26 exploration holes and 21 monitor wells totaling 21,069 feet.

● Goliad Project

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Goliad Project totaled $240, $237 and $190, respectively, which were comprised of permitting and property maintenance costs of $160, $165 and $117, and exploration and development costs of $80, $72 and $73, respectively.

● Reno Creek Project

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Reno Creek Project totaled $821, $672 and $597, respectively, which were comprised of property maintenance costs of $508, $521 and $484, and permitting and exploration costs of $313, $151 and $113, respectively.

● Yuty Project

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Yuty Project totaled $86, $31 and $66, respectively, primarily for general expenditures.

● Oviedo Project

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Oviedo Project totaled $619, $372 and $350, respectively, which were comprised of property maintenance costs of $257, $151 and $78, and exploration expenditures of $362, $221 and $272, respectively, primarily for an exploration drilling program conducted.

● Alto Paraná Titanium Project

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, mineral property expenditures at our Alto Paraná Titanium Project totaled $574, $199 and $230, respectively, which were comprised of exploration costs of $570, $179 and $230, and property maintenance costs of $4, $20 and $Nil, respectively.  During Fiscal 2022, we completed an exploration drilling program and drilled 42 holes totaling 931 feet at the Alto Paraná Titanium Project.

● UEC Wyoming Portfolio

During Fiscal 2022, we completed the U1A Acquisition and acquired the UEC Wyoming Portfolio including the Irigaray Processing Facility, the Christensen Ranch Mine and the Ludeman, Antelope, Moore Ranch and Barge Projects. During Fiscal 2022, the expenditures occurred at the UEC Wyoming Portfolio totaled $2,296, of which $1,257 was for maintenance of operational readiness, permitting and property maintenance at the Christensen Ranch Mine, with the balance of $1,039 mainly related to property maintenance expenditures for various projects of our UEC Wyoming Portfolio.

225

General and Administrative

During Fiscal 2022, general and administrative expenses totaled $15,026, which increased by $2,386 compared to $12,640 in Fiscal 2021, which increased by $3,198 compared to $9,442 in Fiscal 2020.

The following summary provides a discussion of the major expense categories, including analyses of factors that caused significant variances from year-to-year:

● during Fiscal 2022, salaries, wages and management fees totaled $4,281, an increase of $1,864 compared to $2,417 during Fiscal 2021, which was primarily the result of the corporate-wide salary increases to adjust for inflation, payment of short-term incentive cash bonus for executive officers, as well as additional salary expenses related to the UEC Wyoming operations. During Fiscal 2021, salaries, wages and management fees totaled $2,417, an increase of $706 compared to $1,711 during Fiscal 2020, which was primarily the result of the reinstatement of salaries and management fees. During Fiscal 2020, in response to the financial market uncertainty due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we reduced cash outlays by implementing corporate-wide pay reductions, ceasing cash bonuses and utilizing share compensation in lieu of cash for the Company’s employees, consultants, officers and directors salaries and fees;

● during Fiscal 2022, office, filing and listing fees, insurance, corporate development, investor relations and travel expenses totaled $4,501, an increase of $736 compared to $3,765 during Fiscal 2021, which was primarily the result of increases in expenses for office, administration and insurance, and expansion of our Wyoming’s operations. During Fiscal 2021, office, filing and listing fees, insurance, corporate development, investor relations and travel expenses increased by $533 compared to $3,232 during Fiscal 2020, primarily due to corporate-wide cost reductions implemented in Fiscal 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic;

● during Fiscal 2022, professional fees totaled $1,387, an increase of $435 compared to $952 during Fiscal 2021, which was consistent with $953 during Fiscal 2020. Professional fees are comprised primarily of legal services related to transactional activities, regulatory compliance and for audit, accounting and tax compliance services;

● during Fiscal 2022, we recorded a foreign exchange loss of $317, primarily resulting from foreign currency transactions, compared to $95 and $53 for Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, respectively; and

● during Fiscal 2022, stock-based compensation expense totaled $4,540, a decrease of $871 compared to $5,411 during Fiscal 2021, an increase of $1,918 compared to $3,493 during Fiscal 2020. Stock-based compensation includes the fair value of stock options granted to optionees and the fair value of shares of the Company issued to directors, officers, employees and consultants of the Company under our Stock Incentive Plan. In recent years, we have utilized equity-based payments to our directors, officers, employees and consultants as part of our continuing efforts to reduce cash outlays. The stock-based compensation varied from year to year primarily as a result of changes in the amount of compensation shares and stock award expenses which were amortized on an accelerating basis, resulting in more expenses being recorded at the beginning of the vesting period than at the end.

Acquisition-related Costs

During Fiscal 2022, we incurred acquisition-related costs of $3,444 in connection with the U1A Acquisition.

Depreciation, Amortization and Accretion

During Fiscal 2022, depreciation, amortization and accretion totaled $1,379, which increased by $986 compared to $393 during Fiscal 2021, primarily due to depreciation of our plant and equipment acquired from the U1A Acquisition. During Fiscal 2021, depreciation, amortization and accretion totaled $393, which was consistent with $310 during Fiscal 2020. Depreciation, amortization and accretion includes depreciation and amortization of long-term assets acquired in the normal course of operations and accretion of asset retirement obligations.

Other Income and Expenses

Interest and Finance Costs

During Fiscal 2022, interest and finance costs totaled $1,519, a decrease of $1,361 compared to $2,880 during Fiscal 2021, which decreased by $582 compared to $3,462 during Fiscal 2020.

226

Interest and finance costs were comprised of the following:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Interest paid on long-term debt	$	409	$	1,255	$	1,627
Amortization of debt discount		525		1,376		1,670
Surety bond premium		539		187		130
Other		46		62		35
Total	$	1,519	$	2,880	$	3,462

The decrease in interest on long-term debt and amortization of debt discount resulted from the decrease in the outstanding principal amount of our long-term debt to $Nil as at January 31, 2022, from $10,000 as at July 31, 2021, and from $20,000 as at July 31, 2020 due to the principal repayments we made during the last two fiscal years. The increases in surety bond premiums in Fiscal 2022 resulted from the surety bonds assumed as a result of the U1A Acquisition, and the increases in Fiscal 2021 were the result of increases in surety bond premium rates.

Income from Equity-Accounted Investment

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, income from the equity-accounted investment comprised of the following:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Share of income (loss) from URC	$	153	$	732	$	(89	)
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,973		4,473		3,057
Total	$	4,126	$	5,205	$	2,968

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, we recorded a gain on dilution of ownership interest of $3,973 and $4,473, respectively, as a result of URC issuing more shares from its equity financings, which decreased our ownership interest in URC to $15.5% at July 31, 2022, from 18.1% at July 31, 2021 and from 19.5% at July 31, 2020.

During Fiscal 2020, URC completed its initial public offering and other private placements. As a result, our ownership interest in URC decreased to 19.5% at July 31, 2020 from 32.6% at July 31, 2019, which resulted in a gain on ownership interest dilution of $3,057 being recorded.

Debt Receivable Recovery and Gain on Settlement of Debt Receivable

In connection with the U1A Acquisition, we acquired certain indebtedness totaling $18,342 due from Anfield, which was owed to U1A prior to the closing of the U1A Acquisition (the “Anfield Debt”). We assigned a value of $Nil to the Anfield Debt net of the expected credit loss on the preliminary purchase price allocation given that the probability of the Anfield Debt being collectable was remote at December 17, 2021.

On April 19, 2022, we entered into a debt settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) and a property swap agreement (the “Swap Agreement”; and together with the Settlement Agreement, the “Anfield Agreements”) with Anfield to settle the Anfield Debt. Pursuant to the Anfield Agreements, the Anfield Debt was settled by the payment by Anfield to UEC of $9,171 in cash and the issuance by Anfield to UEC in units of Anfield (each, an “Anfield Unit”) with a deemed value of $9,171, with each such Anfield Unit being comprised of one common share in the capital of Anfield (each, an “Anfield Common Share”) and one Anfield Common Share purchase warrant (each whole such warrant being an “Anfield Warrant”). Each Anfield Warrant entitles UEC to acquire one Anfield Common Share at a price of CA$0.18 until May 12, 2027 (collectively, the “Anfield Debt Settlement”). Completion of the Anfield Agreements was contingent on Anfield raising additional financing.

On June 7, 2022, we closed the Anfield Debt Settlement whereby we received $9,171 in cash and Anfield Units, being comprised of 96,272,918 Anfield Common Shares with a fair value of $7,702 and 96,272,918 Anfield Warrants with a fair value of $3,249. As a result, UEC owns approximately 16% of Anfield’s outstanding shares. 

227

Consequently, we reversed the entire expected credit loss on the debt receivable and recognized a recovery on debt receivable of $18,342 on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. The fair value of the cash and the Anfield Common Shares and Anfield Warrants totaled $20,122, which exceeded the amounts of $18,342 previously written off at the date of U1A Acquisition by $1,780, resulting in a gain on settlement of the Anfield Debt receivable on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. Refer to Note 4: Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap to our Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal 2022 contained herein.

Gain on Disposition of Assets

Concurrent with the Anfield Debt Settlement, we completed the Swap Agreement whereby we have received from Anfield 25 ISR uranium projects with a fair value of $6,500 located in Wyoming in exchange for the Company’s Slick Rock Project and Long Park Project located in Colorado with a total carrying value of $92. As a result, we recorded a gain of $6,408 on disposition of assets on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. Refer to Note 4: Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap to our Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal 2022 contained herein.

Unrealized Loss on Equity Securities

As at July 31, 2022, our investments in certain equity securities are re-evaluated using the market values at period end, which resulted in an unrealized loss totaling $1,898, which was comprised of $1,925 in unrealized loss from re-valuation of our investment in the Anfield Shares and $1,105 in unrealized loss from a re-valuation of the Anfield Warrants, offset by an unrealized gain of $1,132 from a re-valuation of our investment in UEX. Refer to Note 17: Unrealized Loss on Equity Securities contained herein.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,536	$	44,313
Current assets		102,191		75,045
Current liabilities		8,498		13,269
Working capital		93,693		61,776

During Fiscal 2022, we received net proceeds of $163,755 from the 2021 ATM Offerings and $4,259 from the exercises of stock options and share purchase warrants, which significantly strengthened our working capital position. As at July 31, 2022, we had a working capital of $93,693, an increase of $31,917 from $61,776 as at July 31, 2021.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we received additional cash proceeds of $14,808 under our 2021 ATM Offering, $7,178 from sales of uranium inventory, and we entered into agreements to sell an additional 600,000 pounds of uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $30,675. We believe our existing cash resources, if necessary, and the cash generated from the sale of the Company’s liquid assets, will provide sufficient funds to carry out our planned operations for the next 12 months from the date that this Annual Report is issued.

Although our planned principal operations commenced in Fiscal 2012, from which significant revenues from U₃O₈ sales were realized, our revenues generated from sales of produced U₃O₈ have been inconsistent and we have yet to achieve consistent profitability. We have a history of operating losses resulting in an accumulated deficit balance since inception. Although we recorded net income totaling $5,252 in Fiscal 2022, we recorded net losses in all prior years (Fiscal 2021: $14,813; Fiscal 2020: $14,610) and we had an accumulated deficit balance of $286,373 as at July 31, 2022. During Fiscal 2022, net cash used in operating activities totaled $52,987, which included $37,206 net cash used for the purchase of uranium concentrates. Furthermore, we may not achieve and maintain profitability or develop positive cash flow from our operations in the near term.

Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and on debt financing in order to fund our operations. As detailed in the preceding paragraph, we have also relied to a limited extent on cash flows generated from our mining activities during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012, however, we have yet to achieve consistent profitability or develop positive cash flow from operations. In the future, we may also rely on cash flows generated from the sales of our uranium concentrates to fund our operations. Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control and including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electricity generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. We may also be required to seek other forms of financing, such as asset divestitures or joint venture arrangements, to continue advancing our uranium projects which would depend entirely on finding a suitable third party willing to enter into such an arrangement, typically involving an assignment of a percentage interest in the mineral project. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in securing any form of additional financing when required and on terms favorable to us.

228

Our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. We will require significant additional financing to fund our operations, including continuing with our exploration and pre-extraction activities and acquiring additional uranium projects. In the absence of such additional financing, we would not be able to fund our operations, including continuing with our exploration and pre-extraction activities, which may result in delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our uranium projects.

For our fiscal year ending July 31, 2023 (“Fiscal 2023”), we estimate that a total of up to $3.7 million will be incurred on our mineral projects for permitting, exploration and pre-extraction activities. We hold mineral rights in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, with annual land-related payments totaling $4.2 million to maintain these rights in good standing.

Our anticipated operations, including exploration and pre-extraction activities, however, will be dependent on and may change as a result of our financial position, the market price of uranium and other considerations, and such change may include accelerating the pace or broadening the scope of reducing our operations. Our ability to secure adequate funding for these activities will be impacted by our operating performance, other uses of cash, the market price of uranium, the market price of our common stock and other factors which may be beyond our control. Specific examples of such factors include, but are not limited to:

● if the market price of uranium weakens;

● if the market price of our common stock weakens;

● if the COVID-19 pandemic worsens or continues over an extended period and causes further financial market uncertainty; and

● if a nuclear incident, such as the event that occurred in Japan in March 2011, were to occur, continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electricity generation may be adversely affected, which may result in significant and adverse effects on both the nuclear and uranium industries.

Our continuation as a going concern beyond 12 months from the date this Annual Report is filed will be dependent upon our ability to obtain adequate additional financing, as our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial.

Our long-term success, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets and our ability to acquire additional uranium projects and continue with exploration and pre-extraction activities and mining activities on our existing uranium projects, will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations by establishing ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium and to develop these into profitable mining activities.

Equity Financings

On February 21, 2020, we filed a Form S-3 shelf registration statement under the Securities Act which was declared effective by the SEC on March 3, 2020 (the “2020 Shelf”) providing for the public offer and sale of certain securities of the Company from time to time, at our discretion, of up to an aggregate offering amount of $100 million. As a result of the 2020 Shelf, our March 10, 2017 Form S-3 registration statement was then deemed terminated and, as a consequence, our then April 9, 2019 ATM Offering Agreement (the “April 2019 ATM Offering Agreement”) with H.C. Wainwright & Co, LLC (as the lead manager) and the co-managers as set forth in the April 2019 ATM Offering Agreement (collectively, the ATM Managers”) and its related offering terminated unless renewed under the 2020 Shelf.

229

On March 19, 2020, we entered into an Amending Agreement to the April 2019 ATM Offering Agreement with the ATM Managers under which the Company may, from time to time, sell shares of its common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $30 million through the ATM Managers through the 2020 Shelf (the “2020 ATM Offering”).

On September 23, 2020, and under our 2020 Shelf, we completed an offering of 12,500,000 units at a price of $1.20 per unit for gross proceeds of $15,000 (the “September 2020 Offering”). Each unit was comprised of one share of the Company and one-half of one share purchase warrant, and each whole warrant entitles its holder to acquire one share at an exercise price of $1.80 per share exercisable immediately upon issuance and expiring 24 months from the date of issuance. In connection with the September 2020 Offering, we also issued compensation share purchase warrants to agents as part of share issuance costs to purchase 583,333 shares of our Company exercisable at an exercise price of $1.80 per share and expiring 24 months from the date of issuance.

During Fiscal 2021, we issued 13,668,906 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2020 ATM Offering for net cash proceeds of $29,321.

On March 19, 2021, and under our 2020 Shelf, we completed an offering of 10,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $3.05 per share for net proceeds of $29,084.

On April 8, 2021, and under our 2020 Shelf, we completed an offering of 3,636,364 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $3.30 per share for net proceeds of $11,316 (the “April 2021 Offering”). In connection with the April 2021 Offering, we also issued, on a private placement basis, 181,818 Agent Warrants to the agent as partial compensation, and each Agent Warrant entitles its holder to acquire one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.125 per share and expiring five years from the date of issuance.

On May 17, 2021, we filed a Form S-3 shelf registration statement under the Securities Act, which was declared effective by the SEC on June 1, 2021, providing for the public offer and sale of certain securities of the Company from time to time, at our discretion, of up to an aggregate offering amount of $200 million (the “2021 Shelf”), which included an at-the-market offering agreement prospectus (the “May 2021 ATM Offering”) covering the offering, issuance and sale of up to a maximum offering of $100 million as part of the $200 million under the 2021 Shelf.

On May 14, 2021, we entered into an at-the-market offering agreement (the “2021 ATM Offering Agreement”) with H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and certain co-managers (collectively, the “2021 ATM Managers”) as set forth in the 2021 ATM Offering Agreement under which we may, from time to time, sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $100 million through the 2021 ATM Managers selected by us.

On November 26, 2021, we filed a prospectus supplement to our 2021 Shelf with respect to the continuation of the May 2021 ATM Offering Agreement with the ATM Managers under which we may, if eligible, from time to time, sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $100 million through the ATM Managers selected by us (the “November 2021 ATM Offering”; and, collectively with May 2021 ATM Offering, the “2021 ATM Offerings”).

During Fiscal 2021, we issued 2,265,700 shares of the Company’s common stocks under our May 2021 ATM Offering for net cash proceeds of $6,157.

During Fiscal 2022, we issued 47,507,536 shares of the Company’s common stocks under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $163,814.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we issued a further 3,510,100 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $14,808 and received proceeds of $6,141 from the exercise of share purchase warrants.

230

Credit Facility

On December 5, 2018, we entered into the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement to our credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) with our lenders (each, a “Lender”), whereby we and the Lenders agreed to certain further amendments to our Credit Facility, under which initial funding of $10,000 was received by the Company upon closing of the Credit Facility on July 30, 2013, and additional funding of $10,000 was received by the Company upon closing of the amended Credit Facility on March 13, 2014.

The Third Credit Amended and Restated Agreement superseded, in their entirety, the Company’s prior Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated and effective February 9, 2016, the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated and effective March 13, 2014, and the Credit Agreement dated and effective July 30, 2013, with our Lenders.

During Fiscal 2021, we made voluntary payments totaling $10,000 to certain Lenders, and during Fiscal 2022, we made payment of $10,000 to the remaining Lender, which decreased the principal balance outstanding to $Nil as at July 31, 2022 under the Credit Facility.

Pursuant to the terms of the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, during Fiscal 2022, we issued 161,594 shares with a fair value of $600, during Fiscal 2021, we issued an aggregate of 1,249,039 shares with a fair value of $1,170, and during Fiscal 2020, we issued an aggregate of 1,743,462 shares to our Lenders, with a fair value of $1,400, as payment of anniversary fees to our Lenders.

Refer to Note 11: Long-Term Debt to our Consolidated Financial Statements herein.

Operating Activities

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, net cash used in operating activities totaled $52,987 and $41,470, respectively, of which $37,206 and $28,961, respectively, was for purchases of uranium concentrates. Other significant operating expenditures included mineral property expenditures, general and administrative expenses and interest payments. During Fiscal 2020, net cash used in operating activities totaled $12,870, primarily for maintaining production readiness, mineral property expenditures and general and administrative expenses.

Financing Activities

During Fiscal 2022, net cash provided from financing activities totaled $157,266, primarily from net cash of $163,755 from the 2021 ATM Offerings and $4,259 from the exercises of stock options and share purchase warrants, offset by the payments of $557 for tax withholding amounts related to the issuance of RSU and PRSU shares, the principal payment of $10,000 to our remaining Lender under the Credit Facility and $191 for a promissory note.

During Fiscal 2021, net cash provided by financing activities totaled $84,458, primarily from net cash of $89,932 from various offerings, and $5,504 from the exercises of stock options and share purchase warrants, offset by the payments of $833 for tax withholding amounts related to the issuance of RSU shares, the principal payment of $10,000 to certain Lenders under the Credit Facility and $145 for a promissory note and a government loan. During Fiscal 2020, net cash provided by financing activities totaled $307 from certain government loans.

Investing Activities

During Fiscal 2022, net cash used by investing activities totaled $110,843, comprised of net cash used in the U1A Acquisition of $113,588, cash used in investment in equity securities of $15,215, cash used for investment in mineral rights and properties of $590 and cash used for the purchase of property, plant and equipment of $620, offset by cash proceeds of $9,980 from sales of equity securities, $9,171 from recovery of the Anfield Debt receivable and $19 from the disposition of assets.

During Fiscal 2021, net cash used by investing activities totaled $3,625, primarily for cash used in investment in term deposits of $10,000, cash used in the acquisition of URC shares of $3,397, cash used in the investment in mineral rights and properties of $80 and cash used in the purchase of property, plant and equipment of $148, offset by cash received from the redemption of term deposits of $10,000. During Fiscal 2020, net cash provided by investing activities totaled $11,671, primarily from cash received from the redemption of term deposits totaling $11,832, offset by cash used in the investment in mineral rights and properties of $80 and cash used in the purchase of property, plant and equipment of $84. 

231

Stock Options and Warrants

As at July 31, 2022, the Company had 8,880,527 stock options outstanding at a weighted-average exercise price of $1.58 per share, and 3,615,454 share purchase warrants outstanding at a weighted-average exercise price of $1.92 per share. As at July 31, 2022, outstanding stock options and share purchase warrants, which were all in-the-money, represented a total 12,495,981 shares issuable for gross proceeds of approximately $21.0 million should these stock options and share purchase warrants be exercised in full. The exercise of these stock options and share purchase warrants is at the discretion of the respective holders and, accordingly, there is no assurance that any of these stock options or share purchase warrants will be exercised in the future.

Plan of Operations

For Fiscal 2023, uranium extraction at PAA-1, 2 and 3 of our Palangana Mine and at the recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mine is expected to continue being operated at a reduced pace, including the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures, and to remain in a state of operational readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices. In addition, we will continue the drilling program at our Burke Hollow Project.

Material Commitments

As at July 31, 2022, significant payment obligations of the Company over the next five years and beyond are as follows:

	Payment Due by Period
Contractual Obligations	Total		Less Than 1 Year		1-3 Years		3-5 Years		More Than 5 Years
Asset Retirement Obligations	$	28,739	$	214	$	2,772	$	4,998	$	20,755
Operating Lease Obligations		1,656		291		217		173		975
Uranium Inventory Purchase Obligations		130,962		65,309		62,033		3,620		-
Other Loan Obligations - Principal and Interests		66		66		-		-		-
Total	$	161,423	$	65,880	$	65,022	$	8,791	$	21,730

As at July 31, 2022, we were renting or leasing office premises in Texas, Arizona and Wyoming, U.S., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and Paraguay for total monthly payments of $28. Office lease agreements for the U.S. and Canada expire between July 2023 and March 2027.

Commitments for Management Services

As at July 31, 2022, we were committed to paying our key executives a total of $888 per year for management services.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future material effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

Critical Accounting Policies

For a complete summary of all of our significant accounting policies, refer to Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements as presented under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data herein.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported revenues and expenses during the reported periods. Areas requiring significant judgements, estimates and assumptions include the valuation of acquired mineral rights and properties, existence of impairment indicators for the Company’s long-lived assets, valuation and measurement of impairment losses on mineral rights and properties, valuation of recoverability of a credit loss, valuation of stock-based compensation and valuation of asset retirement obligations. Other areas requiring estimates include allocations of expenditures to inventories, depletion and amortization of mineral rights and properties and depreciation of property, plant and equipment. Actual results could differ significantly from those estimates and assumptions. The following summary provides a description of our critical accounting policies.

232

Mineral Rights and Exploration Stage

Acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves are established for that project.

We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. However, we have not established proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining. As a result, and despite the fact that we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines, we remain in the Exploration Stage and will continue to remain in the Exploration Stage until such time proven or probable reserves have been established.

Companies in the Production Stage that have established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to future reporting periods to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold. Since we are in the Exploration Stage, it has resulted in our reporting of larger losses than if we had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing mine development activities. Additionally, there would be no corresponding amortization allocated to our future reporting periods since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage. Any capitalized costs, such as expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Business Combination

We recognize and measure the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date, while transaction costs related to business combinations are expensed as incurred. An income, market or cost valuation method may be utilized to estimate the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, if any, in a business combination. The income valuation method represents the present value of future cash flows over the life of the asset using: (i) discrete financial forecasts, which rely on management’s estimates of resource quantities and exploration potential, costs to produce and develop resources, revenues and operating expenses; (ii) appropriate discount rates; and (iii) expected future capital requirements. The market valuation method uses prices paid for a similar asset by other purchasers in the market, normalized for any differences between the assets. The cost valuation method is based on the replacement cost of a comparable asset at the time of the acquisition adjusted for depreciation and economic and functional obsolescence of the asset. If the initial accounting for the business combination is incomplete by the end of the reporting period in which the acquisition occurs, an estimate will be recorded. Subsequent to the acquisition date, and not later than one year from the acquisition date, we will record any material adjustments to the initial estimate based on new information obtained that would have existed as of the date of the acquisition. Any adjustment that arises from information obtained that did not exist as of the date of the acquisition will be recorded in the period the adjustments arise.

Equity Investments

Investments in an entity in which our ownership is greater than 20% but less than 50%, or where other facts and circumstances indicate that we have the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financing policies of an entity, are accounted for using the equity method in accordance with ASC 323: Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures. Equity-accounted investments are recorded initially at cost and adjusted subsequently to recognize our share of the earnings, losses or other changes in capital of the investee entity after the date of acquisition. We periodically evaluate whether declines in fair values of our equity investments below the carrying value are other-than-temporary, and if so, whether an impairment loss is required.

Additionally, we hold certain equity investments in entities that we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence. These equity investments represent our ownership interests in certain entities, and therefore meet the definition of an equity security under ASC 321 Investments – Equity Securities and are measured at fair value at each period end, with unrealized holding gains or losses recorded to earnings.

233

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

Long-lived assets including mineral rights and property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. Management applies judgment to assess whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable giving rise to the requirement to conduct an impairment test. Circumstances which could trigger an impairment test include, but are not limited to: (i) significant decreases in the market price of the asset; (ii) significant adverse changes in the business climate or legal factors including significant decreases in uranium prices; (iii) significant increase in reclamation costs and accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of the asset; (iv) current period cash flow or operating losses combined with a history of losses or a forecast of continuing losses associated with the use of the asset; and (v) current expectation that the asset will more likely than not be sold or disposed of significantly before the end of its estimated useful life. Recoverability of these assets is measured by comparing the carrying value to the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. When the carrying value of an asset exceeds the related undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recorded by writing down the carrying value of the related asset to its estimated fair value, which is determined using discounted future cash flows or other measures of fair value.

Restoration and Remediation Costs (Asset Retirement Obligations)

Various federal and state mining laws and regulations require our Company to reclaim the surface areas and restore underground water quality to the pre-existing quality or class of use after the completion of mining. We recognize the present value of the future restoration and remediation costs as an asset retirement obligation (each, an “ARO”) in the period in which we incur an obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development and/or normal use of the assets.

AROs consist of estimated final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal and environmental remediation costs to be incurred by our Company in the future. The AROs are estimated based on the current costs escalated at an inflation rate and discounted at a credit adjusted risk-free rate. The AROs are capitalized as part of the costs of the underlying assets and amortized over its remaining useful life. The AROs are accreted to an undiscounted value until they are settled. The accretion expenses are charged to earnings and the actual retirement costs are recorded against the AROs when incurred. Any difference between the recorded AROs and the actual retirement costs incurred will be recorded as a gain or loss in the period of settlement.

Stock-based Compensation

We measure stock-based awards at fair value on the date of the grant and expense the awards in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss over the requisite service period of employees or consultants. The fair value of stock options is determined using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model. The fair value of RSUs is determined using the share price of the Company at the date of grant. The fair value of PRSUs is determined using a Monte Carlo Simulation Model. Stock-based compensation expense related to stock awards is recognized over the requisite service period on a graded vesting basis. Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur.

Subsequent Events

On June 13, 2022, we entered into of a definitive UEX Agreement with UEX pursuant to which UEC would acquire all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX in an all-share transaction by way of statutory plan of arrangement (the UEX Acquisition).   On June 21, 2022, under the UEX Agreement, we completed a private placement in UEX, whereby UEC acquired 11,627,907 UEX common shares at a price of CA$0.43 per UEX common share for total consideration of $3,867.  Subsequently, UEC acquired an additional 6,844,000 UEX common shares for total consideration of $1,914 by making purchases through the facilities of the Toronto Stock Exchange subject to and in accordance with applicable laws. As of July 31, 2022, we owned 18,471,907 UEX common shares, representing a 3% interest in UEX, with a fair value of $6,914. The investment in UEX was accounted for as investment in equity securities with a change in fair value of $1,132 recorded as unrealized gain in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

234

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we closed the UEX Acquisition under the Canada Business Corporations Act, pursuant to which UEC acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX that we did not already own. The UEX Acquisition was approved at a special meeting of UEX securityholders held on August 15, 2022, and was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on August 18, 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the UEX Acquisition, UEX shareholders received 0.090 common shares of UEC for each UEX common share held.  As a result, we issued 48,518,745 shares of UEC in exchange for the common shares of UEX that UEC did not already own. The UEX shares we owned before closing the UEX Acquisition were returned to treasury.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we sold 150,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $7,178 and entered into agreements to sell 600,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $30,675.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we issued 3,510,100 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $14,808 and received cash proceeds of $6,141 from the exercise of share purchase warrants.

235

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Our exposure to market risks includes, but is not limited to, equity price risk, uranium price risk, foreign currency risk, country risk and interest rate risk.

Equity Price Risk

We are subject to market risk related to the market price of our common stock which trades on the NYSE American. Historically, we have relied upon equity financings from the sale of our common stock to fund our operations. Movements in the price of our common stock have been volatile in the past and may continue to be volatile in the future. As a result, there is a risk that we may not be able to complete an equity financing at an acceptable price when required.

Uranium Price Risk

We are subject to market risk related to the market price of uranium. As at July 31, 2022, we had no uranium supply or off-take agreements in place. Since future sales of uranium concentrates are expected to generally occur through the uranium spot market, fluctuations in the market price of uranium would have a direct impact on our revenues, results of operations and cash flows. We do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative trading purposes, nor do we hedge our uranium price exposure to manage our uranium price risk.

Foreign Currency Risk

We are subject to market risk related to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. Our functional currency is the United States dollar, however, a portion of our business is transacted in other currencies including the Canadian dollar and the Paraguayan Guarani. To date, these fluctuations have not had a material impact on our results of operations.

We do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative trading purposes, nor do we hedge our foreign currency exposure to manage our foreign currency fluctuation risk.

Country Risk

We are subject to market risk related to our operations in foreign jurisdictions. We hold two significant uranium projects and one significant titanium project in Paraguay. Operations in foreign jurisdictions outside of the U.S. and Canada, especially in developing countries, may be subject to additional risks as they may have different political, regulatory, taxation, economic and cultural environments that may adversely affect the value or continued viability of our rights.

Interest Rate Risk

Our term debt has fixed interest rates and we have no significant exposure to interest rate fluctuation risk.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Financial Statements

The consolidated financial statements and related information as listed below for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, are included in this Annual Report beginning on page F-1:

● Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (PCAOB ID 271);

● Consolidated Balance Sheets;

● Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss);

● Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows;

● Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity; and

● Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

236

Supplementary Financial Information

The selected unaudited financial data for each of the quarters for the two most recent fiscal years are presented below:

	For the Quarters Ended
	July 31, 2022		April 30, 2022		January 31, 2022			October 31, 2021
Sales and service revenue	$	78	$	9,892	$	13,191		$	-
Gross profit		13		3,337		3,943			-
Net income (loss)		5,455		7,345		(5,474	)		(2,074	)
Total comprehensive income (loss)		5,390		7,206		(6,092	)		(1,931	)
Basic income (loss) per share		0.02		0.03		(0.02	)		(0.01	)
Diluted income (loss) per share		0.02		0.03		(0.02	)		(0.01	)
Total assets		354,247		330,793		302,217			232,719

	For the Quarters Ended
	July 31, 2021			April 30, 2021			January 31, 2021			October 31, 2020
Sales and service revenue	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-
Gross profit		-			-			-			-
Net loss		(1,798	)		(4,590	)		(3,461	)		(4,964	)
Total comprehensive loss		(2,226	)		(4,097	)		(2,975	)		(4,901	)
Basic loss per share		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.03	)
Diluted loss per share		(0.01	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.03	)
Total assets		169,541			163,575			100,143			102,214

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act), as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report.  Based on such evaluation, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer have concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

It should be noted that any system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions designed to obtain reasonable (and not absolute) assurance as to its effectiveness, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals.

Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as required by Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Section 404(a).  The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of the Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and effected by the Company’s Board of Directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles. Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.  Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

As at July 31, 2022, management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria set forth in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.  Based on that evaluation, the Company’s management concluded that, as of July 31, 2022, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective.

The independent registered public accounting firm that audited the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report has issued an attestation report on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting which appears herein.

237

Changes in Internal Controls

There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fourth fiscal quarter for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information

Not applicable.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections

Not applicable.

238

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

Our directors and executive officers and their respective ages as of September 27, 2022 are as follows:

Name	Age	Position with the Company
Amir Adnani	44	President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director
Spencer Abraham	70	Chairman and a director
David Kong	76	Lead independent director
Vincent Della Volpe	80	A director
Ganpat Mani	75	A director
Gloria Ballesta	47	A director
Pat Obara	66	Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Scott Melbye	60	Executive Vice President

The following describes the business experience of each of our directors, including other directorships held in reporting companies.

Amir Adnani. Amir Adnani is a founder of the Company and has served as our President, Chief Executive Officer and a director since January 2005. Under his leadership, the Company has become one of the fastest growing uranium companies listed on the NYSE American with one of the largest resource bases of fully permitted ISR projects of any U.S.-based producer.

Mr. Adnani has been invited to speak at prominent industry conferences organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Nuclear Fuel Market and the Milken Institute. He is a frequent contributor to the business media, including The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, CNBC and Fox Business News.

Fortune magazine distinguished Mr. Adnani on their “40 Under 40, Ones to Watch” list of North American executives. He was selected as one of “Mining’s Future Leaders” by Mining Journal, a UK-based global industry publication. He was a nominee for Ernst & Young’s “Entrepreneur of the Year” distinction.

Mr. Adnani is the founder and Chairman of GoldMining Inc., a publicly-listed gold acquisition and development company and is a director of Gold Royalty Corp., a publicly-listed gold royalty company. Mr. Adnani also serves as the Chairman of Uranium Royalty Corp., a publicly-listed uranium royalty company. Mr. Adnani holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of British Columbia and was a director of the university’s Alumni Association from 2015 to 2021.

Spencer Abraham. Spencer Abraham has served as Chairman (non-executive) of our Board of Directors since March 2017. Mr. Abraham served as Executive Chairman from October 2015 to March 2017 and as the Chairman of our Advisory Board from December 2012 to October 2015. Mr. Abraham is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Abraham Group LLC, an international strategic consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. President George W. Bush selected Mr. Abraham as the tenth Secretary of Energy of the United States in 2001. During his tenure at the Energy Department from 2001 to 2005, Mr. Abraham developed policies and regulations to ensure the nation’s energy security, was responsible for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, oversaw domestic oil and gas development policy and nuclear energy policy, developed relationships with international governments, including members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and led the landmark nuclear nonproliferation HEU program between the United States and Russia. Mr. Abraham served as a United States Senator for the State of Michigan from 1995 to 2001. At a time when the Biden Administration and U.S. Congress are considering significant issues pertaining to the U.S. uranium mining sector, Mr. Abraham’s expertise in the public policy arena is especially valuable and he is very actively involved in working with the Company to address these matters.

Mr. Abraham has served as a director of Two Harbors Investment Corp. (NYSE: TWO) since May 2014, as a director of PBF Energy Inc. (NYSE: PBF) since October 2012 and as a director of NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NRG) since December 2012. Mr. Abraham served as a director of GenOn Energy, Inc. from January to December 2012, when it was acquired by NRG Energy, Inc. Previously, Mr. Abraham served as a director of Occidental Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: OXY) from 2005 to May 2020, as the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of AREVA Inc., the North American subsidiary of AREVA, and on the boards of several other public and private companies.

239

Mr. Abraham holds a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and is an alumnus of Michigan State University.

David Kong. David Kong has served on our Board of Directors since January 2011 and serves as our lead independent director. Mr. Kong serves as a director of New Pacific Metals Corp., a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “TSX”) and the NYSE American since November 2010, as a director of Silvercorp Metals Inc., a public company listed on the TSX and the NYSE American since November 2011, and as a director of GoldMining Inc., a public company listed on the TSX and the NYSE American since October 2010.

Mr. Kong holds a Bachelor in Business Administration and earned his Chartered Accountant designation (CPA, CA) in British Columbia, Canada, in 1978. Mr. Kong was a partner at Ellis Foster, Chartered Accountants, from 1981 to 2004, before merging with EY (formerly Ernst & Young LLP), Chartered Professional Accountants, in 2005, where he was a partner until 2010. Mr. Kong is a certified director (ICD.D) of the Institute of Corporate Directors.

Vincent Della Volpe. Vincent Della Volpe has served on our Board of Directors since July 2007. Mr. Della Volpe has served as a professional money manager for over 35 years, including as a senior portfolio manager of pension funds for Honeywell Corporation and senior vice president of the YMCA Retirement fund in New York. Throughout his career, Mr. Della Volpe has particularly focused on the management of energy and utility equity portfolios, and he also has experience managing venture capital investments. Mr. Della Volpe holds a Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and an MBA in finance, both from Seton Hall University.

Ganpat Mani. Ganpat Mani has served on our Board of Directors since June 2014. Mr. Mani served as a director of Uranium Participation Corporation (now Sprott Physical Uranium Trust) from July 2014 to July 2021. From 2009 to 2013, Mr. Mani was President and Chief Executive Officer of ConverDyn, a partnership between affiliates of Honeywell International Inc. and General Atomics, which specializes in the nuclear fuel conversion trade. During this time, he also served as a director of the Nuclear Energy Institute and was a member of the U.S. Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee. Mr. Mani is a highly-experienced negotiator of contracts with major private and state-owned corporations in Asia, Europe and the U.S. Notably, Mr. Mani negotiated the agreement for the return of uranium feed from the Metropolis conversion facility under the Megatons to Megawatts program between the U.S. and Russia. He also met with government and industry organizations as part of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s multiple nuclear trade missions to India.

From 1994 to 2007, Mr. Mani held several senior marketing positions with ConverDyn, including having served as Senior Vice President. At ConverDyn he was responsible for relations with major nuclear utilities in Asia, Europe and the U.S. and with enrichment companies in Europe and the U.S. Mr. Mani has prepared position papers and draft legislative language for, and represented ConverDyn in, meetings with the United States Departments of Commerce, Energy and State and with industry trade organizations. From 1973 to 1994, Mr. Mani worked at Honeywell International Inc. (formerly Allied-Signal Inc.) where his career spanned a variety of functional areas and product lines. 

Mr. Mani holds an MBA from Rutgers University and a Bachelor of Technology Degree in Metallurgical Engineering from Loughborough University, United Kingdom.

Gloria Ballesta. Gloria Ballesta has served on our Board of Directors since July 2018.  Ms. Ballesta is the Chief Executive Officer of Content Mode SAS, a contact center based in Colombia, since January 2016, and serves as a director of GoldMining Inc., a public company listed on the TSX and the NYSE American since August 2010. Ms. Ballesta has experience managing administrative and compliance procedures for spin-offs, take-overs and financings of various public companies. Ms. Ballesta holds an LLB (Hons.) from the CEU Cardenal Herrera University in Spain and a Master’s degree in Marketing and Business Management from ESIC School of Business in Spain.

The following describes the business experience of each of the non-director executive officers of the Company:

Pat Obara. Pat Obara has served as our Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer since October 2015, and served as our Chief Financial Officer from August 2006 to January 2011 and as our Vice President Administration from January 2011 to October 2015. Mr. Obara currently serves as the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of GoldMining Inc., a public company listed on the TSX and the NYSE American, and served as a director of GoldMining Inc. from September 2009 to May 2018. Mr. Obara holds a degree in Building Technology, Land and Construction Economics from the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

240

Scott Melbye. Mr. Melbye has served as our Executive Vice President since September 2014. Mr. Melbye is a 38-year veteran of the nuclear energy industry having held key leadership positions in major global uranium mining companies and various industry organizations. He has passionately promoted the growth and competitiveness of the nuclear fuel cycle in supporting nuclear power as a clean, affordable and reliable source of energy to meet the world’s ever-expanding needs.

As our Executive Vice President, Mr. Melbye is responsible for the uranium marketing and sales function and is a key contributor towards the achievement of the Company’s strategic growth objectives. Mr. Melbye currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer, President and a director of Uranium Royalty Corp., a public company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange (the “TSX-V”) and the Nasdaq Capital Market. Previously, Mr. Melbye served as the Vice President, Commercial at Uranium Participation Corporation (now Sprott Physical Uranium Trust) from 2014 to 2018 and concurrently served as an Advisor to the Chairman of Kazatomprom, the world’s leading uranium producer in Kazakhstan, guiding their business transformation process as it related to marketing and sales strategy. Through June 2014, Mr. Melbye was Executive Vice President, Marketing for Uranium One, responsible for global sales activities, where he expanded that company’s forward book, particularly in the emerging markets of the United Arab Emirates and China. He also supported the global investor-relations efforts of the CEO during the time that Uranium One was publicly traded on the TSX.

Prior to this, Mr. Melbye spent 22 years with the Cameco Group of companies, both at their Saskatoon head office and with their U.S. subsidiaries. He most recently served as President of Cameco Inc., the subsidiary responsible for managing that company’s world-wide uranium marketing and trading activities (achieving annual sales exceeding 30 million pounds U₃O₈ through established relationships with most global nuclear utilities). Mr. Melbye’s previous experience includes uranium brokerage and trading at Nukem Inc. in New York, and nuclear fuel procurement at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona.

Mr. Melbye is currently the President of the Uranium Producers of America (“UPA”). The UPA is the domestic mining organization that advocates for U.S. Government policies supportive of national energy, and security and interests of a strong and competitive American uranium industry. He is also a past Chair of the Board of Governors of the World Nuclear Fuel Market. Mr. Melbye is a frequent speaker at nuclear industry conferences and has participated in numerous high-level, United States and Canadian trade missions to markets such as Central Europe, China, India, United Arab Emirates and Mexico. Mr. Melbye has provided expert testimony before the U.S. House Oversight Committee on Department of Energy inventory dispositions, and the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on regaining American nuclear leadership and foreign critical minerals dependency. In addition, he testified before the U.S. International Trade Commission on uranium imports from Kazakhstan following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Mr. Melbye received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with degree specialization in International Business from Arizona State University in 1984.

Term of Office

All of our directors hold office until the next annual general meeting of the shareholders or until their successors are elected and qualified. Our officers are appointed by our Board of Directors and hold office until their successors are appointed and qualified.

Significant Employees

There are no significant employees other than our executive officers.

Family Relationships

There is no family relationship between any of our executive officers or directors.

241

Audit Committee

Our Board of Directors has established an Audit Committee that operates under a written charter approved by the Board of Directors. Our Audit Committee has been structured to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. Our Audit Committee is comprised of David Kong, Vincent Della Volpe and Gloria Ballesta, all of whom meet the audit committee member independence standards of the NYSE American. Mr. Kong is the Chairperson of the Audit Committee. Our Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Kong satisfies the criteria for an audit committee financial expert under Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K of the rules of the SEC.

Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings

Except as disclosed in this Annual Report, during the past ten years none of the following events have occurred with respect to any of our directors or executive officers:

1. a petition under the federal bankruptcy laws or any state insolvency law was filed by or against, or a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer was appointed by a court for the business or property of such person, or any partnership in which he was a general partner at or within two years before the time of such filing, or any corporation or business association of which he was an executive officer at or within two years before the time of such filing;

2. such person was convicted in a criminal proceeding or is a named subject of a pending criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations and other minor offenses);

3. such person was the subject of any order, judgment, or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any court of competent jurisdiction, permanently or temporarily enjoining him from, or otherwise limiting, the following activities:

i) acting as a futures commission merchant, introducing broker, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, floor broker, leverage transaction merchant, any other person regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or an associated person of any of the foregoing, or as an investment adviser, underwriter, broker or dealer in securities, or as an affiliated person, director or employee of any investment company, bank, savings and loan association or insurance company, or engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with such activity;

ii) engaging in any type of business practice; or

iii) engaging in any activity in connection with the purchase or sale of any security or commodity or in connection with any violation of federal or state securities laws or federal commodities laws;

4. such person was the subject of any order, judgment or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any federal or state authority barring, suspending or otherwise limiting for more than 60 days the right of such person to engage in any activity described in paragraph (3)(i) above, or to be associated with persons engaged in any such activity;

5. such person was found by a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil action or by the SEC to have violated any federal or state securities law, and the judgment in such civil action or finding by the SEC has not been subsequently reversed, suspended, or vacated;

6. such person was found by a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil action or by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to have violated any federal commodities law, and the judgment in such civil action or finding by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has not been subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated;

7. such person was the subject of, or a party to, any federal or state judicial or administrative order, judgment, decree, or finding, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, relating to an alleged violation of:

i) any federal or state securities or commodities law or regulation; or

242

ii) any law or regulation respecting financial institutions or insurance companies including, but not limited to, a temporary or permanent injunction, order of disgorgement or restitution, civil money penalty or temporary or permanent cease-and-desist order, or removal or prohibition order; or

iii) any law or regulation prohibiting mail or wire fraud or fraud in connection with any business entity; or

8. such person was the subject of, or a party to, any sanction or order, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any self-regulatory organization (as defined in Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act), any registered entity (as defined in Section 1(a)(29) of the Commodity Exchange Act), or any equivalent exchange, association, entity or organization that has disciplinary authority over its members or persons associated with a member.

Code of Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Conduct and Ethics (the “Code”) that applies to all directors and officers. The Code describes the legal, ethical and regulatory standards that must be followed by the directors and officers of the Company and sets forth high standards of business conduct applicable to each director and officer. As adopted, the Code sets forth written standards that are designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote, among other things:

● honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;

● compliance with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;

● the prompt internal reporting of violations of the Code to the appropriate person or persons identified in the Code; and

● accountability for adherence to the Code.

A copy of our Code and all material Company corporate governance charters, policies and guidelines can be viewed on our website at: www.uraniumenergy.com.

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

Our Board of Directors has established a Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee that operates under a written charter approved by the Board of Directors. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is comprised of Vincent Della Volpe, David Kong and Ganpat Mani. Mr. Della Volpe is the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. All of the members of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee qualify as independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE American.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is responsible for developing an appropriate approach to corporate governance issues and compliance with governance rules. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is also mandated to plan for the succession of our Company, including recommending director candidates, review of Board of Director procedures, size and organization and monitoring of senior management with respect to governance issues.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee identifies individuals believed to be qualified to become Board of Director members and recommends individuals to fill vacancies. There are no minimum qualifications for consideration for nomination to be a director of the Company. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee assesses all nominees using generally the same criteria. In nominating candidates, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee takes into consideration such factors as it deems appropriate, including skills, knowledge, experience and personal character, as well as the needs of the Company.

243

Director Time Commitments Policy

We have adopted a Director Time Commitments Policy (the “Director Time Commitments Policy”). The Director Time Commitments Policy provides that the Company’s non-executive Chairman and lead independent director shall be limited to serving on four public company boards, including the Company’s Board of Directors (excluding private companies and other non-public companies). The Company’s Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee evaluates on at least an annual basis the outside director time commitments of the Company’s non-executive Chairman and lead independent director. The Company’s non-executive Chairman and lead independent director affirm that they are in compliance with the Director Time Commitments Policy as of the date of this Annual Report. Our Director Time Commitments Policy can be viewed on our website at www.uraniumenergy.com.

Sustainability Committee

Our Sustainability Committee is comprised of David Kong, Vincent Della Volpe and Gloria Ballesta. Our Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Sustainability Committee meets the independence standards of the NYSE American. Mr. Kong is the Chairperson of the Sustainability Committee.

The Sustainability Committee is responsible for oversight of sustainability including environmental, social, health and safety matters. The Sustainability Committee is mandated to oversee the Company’s framework for the development of environmental, social, health and safety policies and programs and performance thereunder. The Sustainability Committee reports regularly to the Board of Directors.

Human Rights Policy

We have adopted a Human Rights Policy (the “Human Rights Policy”) that applies comprehensive standards to our operations across all geographic locations regarding the protection of human rights. Our Human Rights Policy can be viewed on our website at www.uraniumenergy.com.

Board Diversity Policy

Our Board of Directors has adopted a written Diversity Policy (the “Diversity Policy”) that sets out the Company’s approach to diversity, including gender, on the Board of Directors and among the executive officers of the Company.  The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors aim to attract and maintain directors and an executive team that have an appropriate mix of diversity, skill and expertise.

Pursuant to the Diversity Policy, all Board of Directors and executive officer appointments will be based on merit, and the skill and contribution that the candidate is expected to bring to the Board of Directors and the executive team, with due consideration given to the benefits of diversity. Pursuant to the Diversity Policy, when considering the composition of, and individuals to nominate or hire to, the Board of Directors and the executive team, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors, as applicable, shall consider diversity from a number of aspects and including, but not limited to, gender, age, ethnicity and cultural diversity.  In addition, when assessing and identifying potential new members to join the Board of Directors or the executive team, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors, as applicable, considers the current level of diversity on the Board of Directors and the executive team.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors are responsible for developing measurable objectives to implement the Diversity Policy and to measure its effectiveness. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee meets annually, or otherwise as applicable, to consider whether to set targets based on diversity for the appointment of individuals to the Board of Directors or the executive team, recognizing that, notwithstanding any targets set in any given year, the selection of diverse candidates will depend on the pool of available candidates with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors have set a target of 30% female directors by the end of Fiscal 2023.

As at the date of this Annual Report, 67% of our Board of Directors identify as diverse based on ethnicity and 17% identify as female. 67% of our executive officers identify as diverse based on ethnicity, with 0% female representation. The Board of Directors believes that diversity will increase the effectiveness of the Board of Directors and the long-term performance of the Company.

244

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has performed a review of the experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of our Company’s current directors and believes that our Company’s current directors possess a variety of complementary skills and characteristics, including the following:

● personal characteristics, including leadership, character, integrity, accountability, sound business judgment and personal reputation;

● successful business or professional experience;

● various areas of expertise or experience, including financial, strategic and general management;

● willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to fully discharge the responsibilities of a director in connection with the affairs of the Company;

● a demonstrated commitment to the success of the Company; and

● diverse perspectives, qualifications and knowledge.

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee considers nominees recommended by stockholders if such recommendations are made in writing to the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and evaluates nominees for election in the same manner whether the nominee has been recommended by a stockholder or otherwise.

Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors and officers, and the persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our common stock, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC. Copies of all filed reports are required to be furnished to us pursuant to Rule 16a-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act. Based solely on the reports received by us and on the representations of the reporting persons, we believe that all such reports were timely filed during Fiscal 2022 within two business days as required by the SEC.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Oversight of Executive Compensation Program

Our Board of Directors has established a Compensation Committee that operates under a written charter approved by the Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee is comprised of Vincent Della Volpe, David Kong and Gloria Ballesta. Mr. Della Volpe is the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee. All of the members of the Compensation Committee meet the compensation committee independence standards of the NYSE American. The Board of Directors has determined that none of the Compensation Committee members have any material business relationships with the Company. The independence of the Compensation Committee members is re-assessed regularly by the Company.

The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors is responsible for establishing and administering the Company’s executive and director compensation.

The responsibilities of the Compensation Committee, as stated in its charter, include the following:

● review and approve the Company’s compensation guidelines and structure;

● review and approve on an annual basis the corporate goals and objectives with respect to compensation for the Chief Executive Officer;

● review and approve on an annual basis the evaluation process and compensation structure for the Company’s other officers, including base compensation, bonus, incentive and equity compensation; and

● periodically review and make recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding the compensation of non-management directors.

The Compensation Committee is responsible for developing the executive compensation philosophy and reviewing and recommending to the Board of Directors for approval all compensation policies and compensation programs for the executive team.

245

Since May 2012, consistent with good governance practices, the Compensation Committee retains on an annual basis an independent compensation advisor to provide advice on the structure and levels of compensation for our executive officers and directors and to undertake a comprehensive review of our incentive plans. In Fiscal 2022 the Compensation Committee once again retained Global Governance Advisors (“GGA”) to provide independent compensation advice to the Compensation Committee and to the Board of Directors. GGA is an internationally recognized, independent advisory firm that provides counsel to boards of directors on matters relating to executive compensation and governance. GGA is retained to continually review the compensation levels for the Company’s executive officers and directors and short and long-term incentive plans, and to evaluate and make recommendations on the Company’s overall executive and director compensation philosophy, objectives and approach.

GGA’s services in Fiscal 2022 included:

● compensation philosophy validation;

● peer group review;

● executive compensation review and recommendations for our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President;

● review and design of the annual non-equity incentive plan;

● non-management director compensation review; and

● review of compensation discussion and analysis in the Company’s proxy statement.

Fees paid for GGA’s services for our last two fiscal years were $27,067 and $43,417 for Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2022, respectively.

The Compensation Committee reviews all fees and the terms of consulting services provided by GGA.

Overview of Executive Compensation Program

In Fiscal 2022, with the recommendations put forth by GGA (the “GGA Recommendations”), the Compensation Committee maintained the following general principles in determining its executive and non-management director total compensation plans.

The Company recognizes that people are our primary asset and our principal source of establishing a competitive advantage. In order to recruit, motivate and retain the most qualified individuals as senior executive officers, the Company strives to maintain an executive compensation program that is competitive in the mining industry, which is a competitive, global labor market.

The Compensation Committee’s objective is to establish a compensation program that is designed to align with industry trends and attract and retain the best available talent while efficiently utilizing available resources. These objectives are achieved primarily through base compensation and equity compensation designed to be competitive with comparable companies, and to align management’s compensation with the long-term interests of shareholders. In determining executive management’s compensation, the Compensation Committee also takes into consideration the performance and financial condition of the Company.

In order to accomplish our goals and to ensure that the Company’s executive compensation program is consistent with its direction and business strategy, the compensation program for our senior executive officers is based on the following objectives:

● to attract, motivate, retain and reward a knowledgeable and driven management team and to encourage them to attain and exceed performance expectations within a calculated risk framework; and

● to reward each executive based on individual and corporate performance and to incentivize such executives to drive the organization’s current growth and sustainability objectives.

246

The following key principles guide the Company’s overall compensation philosophy:

● compensation is designed to align executives to the critical business issues facing the Company;

● compensation should be fair and reasonable to shareholders and be set with reference to the local market and similar positions of comparable companies;

● a substantial portion of total compensation is at-risk and linked to individual efforts, as well as divisional and corporate performance. This ensures the link between executive pay and business performance;

● an appropriate portion of total compensation should be equity-based, aligning the interests of executives with shareholders; and

● compensation should be transparent to the Board of Directors, executives and shareholders.

Benchmarking Compensation and Peer Groups

In Fiscal 2022 the Compensation Committee commissioned a peer group review from GGA as part of a competitive compensation market update review of executive and director compensation in order to stay abreast of changes in the external market and to ensure that the Company continued to benchmark compensation with appropriate market comparators. In addition to external market trends, the Compensation Committee considered the complexity of the Company and the range of size of several of the appropriate comparable companies and, with the GGA Recommendations provided to them, revised the Peer Group from the prior year to address changes in the external market and to better reflect our Company’s business. The Peer Group remained relatively consistent with the prior year and included uranium mining companies and other companies operating in the consumable fuels sector, primarily in North America, of similar size and having a market capitalization and/or total assets generally ranging between 0.25 times and four times that of the Company’s. The companies identified below were removed from or added to the Peer Group based on whether they met or continued to meet this selection criteria. The companies removed from the Peer Group were delisted or were smaller than the Company from a market capitalization perspective and were deemed to be less relevant to the Company. The companies added to the Peer Group aligned better to the Company based on their market capitalization and/or total assets. The Company’s market capitalization was positioned above the median of the Peer Group at the time of the GGA Recommendations. The Peer Group was used by the Compensation Committee to establish the compensation levels for the Company’s executive officers and its Board of Directors.

In Fiscal 2022, with the GGA Recommendations, our compensation philosophy aimed to align both our executive officers’ and Board of Directors’ compensation around the median of the Peer Group. At the time of the Peer Group review, the Company was positioned at the 60^th percentile on a market capitalization basis, and at the 22^nd percentile on a total assets basis compared with the Peer Group.

In Fiscal 2022, the following companies were removed from or added to the Peer Group:

Removed from the Peer Group	Added to the Peer Group
Contango Oil & Gas Company	Global Atomic Corporation
Silvercorp Metals Inc.	Gulfport Energy Corporation
UEX Corporation	Northern Oil and Gas, Inc.

In Fiscal 2022, the Peer Group was comprised of the following companies:

Peer Group
Centrus Energy Corp.	Global Atomic Corporation	Northern Oil and Gas, Inc.
Comstock Resources, Inc.	Gulfport Energy Corporation	PolyMet Mining Corp.
Denison Mines Corp.	IsoEnergy Ltd.	UR-Energy Inc.
Energy Fuels Inc.	NACCO Industries, Inc.
Fission Uranium Corp.	NexGen Energy Ltd.

247

Compensation Elements and Rationale

The Company’s executive compensation program consists of: base compensation; short-term incentive awards; and long-term incentive equity compensation.

Base Compensation

Base compensation is the foundation of the compensation program and is intended to compensate competitively relative to comparable companies within our industry and the marketplace where we compete for talent. Base compensation is a fixed component of the compensation program and is used as the base to determine elements of incentive compensation and benefits.

Effective on March 1, 2022 and again effective on August 1, 2022, the base compensation paid on an annual basis to our executive officers and to Mr. Adnani, respectively, was increased to position pay competitively with the market and to reflect the Company’s growth and performance.

The following table sets forth the direct and indirect base compensation paid to our executive officers on an annual basis at each quarter end for our Fiscal 2022 and thereafter.

	Fiscal 2022								Fiscal 2023
Name and Principal Position	October 31, 2021		January 31, 2022		April 30, 2022		July 31, 2022		As of the date hereof
Amir Adnani President and Chief Executive Officer	$	440,000	$	440,000	$	462,000	$	462,000	$	478,000
Pat Obara Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer	CA$180,000		CA$180,000		CA$189,000		CA$189,000		CA$189,000
Scott Melbye Executive Vice President	$	250,000	$	250,000	$	262,500	$	262,500	$	262,500

The base compensation paid to our executive officers is more particularly described below under “Executive Services Agreements” herein.

Short-Term Incentive Awards

The short-term incentive plan (the “STIP”) is a variable component of compensation and has the objective of motivating the executive officers to achieve corporate objectives over a one-year period and to provide a means to reward the achievement of corporate milestones and fulfillment of the annual business plan. The STIP provides an opportunity for an annual cash payout based on performance relative to the achievement of corporate and individual performance goals and metrics. The STIP has a maximum payout opportunity, which is 200% of each executive officer’s target STIP.

The Compensation Committee establishes STIP performance goals, metrics, weightings and targets in the first quarter of each fiscal year. Each of our executive officers has a target STIP set as a percentage of their base compensation (each, a “Target Award”), with payouts based on a performance multiplier dependent on corporate and individual performance. The performance multiplier and payouts achieved can range between 0% and 200% of each Target Award. No payout is awarded if the Compensation Committee deems that the Company failed to achieve performance goals. To determine Target Awards our Compensation Committee considers the breadth, scope and complexity of each executive officer’s role, internal equity and whether the executive officer's incentive compensation is competitive relative to similarly situated executives at companies in our Peer Group.

248

The following sets forth the formula for payment of STIP awards.

The following sets forth the Target Awards expressed as a percentage of executive officer base compensation along with the corresponding corporate and individual performance weightings for Fiscal 2022. The performance weightings vary by position within the Company, with corporate performance having a higher weighting for more senior executive officers.

		Fiscal 2022 Target Award		Performance Weighting
Executive Officer	Base Compensation	% of Base Compensation	Target Award	Corporate	Individual
Amir Adnani President and Chief Executive Officer	$440,000	100%	$440,000	80%	20%
Pat Obara Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer	CA$180,000	65%	CA$117,000	60%	40%
Scott Melbye Executive Vice President	$250,000	50%	$125,000	60%	40%

Performance Scorecard

The Compensation Committee establishes a performance scorecard in the first quarter of each fiscal year that sets out performance goals and metrics to guide and motivate the executives to execute on our strategy. At the end of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee evaluates actual performance relative to the performance goals and metrics and recommends to the Board of Directors the payment of STIP awards. The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors may exercise discretion to pay cash bonuses outside of the STIP and to not pay STIP awards even if performance awards are earned.

In the first quarter of Fiscal 2022, the Compensation Committee selected performance goals and metrics within a performance scorecard. At the end of Fiscal 2022, the Compensation Committee evaluated the performance achieved relative to the performance goals and metrics and assigned each of Messrs. Adnani and Obara an award at breakthrough for corporate and individual performance and assigned Mr. Melbye an award at breakthrough and target for corporate and individual performance, respectively. Mr. Adnani achieved an award at 200% of target. In order to achieve internal equity and to control costs, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors exercised negative discretion to reduce the payouts awarded to Messrs. Obara and Melbye to 164% and 120% of target, respectively.

249

The following sets forth the scorecard for Fiscal 2022.

	Weight		Performance Levels
Performance Metrics	Chief Executive Officer	Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President	Threshold (50% of Target Award)	Target (100% of Target Award)	Breakthrough (200% of Target Award)	Result	Payout
S-K 1300 Reporting	10%	7.5%	One TRS report	Two TRS reports	Three TRS reports	S-K 1300: Four TRS reports filed	Breakthrough
Production Growth	30%	22.5%	Increase production capabilities through strategic acquisition			Acquisition: Completed	Breakthrough
Balance Sheet	10%	7.5%	Strengthen the balance sheet to support growth initiatives with at least $50 million of liquid assets comprised of cash, and the fair value of physical uranium and equity holdings			Balance Sheet:  Exceeded $70 million	Breakthrough
			$50 million	$60 million	$70 million
Burke Hollow Pre-Production Program	10%	7.5%	Develop and advance the Burke Hollow Project by completion of installation of the monitor well ring at Production Area 1			Burke Hollow: Completed	Breakthrough
ESG Program	10%	7.5%	Goal 1: Develop Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management Policy for UEC’s Texas projects Goal 2: Create emissions inventory of all sources (mobile and stationary) for each Texas project and initiate fuel consumption tracking by individual source at each project Goal 3: Identify, assess and calculate cost benefit analysis for emission reduction opportunities at UEC’s Texas projects Goal 4: Setup a contract with electricity provider at Palangana to purchase renewable energy credits to ensure power to the project will be from renewal energy and all the Scope 2 emissions associated with that purchased power will be deducted from our total emissions footprint			ESG Program: Four of four goals completed	Breakthrough
			Two of four goals	Three of four goals	Four of four goals
Total Recordable Injury and Illness Incidence Rate	10%	7.5%	Promote high performing safe environments with no recordable injuries Total Recordable Injury and Illness Incidence Rate: Zero			Rate: Zero	Breakthrough
Chief Executive Officer Individual Performance	20%	--	Chief Executive Officer: Exceeded Expectations			Individual Performance: Exceeded Expectations	Breakthrough
			Below Expectations	Met Expectations	Exceeded Expectations
Chief Financial Officer Individual Performance	--	40%	Chief Financial Officer: Exceeded Expectations			Individual Performance: Exceeded Expectations	Breakthrough
			Below Expectations	Met Expectations	Exceeded Expectations
Executive Vice President  Individual Performance	--	40%	Executive Vice President: Met Expectations			Individual Performance: Met Expectations	Target
			Below Expectations	Met Expectations	Exceeded Expectations

250

The following sets forth the STIP awards paid to our executive officers for Fiscal 2022.

Executive Officer	Base Compensation	Fiscal 2022 Target Award		Performance		Fiscal 2022 STIP Payout(1)	% of Target
		% of Base Compensation	Target Award	Corporate	Individual
Amir Adnani President and Chief Executive Officer	$440,000	100%	$440,000	80% x 200%	20% x 200%	$880,000	200%
Pat Obara(2) Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer	CA$180,000	65%	CA$117,000	60% x 200%	40% x 200%	$150,011	164%
Scott Melbye Executive Vice President	$250,000	50%	$125,000	60% x 200%	40% x 100%	$150,000	120%

Performance Goals and Metrics

The Compensation Committee selected the following performance goals and metrics within the Company’s performance scorecard on the belief that these performance goals and metrics were aligned with our corporate strategy and could be impacted by our executive officers. In Fiscal 2022, the payout opportunities for threshold, target and breakthrough performance levels were set at 50%, 100% and 200% of each Target Award, respectively, with interpolation between performance levels.

SEC S-K 1300 Reporting: The Compensation Committee selected this metric based on the belief that adopting the reporting requirements of S-K 1300 is important to the Company’s organizational development and is required for compliance with SEC regulations to provide our stockholders with a more comprehensive understanding of our mineral holdings. This metric represented 10%, 7.5% and 7.5% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. Publication of two TRS reports represented the target level of performance, publication of one TRS report represented the threshold level of performance and publication of three TRS reports represented the breakthrough level of performance. The result was breakthrough performance at 200%. As of July 31, 2022 the Company had completed and filed four TRS reports respecting each of its Reno Creek, Wyoming Hub and Spoke, Anderson and Yuty Projects on February 8, 2022, April 4, 2022, July 12, 2022 and July 19, 2022, respectively.

Production Growth: The Compensation Committee selected this metric based on the belief that the acquisition of additional accretive uranium deposits will further potential production capacity and create stockholder value through higher production levels and lower production costs. This metric represented 30%, 22.5% and 22.5% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. The U1A Acquisition represented a unique opportunity to acquire an advanced asset base from a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., one of the global leaders in the nuclear energy industry, and to double the Company’s production capacity in three key categories: total number of permitted U.S. ISR projects; resources and processing infrastructure. Completion of the U1A Acquisition represented the breakthrough level of performance. No threshold or target award opportunities were established for this metric.  The result was breakthrough performance at 200%. On December 17, 2021 the Company completed the U1A Acquisition.

Balance Sheet: The Compensation Committee selected this metric based on the belief that strengthening the balance sheet with at least $50 million of liquid assets comprised of cash and the fair value of physical uranium and equity holdings is important to support the Company’s growth initiatives. This metric represented 10%, 7.5% and 7.5% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. $60 million of liquid assets represented the target level of performance, $50 million of liquid assets represented the threshold level of performance and $70 million of liquid assets represented the breakthrough level of performance. The result was breakthrough performance at 200%.  As of July 31, 2022, the Company had liquid assets of $131 million.

251

Burke Hollow Pre-Production Program: The Compensation Committee selected this metric based on the belief that developing and advancing the Burke Hollow Project by completion of installation of the monitor well ring at PAA-1 is important to support the Company’s strategy to advance production-readiness. This metric represented 10%, 7.5% and 7.5% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. Completion of installation of the monitor well ring represented the breakthrough level of performance. No threshold or target award opportunities were established for this metric. The result was breakthrough performance at 200%.  As of July 31, 2022, installation of the monitor well ring was completed.

ESG Program: The Compensation Committee selected this metric to support the Company’s commitment to being a responsible steward of our environment and the communities where we operate. This metric required the Company to: (i) develop a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management Policy for the Company’s Texas projects; (ii) create an emissions inventory of all sources (mobile and stationary) for each Texas project and initiate fuel consumption tracking by individual source at each project; (iii) identify, assess and calculate a cost benefit analysis for emission reduction opportunities at the Company’s Texas projects; and (iv) setup a contract with our electricity provider at Palangana to purchase renewable energy credits to ensure power to the project will be from renewal energy and all the Scope 2 emissions associated with that purchased power will be deducted from our total emissions footprint. This metric represented 10%, 7.5% and 7.5% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. The target level of performance required the Company to achieve any three of the four goals, the threshold level of performance required the Company to achieve any two of the four goals and the breakthrough level of performance required the Company to achieve all of the four goals. The result was breakthrough performance at 200%. As of July 31, 2022, the Company had achieved all of the four goals.

Total Recordable Injury and Illness Incidence Rate: The Compensation Committee selected this metric based on the belief that the total recordable Injury and Illness Incidence Rate (“IIR”) is critical to the Company’s overall approach to promoting high performing safe environments. The Company’s IIR is calculated by multiplying the total number of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recordable injuries and illnesses at our operations in the U.S. by 200,000 and dividing that result by the total number of hours worked by all employees at our operations in the U.S. In this formula, 200,000 represents the number of hours that would be worked by 100 employees working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, and provides the standard base for calculating incidence rates for a year pursuant to OSHA guidance. This metric represented 10%, 7.5% and 7.5% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. An IIR of zero represented the breakthrough level of performance. No threshold or target award opportunities were established for this metric. The result was breakthrough performance at 200%. The Company achieved an IIR of zero for Fiscal 2022, having no work-related fatalities, injuries or illnesses among employees at our operations in the U.S.

Individual Performance: The Compensation Committee made a subjective determination of individual performance for each executive officer to determine whether the executive officer earned an award for performance in Fiscal 2022.  This metric represented 20%, 40% and 40% of the STIP weighting for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively. Individual performance goals included maintaining a high performing leadership team, strategic planning and advancing growth objectives. Performance that qualified for an award at the threshold level was expected in normal operating circumstances, performance that qualified for an award at the target level was believed to be achievable only with additional efforts and results and performance that qualified for an award at the breakthrough level was determined to be achievable only with extraordinary efforts and results. The result was performance achieved at 200%, 200% and 100% for Messrs.. Adnani, Obara and Melbye respectively.

252

Review of Executive Officer Performance

On an annual basis, the Compensation Committee reviews the overall compensation package for our executive officers and evaluates executive officer performance relative to performance goals. The Compensation Committee has the opportunity to meet with the executive officers at various times throughout the year, which assists the Compensation Committee in forming its own assessment of each individual’s performance. The executive officers are not present during voting or deliberations of the Compensation Committee relating to their compensation. The Compensation Committee submits its recommendations regarding executive compensation to the Board of Directors for approval.

In Fiscal 2022 the following milestones were attained by the Company as a result of the success of the executives meeting their performance goals:

● we completed the acquisition of U1A on December 17, 2021. The acquisition of U1A (now UEC Wyoming Corp.) represented a unique opportunity to acquire an advanced asset base from a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., one of the global leaders in the nuclear industry, and to double the Company’s production capacity in three key categories: total number of permitted U.S. ISR projects; resources; and processing infrastructure;

● we repaid the remaining $10 million balance of our secured Credit Facility on January 31, 2022 and are now completely debt free;

● we completed and filed TRS reports in accordance with S-K 1300 disclosing mineral resources for each of our Reno Creek, Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke, Anderson and Yuty Projects on February 8, 2022, April 4, 2022, July 12, 2022 and July 19, 2022, respectively;

● we launched our ESG program and achieved several key milestones;

● we completed installation of the monitor well ring at PAA-1 of our Burke Hollow Project;

● the Company’s shares were included on the Russell 2000 and Russell 3000 indexes; and

● we secured an additional 1,816,000 pounds of U.S. warehoused uranium, expanding our Physical Uranium Program to 5.5 million pounds U₃O₈, with delivery dates out to December 2025 at a volume weighted average price of approximately $37.30 per pound;

Subsequent to Fiscal 2022:

● we completed and filed TRS reports in accordance with S-K 1300 disclosing mineral resources for each of our Texas ISR Hub and Spoke and our updated Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Projects on August 11, 2022 and September 14, 2022, respectively; and

● we completed the acquisition of UEX on August 19, 2022, making us one of the largest diversified North American focused uranium companies.

Long-Term Incentive (Equity)

The Company’s long-term incentive program (the “LTIP”) provides for, among other awards, the granting of stock options, performance stock options (“PSOs”), RSUs and PRSUs to executive officers to both motivate executive performance and retention, as well as to align executive officer performance to shareholder value creation. In awarding long-term incentives, the Company compares its long-term incentive program to the Peer Group and evaluates such factors as the number of shares available for awards under the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan and the number of awards outstanding relative to the number of shares outstanding.

Each long-term incentive grant is based on the level of the position held and overall market competitiveness. The Compensation Committee takes into consideration previous grants when it considers new grants of equity awards. The Compensation Committee administers the granting of equity awards in accordance with our Stock Incentive Plan.

253

In Fiscal 2019 the Compensation Committee considered the advice of GGA and the recommendations issued by leading independent proxy advisors and implemented a performance based long-term incentive award structure to more closely align pay with future performance.

In Fiscal 2020 performance based long-term equity incentive plan awards were awarded to the executive officers in the form of PSOs. The PSOs vest over 36 months. The PSOs had a premium exercise price at the time of grant set at 21% above the fair market value of the Company’s stock price at the time of grant. The PSOs will only have value if the Company’s future stock price is accretive beyond the exercise price of the PSO awards.

In Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2022 performance based long-term equity incentive plan awards were awarded to the executive officers in the form of PRSUs. The PRSUs are measured based on the Company’s three year total stockholder return relative to the Global X Uranium ETF. The PRSUs cliff vest and settle based on the achievement of the performance criteria at the end of 36 months. The number of PRSUs that may vest at the end of 36 months is contingent on the level of performance achieved and ranges from 0% to 200% of the PRSU target number of units. Regardless of the relative TSR performance of the Company versus the Global X Uranium ETF TSR, if the Company’s absolute share price is negative between the grant date and the 36^th month share price, the maximum number of PRSUs that can vest is capped at 100%.

The following table summarizes the vesting schedule for outstanding PRSUs.

Measurement Period	Performance Criteria	Company TSR vs. ETF TSR	Performance Multiplier if Absolute Company TSR is Positive over the Measurement Period	Performance Multiplier if Absolute Company TSR is Negative over the Measurement Period
Grant date to end	Three Year Relative Total	Greater than -2,500 bps	0%	0%
of 36-month	Stockholder Return against	-2,500 bps	50%	50%
period	Global X Uranium ETF	0 bps	100%	100%
		2,500 bps	200%	100%

In Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2022 long-term equity incentive plan awards were awarded to the executive officers in the form of RSUs, which vest over 36 months.

In Fiscal 2022 the Compensation Committee reviewed the market prevalence of long-term equity incentive plans within the Company’s Peer Group and determined that RSUs and PRSUs were the most appropriate form of long-term equity incentive to grant in Fiscal 2022 due to market practice. The long-term equity incentive plan awards awarded to our executive officers in Fiscal 2022 are more particularly described below in the “Grants of Plan Based Awards” table.

254

The following table summarizes the pay mix for our executive officers and illustrates the percentage of fixed versus at-risk pay for Fiscal 2022:

	Base	Non-Equity Incentive Plan	Stock	At-Risk
	Compensation	& Cash Bonus (1)	Awards (2)	Pay
Name and Principal Position	Cash	(STIP)	(LTIP)	(STIP & LTIP)
Amir Adnani	19%	39%	42%	81%
President and Chief Executive Officer
Pat Obara	30%	31%	39%	70%
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Scott Melbye	38%	24%	38%	62%
Executive Vice President

Notes:

(1) These amounts include discretionary bonuses comprising 1%, 2% and 2% of the pay mix for Messrs. Adnani, Obara and Melbye, respectively.

(2) These amounts represent RSUs and PRSUs.

Other Non-Cash Compensation

The Company provides standard health benefits to its executive officers, including medical, dental and disability insurance.

The Company’s other non-cash compensation is intended to provide a similar level of benefits as those provided by comparable companies within our industry.

Executive Compensation

Amir Adnani, President and Chief Executive Officer

During Fiscal 2022, Amir Adnani, through an executive services agreement with Amir Adnani Corp. (“Adnani Corp.”), a private company over which Mr. Adnani exercises control, was retained to provide certain services to the Company, and his direct and indirect compensation as an executive officer of the Company is disclosed below in the “Summary Compensation Table”. The Company’s compensation policy for Mr. Adnani is based on comparisons of other companies’ remunerations made to their Presidents and Chief Executive Officers and the value of Mr. Adnani’s expertise to the Company.

As shown in the “Director Compensation” table below, Mr. Adnani does not receive additional compensation in connection with his service as a director of the Company.

Scott Melbye, Executive Vice President

Scott Melbye is retained according to an executive services agreement with our Company, and his compensation for serving as an executive officer of the Company is disclosed below in the “Summary Compensation Table”. The Company’s compensation policy for Mr. Melbye is based on comparisons of other companies’ remunerations made to their Executive Vice Presidents and the value of Mr. Melbye’s expertise to the Company.

255

Pat Obara, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

We appointed Pat Obara as our Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company effective on October 29, 2015. Mr. Obara served as our Chief Financial Officer from August 2006 to January 2011 and as our Vice President Administration from January 2011 to October 2015. Mr. Obara is retained according to a consulting services agreement with our Company, and his compensation for serving as an executive officer of the Company is disclosed below in the “Summary Compensation Table”. The Company’s compensation policy for Mr. Obara is based on comparisons of other companies’ remunerations made to their Chief Financial Officers and the value of Mr. Obara’s expertise to the Company.

Retirement, Resignation or Termination Plans

Company executive officers with contracts for services have notice requirements which permit pay in lieu of notice.

Each of the Company’s executive services arrangements with Messrs. Melbye and Obara and Adnani Corp. contemplates the case of termination due to various provisions whereby the named executive officers will receive termination payments, as described below under the heading “Executive Services Agreements”.

Compensation and Risk

We do not believe that our compensation policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us. We have taken steps to ensure that our executive compensation program does not incentivize risk outside the Company’s risk appetite. Some of the key ways that we currently manage compensation risk are as follows:

● appointed a Compensation Committee which is composed entirely of independent directors to oversee the executive compensation program;

● retained an independent compensation advisor, GGA, to provide advice on the structure and levels of compensation for our executive officers and directors;

● our STIP has a cap on the total amount of payment any position may receive;

● the use of performance based long-term incentive compensation to encourage a focus on long-term corporate performance;

● disclosure of executive compensation to stakeholders;

● established a clawback policy applicable to all cash and equity incentive compensation; and

● adoption of say-on-pay.

Clawback Policy

We adopted a Clawback Policy as an additional safeguard to mitigate compensation risks (the “Clawback Policy”). The Clawback Policy applies to all cash and equity incentive compensation and provides that the Board of Directors may seek reimbursement for compensation awarded to an executive in situations where: (i) payment was predicated upon achieving certain financial results that were subsequently the subject of a substantial restatement of the Company’s financial statements filed with any securities regulatory authority; (ii) the executive engaged in gross negligence, intentional misconduct or fraud that caused, or partially caused, the need for a restatement; or (iii) the incentive compensation would have been lower had the financial results been properly reported. Our Clawback Policy is available on the Company’s website at www.uraniumenergy.com.

Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy

We adopted an Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy (the “Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy”). The Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy provides that, unless otherwise previously approved by our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, no director, officer or employee of the Company or its subsidiaries or, to the extent practicable, any other person (or their associates) in a special relationship (within the meaning of applicable securities laws) with the Company, may, at any time: (i) purchase financial instruments, including prepaid variable forward contracts, instruments for the short sale or purchase or sale of call or put options, equity swaps, collars, or units of exchangeable funds that are based on fluctuations of the Company’s debt or equity instruments and that are designed to or that may reasonably be expected to have the effect of hedging or offsetting a decrease in the market value of any securities of the Company; or (ii) purchase Company securities on a margin or otherwise pledge Company securities as collateral for a loan. Any violation of our Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy will be regarded as a serious offence. Our Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy is available on the Company’s website at www.uraniumenergy.com.

256

Stock Ownership Guidelines

We adopted Stock Ownership Guidelines for our executive officers to further align the interests of our executive officers and stockholders (the “Stock Ownership Guidelines”). The Stock Ownership Guidelines provide that each executive officer should attain a specified level of ownership of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to a multiple of their base compensation within five years of the executive officer’s first appointment to their role. The stock ownership requirement is three times (3x) base compensation for our President and Chief Executive Officer and one times (1x) base compensation for our other executive officers. The following table sets forth the total stock ownership and value thereof for each of our executive officers as of September 27, 2022.

Executive Officer	Total Stock Ownership	Total Value of Stock Owned (*)	Stock Ownership Requirement	Meets Stock Ownership Requirement
Amir Adnani President and Chief Executive Officer	3,555,101	$14,327,057	$1,434,000	Yes
Pat Obara Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer	664,277	$2,677,036	CA$189,000	Yes
Scott Melbye Executive Vice President	752,781	$3,033,707	$262,500	Yes

Note:

(*) The total value of stock owned is based on the $4.03 average closing price of our common stock for the 56 days preceding September 27, 2022.

Consideration of Most Recent Shareholder Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

As required by Section 14A of the Exchange Act, at our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders our stockholders voted, in an advisory manner, on a proposal to approve our named executive officer compensation. This was our most recent stockholder advisory vote to approve named executive officer compensation. The proposal was approved by our stockholders, receiving approximately 96% of the vote of the stockholders present in person or represented by proxy and voting at the meeting. We considered this vote to be a ratification of our current executive compensation policies and decisions and, therefore, did not make any significant changes to our executive compensation policies and decisions based on the vote.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

No person who served as a member of our Compensation Committee during Fiscal 2022 was a current or former officer or employee of our Company or engaged in certain transactions with our Company required to be disclosed by regulations of the SEC. Additionally, during Fiscal 2022, there were no Compensation Committee “interlocks”, which generally means that no executive officer of our Company served: (i) as a member of the compensation committee (or other board committee performing equivalent functions or, in the absence of any such committee, the entire board of directors) of another entity which had an executive officer serving as a member of our Company’s Compensation Committee; (ii) as a director of another entity which had an executive officer serving as a member of our Company’s Compensation Committee; or (iii) as a member of the compensation committee (or other board committee performing equivalent functions or, in the absence of any such committee, the entire board of directors) of another entity which had an executive officer serving as a director of our Company.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the foregoing compensation discussion and analysis with Company management. Based on that review and those discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the compensation discussion and analysis be included in this Annual Report. This report is provided by our independent directors, Vincent Della Volpe, David Kong and Gloria Ballesta, who comprise our Compensation Committee:

257

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth the compensation paid to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and those executive officers that earned in excess of $100,000 during the fiscal years ended July 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020 (each a “Named Executive Officer”):

Name and Principal Position	Year	Salary (1)		Bonus (2)		Stock Awards (3)			Option Awards (4)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation (5)		Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings		All Other Compensation		Total
Amir Adnani	2022	$	449,167	$	22,000	$	964,705	(6)	$	-	$	880,000	$	-	$	-	$	2,315,872
President and Chief Executive Officer	2021		440,000		300,000		895,553	(7)		-		-		-		-		1,635,553
	2020		341,496		-		728,000	(8)		419,169		-		-		-		1,488,665
Pat Obara (11)	2022		156,877		7,087		201,820	(6)		-		150,011		-		-		515,795
Secretary, Treasurer	2021		141,309		50,000		255,292	(7)		-		-		-		-		446,601
and Chief Financial Officer	2020		87,767		-		228,766	(9)		160,175		-		-		-		476,708
Scott Melbye	2022		263,862		12,500		264,893	(6)		-		150,000		-		-		691,255
Executive Vice President	2021		250,000		50,000		255,292	(7)		-		-		-		-		555,292
	2020		176,669		-		185,434	(10)		149,859		-		-		-		511,962

Notes:

(1) These amounts represent fees paid by us to our Named Executive Officers during the year pursuant to various executive services agreements, between us and the Named Executive Officers, which are more particularly described below. For Fiscal 2021, these amounts include the following restitution payments: to Mr. Adnani: $71,507; to Mr. Obara: CA$25,112; and to Mr. Melbye: $27,944.

(2) For Fiscal 2022, these amounts represent discretionary bonuses paid in the fiscal year.

(3) For Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, these amounts represent the aggregate grant date fair value of RSUs and PRSUs. For Fiscal 2020, these amounts represent the aggregate grant date fair value of RSUs and, for Messrs. Obara and Melbye, the fair value of shares at the date of issuance. For Fiscal 2022, the grant date fair value of each RSU is $3.98 per share based on the most recent closing price of our common stock as of the grant date of July 29, 2022, and the grant date fair value of each PRSU is $4.8033 per unit, which incorporates the potential to vest, depending on the performance, from 0% to 200% of the number of PRSUs. The fair value of each PRSU was calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation model. The following assumptions were used to value the PRSUs granted on July 29, 2022: expected risk free interest rate: 2.80%; expected volatility: 90.90%; expected dividend yield: 0%; expected life in years: 3.0; and correlation: 76.89%. For Fiscal 2021, the grant date fair value of each RSU is $2.15 per share based on the most recent closing price of our common stock as of the grant date of July 21, 2021, and the grant date fair value of each PRSU is $2.48 per unit, which incorporates the potential to vest, depending on the performance, from 0% to 200% of the number of PRSUs. The fair value of each PRSU was calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation model. The following assumptions were used to value the PRSUs granted on July 21, 2021: expected risk free interest rate: 0.39%; expected volatility: 78.03%; expected dividend yield: 0%; expected life in years: 3.0; and correlation: 66.02%. For Fiscal 2020, the grant date fair value of each RSU is $0.91 per share based on the most recent closing price of our common stock as of the grant date of July 16, 2020.

(4) For Fiscal 2020, these amounts represent the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options and PSOs which was estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The following assumptions were used to value the stock options granted on July 16, 2020: exercise price: $0.91; expected risk free interest rate: 0.280%; expected annual volatility: 60.004%; expected life in years: 5.0; expected annual dividend yield: $Nil; and Black-Scholes value: $0.456. The following assumptions were used to value the PSOs granted on July 16, 2020: exercise price: $1.10; expected risk free interest rate: 0.280%; expected annual volatility: 60.004%; expected life in years: 5.0; expected annual dividend yield: $Nil; and Black-Scholes value: $0.413.

(5) These amounts represent cash awards under our STIP. These awards were paid in August 2022 after our year-end results were evaluated.

(6) This amount represents the aggregate grant date fair value of RSUs and PRSUs granted on July 29, 2022.

(7) This amount represents the aggregate grant date fair value of RSUs and PRSUs granted on July 21, 2021.

(8) This amount represents the grant date fair value of the RSUs granted to Mr. Adnani on July 16, 2020.

(9) These amounts include: (i) $14,916 for stock awards issued in lieu of cash compensation in order to reduce cash outlays; and (ii) $213,850 for RSUs granted to Mr. Obara on July 16, 2020.

(10) These amounts include: (i) $30,734 for stock awards issued in lieu of cash compensation in order to reduce cash outlays; and (ii) $154,700 for RSUs granted to Mr. Melbye on July 16, 2020.

(11) The Company pays Mr. Obara in Canadian currency. For the purpose of reporting the base compensation paid to Mr. Obara, the compensation was converted from Canadian currency to U.S. currency at the Bank of Canada rate for the years ended July 31^st.

258

Grants of Plan Based Awards

We granted awards to the Named Executive Officers in Fiscal 2022, as follows:

			Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2)						Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards						All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of		Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and
Name	Award Type (1)	Grant Date	Threshold ($)		Target ($)		Maximum ($)		Threshold		Target		Maximum		Stock or Units		Option Awards ($)
Amir Adnani	STIP	August 1, 2021		110,000		220,000		880,000		-		-		-		-		-
President and Chief Executive Officer	RSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-		-		-		-		144,121		573,602	(3)
	PRSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-		40,712		81,424		162,484		-		391,104	(4)
Pat Obara	STIP	August 1, 2021		28,511		57,022		182,473		-		-		-		-		-
Secretary, Treasurer and	RSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-		-		-		-		30,151		120,001	(3)
Chief Financial Officer	PRSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-		8,517		17,034		34,068		-		81,819	(4)
Scott Melbye	STIP	August 1, 2021		39,063		78,125		250,000		-		-		-		-		-
Executive Vice President	RSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-		-		-		-		39,573		157,501	(3)
	PRSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-		11,179		22,358		44,716		-		107,392	(4)

Notes:

(1) STIP – refers to awards under the Short-Term Incentive Plan.

RSU – refers to restricted stock units granted under our Stock Incentive Plan.

PRSU – refers to performance based restricted stock units granted under our Stock Incentive Plan.

(2) These figures represent possible payouts pursuant to the STIP for Fiscal 2022.

(3) The grant date fair value of each RSU is $3.98 per share based on the most recent closing price of our common stock as of the grant date of July 29, 2022.

(4) The grant date fair value of each PRSU is $4.8033 per unit, which incorporates the potential to vest, depending on the performance, from 0% to 200% of the number of PRSUs. The fair value of each PRSU was calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation model. The following assumptions were used to value the PRSUs granted: expected risk free interest rate: 2.80%; expected volatility: 90.90%; expected dividend yield: 0%; expected life in years: 3.0; and correlation: 76.89%.

259

Outstanding Equity Awards

The following table sets forth information as at July 31, 2022, relating to equity awards that have been granted to the Named Executive Officers:

			Option Awards							Stock Awards
Name	Award Type (1)	Grant Date	Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (#)		Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (#)		Option Exercise Price ($)		Option Expiration Date	Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) (2)		Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($) (3)		Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) (4)		Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($) (5)
Amir Adnani	Option	August 22, 2017		165,000		-		1.28	August 22, 2022		-		-		-		-
President and	Option	July 25, 2018		400,000		-		1.53	July 25, 2023		-		-		-		-
Chief Executive	Option	July 30, 2019		550,000		-		0.9421	July 30, 2029		-		-		-		-
Officer	Option	July 16, 2020		150,000		-		0.91	July 16, 2030		-		-		-		-
	PSO	July 16, 2020		566,666		283,334		1.10	July 16, 2030		-		-		-		-
	RSU	July 16, 2020		-		-		-			133,333		559,999		-		-
	RSU	July 21, 2021		-		-		-			156,977		659,303		-		-
	RSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-			144,121		605,308		-		-
	PRSU	July 21, 2021		-		-		-			-		-		156,977		389,303
	PRSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-			-		-		81,424		391,104
Pat Obara	Option	August 22, 2017		80,000		-		1.28	August 22, 2022		-		-		-		-
Secretary,	Option	July 25, 2018		100,000		-		1.53	July 25, 2023		-		-		-		-
Treasurer and	Option	July 30, 2019		200,000		-		0.9421	July 30, 2029		-		-		-		-
Chief Financial	Option	July 16, 2020		125,000		-		0.91	July 16, 2030		-		-		-		-
Officer	PSO	July 16, 2020		166,666		83,334		1.10	July 16, 2030		-		-		-		-
	RSU	July 16, 2020		-		-		-			39,166		164,497		-		-
	RSU	July 21, 2021		-		-		-			44,749		187,946		-		-
	RSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-			30,151		126,634		-		-
	PRSU	July 21, 2021		-		-		-			-		-		44,749		110,978
	PRSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-			-		-		17,034		81,819
Scott Melbye	Option	July 25, 2018		75,000		-		1.53	July 25, 2023		-		-		-		-
Executive	Option	July 30, 2019		125,000		-		0.9421	July 30, 2029		-		-		-		-
Vice President	Option	July 16, 2020		125,000		-		0.91	July 16, 2030		-		-		-		-
	PSO	July 16, 2020		150,000		75,000		1.10	July 16, 2030		-		-		-		-
	RSU	July 16, 2020		-		-		-			56,666		237,997		-		-
	RSU	July 21, 2021		-		-		-			67,123		281,917		-		-
	RSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-			39,573		166,207		-		-
	PRSU	July 21, 2021		-		-		-			-		-		44,749		110,978
	PRSU	July 29, 2022		-		-		-			-		-		22,358		107,392

260

Notes:

(1) Option – refers to stock options granted under our Stock Incentive Plan.

PSO – refers to performance stock options granted under our Stock Incentive Plan.

RSU – refers to restricted stock units granted under our Stock Incentive Plan.

PRSU – refers to performance based restricted stock units granted under our Stock Incentive Plan.

(2) RSUs granted on July 16, 2020 vest one-half on July 16, 2021 and one-half in substantially equal installments on each of July 16, 2021, 2022 and 2023. RSUs granted on July 21, 2021 vest in substantially equal installments on each of July 21, 2022, 2023 and 2024. RSUs granted on July 29, 2022 vest in substantially equal installments on each of July 29, 2023, 2024 and 2025.

(3) The value shown is based on the closing price of our common stock of $4.20 per share on July 29, 2022, the last business day of the fiscal year.

(4) Represents unearned shares under target PRSUs granted on July 21, 2021 and on July 29, 2022. The PRSUs granted on July 21, 2021 cliff vest on July 21, 2024 depending on three-year relative TSR performance. The PRSUs granted on July 29, 2022 cliff vest on July 29, 2025 depending on three-year relative TSR performance.

(5) The grant date fair value of each PRSU granted on July 21, 2021 is $2.48 per unit, which incorporates the potential to vest, depending on the performance, from 0% to 200% of the number of PRSUs. The fair value of each PRSU was calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation model. The following assumptions were used to value the PRSUs granted on July 21, 2021: expected risk free interest rate: 0.39%; expected volatility: 78.03%; expected dividend yield: 0%; expected life in years: 3.0; and correlation: 66.02%. The grant date fair value of each PRSU granted on July 29, 2022 is $4.8033 per unit, which incorporates the potential to vest, depending on the performance, from 0% to 200% of the number of PRSUs. The fair value of each PRSU was calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation model. The following assumptions were used to value the PRSUs granted on July 29, 2022: expected risk free interest rate: 2.80%; expected volatility: 90.90%; expected dividend yield: 0%; expected life in years: 3.0; and correlation: 76.89%.

261

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

The following table sets forth the value realized on stock options exercised and stock awards vested for the Named Executive Officers for Fiscal 2022:

	Option Awards				Stock Awards
Name	Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise		Value Realized on Exercise (1) ($)		Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting		Value Realized on Vesting (2) ($)
Amir Adnani, President and Chief Executive Officer		-		-		822,496		3,288,090
Pat Obara, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer		-		-		265,098		1,065,017
Scott Melbye, Executive Vice President		65,000		139,100		142,308		558,292

Notes:

(1) This amount represents the difference between the closing price of our common stock on the date of exercise and the exercise price of the stock option.

(2) These amounts represent the number of RSUs and PRSUs vested multiplied by the closing price of our common stock on each of the vesting dates and is calculated before payment of any applicable withholding taxes.

No Pension Benefits

The Company does not maintain any plan that provides for payments or other benefits to its executive officers at, following or in connection with their retirement and including, without limitation, any tax-qualified defined benefit plans or supplemental executive retirement plans.

No Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

The Company does not maintain any defined contribution or other plan that provides for the deferral of compensation on a basis that is not tax-qualified.

262

Director Compensation

Our directors receive an annual retainer consisting of cash and equity compensation for their annual service. The value and form of equity awards granted to each director is based on the experience of the director, time spent on Company matters and the compensation paid to directors of other companies in the industry. In Fiscal 2022 RSUs, stock options and cash bonuses were awarded to the directors. The stock options vest over 24 months. The RSUs vest over 36 months.

The following table sets forth information relating to compensation paid to our directors for Fiscal 2022:

Name (1)	Fees Earned Or Paid In Cash		Stock Awards (2)		Option Awards (3)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation		Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings		All Other Compensation (4)		Total
Spencer Abraham	$	153,125	$	97,498	$	97,544	$	-	$	-	$	52,500	$	400,667
David Kong		24,129		55,000		55,024		-		-		13,681		147,834
Vincent Della Volpe		30,625		45,002		45,020		-		-		11,500		132,147
Ganpat Mani		25,521		47,501		47,520		-		-		1,250		121,792
Gloria Ballesta		24,129		50,001		50,021		-		-		11,181		135,332

Notes:

(1) Information for Mr. Adnani is disclosed above in the “Summary Compensation Table” and is not reported in the “Director Compensation” table of this Annual Report.

(2) These amounts represent the grant date fair value of RSUs granted on July 29, 2022. RSUs granted on July 29, 2022 vest in substantially equal installments on each of July 29, 2023, 2024 and 2025.

(3) These amounts represent the grant date fair value of the stock options which was estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The following assumptions were used to value the stock options granted on July 29, 2022: exercise price: $3.98; expected risk free interest rate: 2.682%; expected annual volatility: 78.946%; expected life in years: 5.0; expected annual dividend yield: $Nil; and Black-Scholes value: $2.58.

(4) These amounts represent discretionary bonuses paid in the fiscal year.

As at July 31, 2022, our directors held stock options to acquire an aggregate of 3,199,901 shares of our common stock as follows: Spencer Abraham: 69,920 stock options; Amir Adnani: 2,115,000 stock options including PSOs; David Kong: 230,776 stock options; Vincent Della Volpe: 227,735 stock options; Ganpat Mani: 261,735 stock options; and Gloria Ballesta: 294,735 stock options.

Spencer Abraham has served as Chairman (non-executive) of our Board of Directors since March 2, 2017. Mr. Abraham served as Executive Chairman from October 14, 2015 to March 2, 2017, and as Chairman of our Advisory Board from December 2012 to October 2015. Mr. Abraham is retained according to an appointment letter with our Company and, prior to May 31, 2021, was to be compensated at a rate of $10,833 per month, paid in monthly installments, and $20,000 per year, paid in quarterly installments, for his services as a director of the Company. Effective on May 1, 2016 and again effective on April 1, 2020, the fees payable to Mr. Abraham were reduced on a non-accrued basis. Effective on October 1, 2020 and again effective on May 31, 2021, the fees payable to Mr. Abraham were reinstated to the levels in effect prior to April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2016, respectively. Effective on May 31, 2021 and again effective on March 1, 2022, the annual fee payable to Mr. Abraham was increased to $30,000 and $31,500, respectively. Effective on March 1, 2022 the monthly fee payable to Mr. Abraham was set at $10,500. The compensation paid to Mr. Abraham is more particularly described below under “Director Services Agreement”.

Amir Adnani serves as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, President and a director. Within his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer, and through an executive services agreement with a private company, Adnani Corp., controlled by Mr. Adnani, he provides various consulting services to the Company. Mr. Adnani does not receive additional compensation in connection with his service as a director of the Company. Mr. Adnani’s direct and indirect compensation as an executive officer of the Company is disclosed above in the “Summary Compensation Table”.

263

In Fiscal 2022 David Kong, Vincent Della Volpe, Ganpat Mani and Gloria Ballesta served as independent directors of the Company. Mr. Kong serves as the Company’s lead independent director and as Chairperson of the Company’s Audit Committee. Mr. Della Volpe serves as Chairperson of each of the Company’s Compensation Committee and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee.

The Company’s independent directors are retained on a yearly basis for their services and are paid quarterly based on annual retainer fees. In the first and second quarter of Fiscal 2022 the annual retainer fees paid to our independent directors were as follows: David Kong: CA$30,000 per year; Vincent Della Volpe: $30,000 per year; Ganpat Mani: $25,000 per year; and Gloria Ballesta: CA$30,000 per year.

Effective from March 1, 2022, the annual retainer fees paid to our independent directors were increased as follows: David Kong: CA$31,500 per year; Vincent Della Volpe: $31,500 per year; Ganpat Mani: $26,250 per year; and Gloria Ballesta: CA$31,500 per year.

The amounts listed above are all-inclusive retainer fees and there are no additional committee and/or chairperson fees or meeting attendance fees.

In addition to such retainers, our directors may, from time to time, receive bonus payments or equity compensation, which are granted on a discretionary basis. The amount of any bonus payments or the value and form of equity compensation granted is based on the experience of the director, time spent on Company matters and a comparison of the compensation paid to directors of other companies in the industry.

Standard retainer amounts paid to directors, as well as any bonus payments and equity compensation, are determined by the Company’s Compensation Committee and ratified by the Board of Directors.

Pay Ratio

As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K, we are providing the following information about the relationship of the annual total compensation of our employees and the annual total compensation of Amir Adnani, our President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”; and the “CEO Pay Ratio”). For Fiscal 2022, our last completed fiscal year:

● the median of the annual total compensation of all employees of our Company (other than our CEO) was $94,858; and

● the annual total compensation of our CEO, as reported in the Summary Compensation Table above, was $2,315,872.

Based on this information, for Fiscal 2022 the ratio of the annual total compensation of our CEO to the median of the annual total compensation of all employees was approximately 24 to 1.

We believe our CEO Pay Ratio for Fiscal 2022 demonstrates our pay-for-performance philosophy. Our compensation program consists of both fixed and variable components and is designed to motivate all employees to produce superior short and long-term corporate performance. The ratio of our CEO’s base compensation to the base compensation of our median employee was approximately 24 to 1 because our compensation philosophy aims to position the fixed portion of our CEO’s compensation near the 50^th percentile of his position per the review conducted by GGA. Given our CEO’s level of responsibility, experience and potential, the Compensation Committee awards the CEO a mix of compensation with a higher variable component (i.e., annual bonus, PSOs, RSUs and PRSUs) that is based upon individual performance. As a result, a substantial percentage of our CEO’s total compensation is at risk every year, providing our CEO with greater incentive to increase shareholder value and improve corporate performance over the long term.

264

To identify the median of the annual total compensation of all our employees, we took the following steps:

● we selected July 31, 2022 as the date upon which we would identify the median employee to allow sufficient time to identify the median employee given the global scope of our operations;

● we determined that, as of July 31, 2022, our employee population consisted of approximately 63 individuals working for us and our consolidated subsidiaries, with approximately 60% of these individuals located in the United States, 21% in Canada and 19% in Paraguay. This population consisted of our full-time employees. We do not have part-time, temporary and seasonal employees;

● to identify the median employee from our employee population, we examined the annual base compensation and annual bonus target for Fiscal 2022 for all full-time, part-time and temporary employees employed by us and our consolidated subsidiaries at the start of business on July 31, 2022. We believe that these pay elements are appropriate because it was impractical to gather actual data from multiple payroll systems utilized to pay our worldwide workforce, and the actual achievement of the variable portion of compensation can vary widely from year to year;

● we annualized compensation for any permanent employees that were only employed for part of Fiscal 2022;

● no adjustments were made for cost-of-living differences;

● an average exchange rate for the U.S. dollar for Fiscal 2022 was applied to compensation reported in a foreign currency; and

● all employees except for our CEO were ranked from lowest to highest with the median determined from this list.

Once we identified our median employee, we combined all of the elements of such employee’s compensation for Fiscal 2022 in accordance with the requirements of Item 402(c)(2)(x) of Regulation S-K, resulting in annual total compensation of $94,858. With respect to the annual total compensation of our CEO, we used the amount reported in the “Total” column of our “Summary Compensation Table” included above.

The CEO Pay Ratio reported above is a reasonable estimate calculated in a manner consistent with SEC rules, based on our internal records and the methodology described above. The SEC rules for identifying the median compensated employee allow companies to adopt a variety of methodologies, to apply certain exclusions and to make reasonable estimates and assumptions that reflect their employee populations and compensation practices. Accordingly, the pay ratio reported by other companies may not be comparable to the pay ratio reported above, as other companies have different employee populations and compensation practices and may use different methodologies, exclusions, estimates and assumptions in calculating their own pay ratios.

Executive Services Agreements

Adnani Executive Services Agreement

On July 23, 2009, our Board of Directors approved the entering into of an executive services agreement with Adnani Corp., Mr. Adnani’s services corporation, as amended by certain letter agreements, dated for reference effective as at July 1, 2010 and February 1, 2012, respectively, with a term expiring on July 23, 2012 (the “2009 Adnani Agreement”). The 2009 Adnani Agreement was subject to automatic renewal and remained in effect until June 30, 2013. On July 24, 2013, our Board of Directors approved the entering into of a further amended and restated executive services agreement with Adnani Corp. with an initial term commencing retroactively on July 1, 2013 and expiring on July 1, 2016, as amended by a letter agreement dated August 1, 2015 (collectively the “Adnani Agreement”).

The Adnani Agreement is subject to automatic renewal on a three-month to three-month term renewal basis unless either the Company or Adnani Corp. provides written notice not to renew the Adnani Agreement no later than 90 days prior to the end of the then current or renewal term.

Pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Adnani Agreement: (i) through Adnani Corp., Mr. Adnani provides various consulting services to the Company which are in addition to his duties and responsibilities as our President and Chief Executive Officer; and (ii) we shall pay to Adnani Corp. a monthly fee of $34,000. In consultation with the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors, effective on May 1, 2016, the monthly fee payable to Adnani Corp. was reduced on a non-accrued basis, from its original and stated amount to $30,600, of which a portion was paid in shares of common stock in lieu of cash at the discretion of the Compensation Committee to alter from time to time. Effective on April 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the monthly fee payable to Adnani Corp. was reduced on a non-accrued basis from its original and stated amount to $16,830. Effective on October 1, 2020 and again effective on May 31, 2021, the monthly fee payable to Adnani Corp. was reinstated to the levels in effect prior to April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2016, respectively. Effective on May 31, 2021 and again effective on March 1, 2022, the monthly fee payable to Adnani Corp. was increased to $36,666 and $38,500, respectively. Effective on August 1, 2022, the monthly fee payable to Adnani Corp. was increased to $39,833.

265

If the Company elects to not renew the Adnani Agreement, and provided that Adnani Corp. is in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the Adnani Agreement, the Company shall be obligated to provide a termination package to Adnani Corp. as follows: (i) a cash payment equating to an aggregate of four months of the then monthly fee for each full year, and any portion thereof, of the initial term effective from July 23, 2009 and any renewal period during which the Adnani Agreement was in force and effect and during which Adnani Corp. rendered services thereunder, together with a cash payment equating to Adnani Corp.’s average annual bonus during the most recent two years, payable by the Company to Adnani Corp. within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date; (ii) any expense payment reimbursements which would then be due and owing by the Company to Adnani Corp. to the effective termination date, payable within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date (the “Adnani Outstanding Expense Reimbursements”); (iii) subject to applicable provisions of the Adnani Agreement and the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, all of Mr. Adnani’s then issued and outstanding stock-based equity awards in and to the Company as at the effective termination date shall immediately vest, if not otherwise vested, and shall continue to be exercisable for a period of two years from the effective termination date (the “Adnani Options Extension”); and (iv) confirmation that all of Adnani Corp.’s and Mr. Adnani’s then benefits coverage would be extended to Mr. Adnani for a period ending two years from the effective termination date (the “Adnani Benefits Extension”).

If the Company elects to terminate the Adnani Agreement without just cause (as defined therein), or if Adnani Corp. terminates the Adnani Agreement for just cause, and provided that Adnani Corp. is in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the Adnani Agreement, the Company shall be obligated to provide a termination package to Adnani Corp. as follows: (i) a cash payment equating to an aggregate of 24 months of the then monthly fee, together with a cash payment equating to two times the sum of Adnani Corp.’s average annual bonus during the most recent two years, payable by the Company to Adnani Corp. within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date; (ii) all Adnani Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; (iii) subject to applicable provisions of the Adnani Agreement, the Adnani Options Extension; and (iv) the Adnani Benefits Extension.

If Adnani Corp. elects to terminate the Adnani Agreement for good reason (as defined therein) and including, without limitation, a material diminution of Mr. Adnani’s duties, a failure of the Company to deliver a written agreement to be entered into with any successor, assignee or transferee of the Company to assume and agree to perform the Adnani Agreement, a failure of the Company to pay remuneration or any other breach by the Company of a material provision of the Adnani Agreement, and provided that Adnani Corp. is in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the Adnani Agreement, the Company shall be obligated to provide a termination package to Adnani Corp. as follows: (i) a cash payment equating to an aggregate of 18 months of the then monthly fee, together with a cash payment equating to one and one-half times the sum of Adnani Corp.’s average annual bonus during the most recent two years, payable by the Company to Adnani Corp. over a period of 12 months from the effective termination date; (ii) all Adnani Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; (iii) subject to applicable provisions of the Adnani Agreement, the Adnani Options Extension; and (iv) the Adnani Benefits Extension.

If Adnani Corp. elects to terminate the Adnani Agreement, except for just cause, or if the Company terminates the Adnani Agreement for just cause, Adnani Corp. is not entitled to a termination package of any kind.

The Adnani Agreement will be deemed terminated on the 30^th calendar day following the death or disability of Mr. Adnani, in which case the Company shall be obligated to provide a termination package to Adnani Corp. or Mr. Adnani’s estate as follows, provided that Adnani Corp. is or was in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the Adnani Agreement: (i) a cash payment equating to an aggregate of 12 months of the then monthly fee, together with a cash payment equating to Adnani Corp.’s average annual bonus during the most recent two years, payable by the Company to Adnani Corp. or Mr. Adnani’s estate within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date; (ii) all Adnani Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; and (iii) subject to applicable provisions of the Adnani Agreement, the Adnani Options Extension.

266

Melbye Executive Employment Agreement

On December 15, 2014, our Board of Directors approved the entering into of an executive services agreement with Scott Melbye, as amended by a letter agreement, dated for reference effective as at May 1, 2016, with an initial term commencing retroactively on September 1, 2014 and expiring on February 28, 2017 (collectively, the “Melbye Agreement”).

The Melbye Agreement is subject to automatic renewal on a one-month to one-month term renewal basis unless either the Company or Mr. Melbye provides written notice not to renew the Melbye Agreement no later than 30 calendar days prior to the end of the then current or renewal term.

Pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Melbye Agreement: (i) Mr. Melbye shall provide duties to us commensurate with his position as our Executive Vice President; and (ii) we shall pay to Mr. Melbye a monthly fee of $20,833. In consultation with the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors, effective on May 1, 2016, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Melbye was reduced on a non-accrued basis, from its original and stated amount to $18,750. Effective on June 1, 2016, a portion of monthly fees were paid in shares of common stock in lieu of cash at the discretion of the Company management to alter from time to time. Effective on April 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Melbye was reduced on a non-accrued basis from its original and stated amount to $12,187.50. Effective on October 1, 2020 and again effective on May 31, 2021, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Melbye was reinstated to the levels in effect prior to April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2016, respectively. Effective on March 1, 2022, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Melbye was increased to $21,875.

If the Company elects to not renew the Melbye Agreement, and provided that Mr. Melbye is in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the same, the Company shall be obligated to provide a severance package to Mr. Melbye as follows: (i) a cash payment equating to any outstanding fees and bonuses which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Melbye to the effective termination date, payable within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date (the “Melbye Outstanding Fees and Bonuses”); (ii) any expense payment reimbursements which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Melbye to the effective termination date, payable within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date (the “Melbye Outstanding Expense Reimbursements”); (iii) any pro rata and unused vacation pay which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Melbye to the effective termination date, payable within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date (the “Melbye Outstanding Vacation Pay”); (iv) subject to applicable provisions of the Melbye Agreement and the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, all of Mr. Melbye’s then issued and outstanding stock-based equity awards in and to the Company as at the effective termination date shall immediately vest, if not otherwise vested, and shall continue to be exercisable for a period of 90 calendar days from the effective termination date (the “Melbye Options Extension”); and (v) confirmation that all of Mr. Melbye’s then benefits coverage would be extended to Mr. Melbye for a period ending 90 calendar days from the effective termination date (the “Melbye Benefits Extension”).

If the Company elects to terminate the Melbye Agreement without just cause (as defined therein), or if Mr. Melbye terminates the Melbye Agreement for just cause, and provided that Mr. Melbye is in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the same, the Company shall be obligated to provide a severance package to Mr. Melbye as follows: (i) all Melbye Outstanding Fees and Bonuses, together with a cash payment equating to any additional fees which Mr. Melbye would have been entitled to receive until the end of the applicable initial term or renewal period; (ii) all Melbye Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; (iii) all Melbye Outstanding Vacation Pay; (iv) the Melbye Options Extension; and (v) the Melbye Benefits Extension.

If Mr. Melbye elects to terminate the Melbye Agreement, except for just cause, and provided that Mr. Melbye is in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the Melbye Agreement, the Company shall be obligated to provide a severance package to Mr. Melbye as follows: (i) all Melbye Outstanding Fees and Bonuses; (ii) all Melbye Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; (iii) all Melbye Outstanding Vacation Pay; and (iv) subject to applicable provisions of the Melbye Agreement, all of Mr. Melbye’s then issued and outstanding stock-based equity awards in and to the Company that have vested as at the effective termination date shall continue to be exercisable for a period of 90 calendar days from the effective termination date.

267

If the Company elects to terminate the Melbye Agreement for just cause, the Company shall be obligated to provide a severance package to Mr. Melbye as follows: (i) a cash payment equating to any outstanding fees which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Melbye to the effective termination date, payable within 14 calendar days of the effective termination date; (ii) all Melbye Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; and (iii) all Melbye Outstanding Vacation Pay.

The Melbye Agreement will be deemed terminated on the 30^th calendar day following the death or disability of Mr. Melbye, in which case the Company shall be obligated to provide a severance package to Mr. Melbye or Mr. Melbye’s estate as follows, provided that Mr. Melbye is or was in compliance with the relevant terms and conditions of the Melbye Agreement: (i) all Melbye Outstanding Fees and Bonuses; (ii) all Melbye Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; (iii) all Melbye Outstanding Vacation Pay; and (iv) subject to applicable provisions of the Melbye Agreement, all of Mr. Melbye’s then issued and outstanding stock-based equity awards in and to the Company that have vested as at the effective termination date shall continue to be exercisable for a period of one year from the effective termination date.

Obara Consulting Services Agreement

On August 15, 2007, our Board of Directors approved the entering into of a consulting services agreement with Obara Builders Ltd. (“Obara Ltd.”), Mr. Obara’s services corporation, as amended by a letter agreement, dated for reference effective as at October 14, 2015 (collectively, the “Obara Agreement”). The Obara Agreement is subject to automatic renewal on a three-month to three-month basis unless the Company provides written notice not to renew the Obara Agreement no later than 90 days prior to the end of the then current or renewal term.

Pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Obara Agreement: (i) Mr. Obara provides various services to the Company which are in addition to his duties and responsibilities as our Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer; and (ii) we shall pay to Mr. Obara a monthly fee of CA$13,750. In consultation with the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors, effective on May 1, 2016, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Obara was reduced on a non-accrued basis, from its original and stated amount to CA$12,375, of which a portion was paid in shares of common stock in lieu of cash at the discretion of the Compensation Committee to alter from time to time. Effective on April 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Obara was reduced on a non-accrued basis from its original and stated amount to CA$8,043.75. Effective on October 1, 2020 and again effective on May 31, 2021, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Obara was reinstated to the levels in effect prior to April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2016, respectively. Effective on May 31, 2021 and again effective on March 1, 2022, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Obara was increased to CA$15,000 and CA$15,750, respectively.

If the Company elects to not renew the Obara Agreement or any party elects to terminate the Obara Agreement, Mr. Obara’s obligation to provide the services to the Company will continue only until the effective termination date and the Company shall be obligated to provide to Mr. Obara: (i) any fees which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Obara to the effective termination date; (ii) any expense payment reimbursements which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Obara to the effective termination date (the “Obara Outstanding Expense Reimbursements”); (iii) any pro rata and unused vacation pay which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Obara to the effective termination date (the “Obara Outstanding Vacation Pay”); (iv) subject to applicable provisions of the Obara Agreement and the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, the vested portion of all Mr. Obara’s then issued and outstanding stock-based equity awards in and to the Company as at the effective termination date shall continue to be exercisable for a period of 90 calendar days following the effective termination date (the “Obara Options”); and (v) confirmation that all of Mr. Obara’s then benefits coverage would be covered until the effective termination date (the “Obara Benefits”).

The Obara Agreement will be deemed terminated on the 30^th calendar day following the death or disability of Mr. Obara, in which case the Company shall be obligated to provide to Mr. Obara: (i) any fees which would then be due and owing by the Company to Mr. Obara to the effective termination date; (ii) Obara Outstanding Expense Reimbursements; (iii) the Obara Outstanding Vacation Pay; (iv) the Obara Options; and (v) the Obara Benefits.

Obara Ltd. was dissolved in Fiscal 2016 and, as a result the Obara Agreement was terminated. However, the Company’s and Mr. Obara’s ongoing obligations remain as contemplated and as set forth in the Obara Agreement.

268

Director Services Agreement

Abraham Appointment Letter

On October 14, 2015, our Board of Directors approved the entering into of an appointment letter with Spencer Abraham dated for reference effective as at October 1, 2015 (the “Abraham Agreement”).

Pursuant to the Abraham Agreement: (i) Mr. Abraham was appointed as non-executive Chairman of our Board of Directors and shall provide duties to us commensurate with his position; (ii) we shall pay to Mr. Abraham a monthly fee of $10,833; and (iii) we shall pay to Mr. Abraham an annual fee of $20,000 in connection with his tenure as a director of our Company.

In consultation with the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors, effective on May 1, 2016: (i) the monthly fee payable to Mr. Abraham was reduced on a non-accrued basis, from its original and stated amount to $9,750, of which a portion was paid in shares of common stock in lieu of cash; and (ii) the annual fee payable to Mr. Abraham was reduced on a non-accrued basis, from its original and stated amount to $18,000, of which a portion was paid in shares of common stock in lieu of cash at the discretion of the Company management to alter from time to time. Effective on April 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic: (i) the monthly fee payable to Mr. Abraham was reduced on a non-accrued basis from its original and stated amount to $6,337.50; and (ii) the annual fee payable to Mr. Abraham was reduced on a non-accrued basis, from its original and stated amount to $11,700. Effective on October 1, 2020 and again effective on May 31, 2021: (i) the monthly fee payable to Mr. Abraham was reinstated to the levels in effect prior to April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2016, respectively; and (ii) the annual fee payable to Mr. Abraham was reinstated to the levels in effect prior to April 1, 2020 and May 1, 2016, respectively. Effective on May 31, 2021 and again effective on March 1, 2022, the annual fee payable to Mr. Abraham was increased to $30,000 and $31,500, respectively. Effective on March 1, 2022, the monthly fee payable to Mr. Abraham was set at $10,500.

269

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of September 27, 2022, by:

● each person who is known by us to beneficially own more than 5% of our shares of common stock; and

● each executive officer, each director and all of our directors and executive officers as a group.

The number of shares beneficially owned and the related percentages are based on 345,766,062 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 27, 2022.

For the purposes of the information provided below, shares that may be issued upon the exercise or conversion of stock options, warrants and other rights to acquire shares of our common stock that are exercisable or convertible within 60 days following September 27, 2022, are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the holder for the purpose of computing the number of shares and percentage ownership of that holder, but are not deemed to be outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person.

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1)	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership (1)	Percentage of Beneficial Ownership
Directors and Executive Officers:
Amir Adnani 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3	5,224,767 (2)	1.5%
Spencer Abraham 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N Corpus Christi, Texas, U.S.A., 78401	571,667 (3)	*
David Kong 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3	320,469 (4)	*
Vincent Della Volpe 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N Corpus Christi, Texas, U.S.A., 78401	499,198 (5)	*
Ganpat Mani 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N Corpus Christi, Texas, U.S.A., 78401	404,018 (6)	*
Gloria Ballesta 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3	326,985 (7)	*
Pat Obara 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3	1,255,943 (8)	*
Scott Melbye 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N Corpus Christi, Texas, U.S.A., 78401	1,227,781 (9)	*
All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)	9,830,828 (10)	2.8%
Major Stockholders:
State Street Corporation 1 Lincoln Street Boston, MA, U.S.A., 02111	27,131,990 (11)	7.9%
BlackRock, Inc. 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY, U.S.A., 10055	16,796,041 (12)	5.0%

270

Notes:

* Less than one percent.

(1) Under Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act, a beneficial owner of a security includes any person who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, has or shares: (i) voting power, which includes the power to vote, or to direct the voting of such security; and (ii) investment power, which includes the power to dispose or direct the disposition of the security. Certain shares of common stock may be deemed to be beneficially owned by more than one person (if, for example, persons share the power to vote or the power to dispose of the shares). In addition, shares of common stock are deemed to be beneficially owned by a person if the person has the right to acquire the shares (for example, upon exercise of an option) within 60 days of the date as of which the information is provided. In computing the percentage ownership of any person, the amount of shares of common stock outstanding is deemed to include the amount of shares beneficially owned by such person (and only such person) by reason of these acquisition rights. As a result, the percentage of outstanding shares of common stock of any person as shown in this table does not necessarily reflect the person’s actual ownership or voting power with respect to the number of shares of common stock actually outstanding as of the date hereof. As of September 27, 2022, there were 345,766,062 shares of common stock of the Company issued and outstanding.

(2) This figure represents (i) 3,555,101 shares of our common stock, (ii) 3,000 shares of our common stock held of record by Mr. Adnani’s wife and (iii) stock options to purchase 1,666,666 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(3) This figure represents (i) 566,937 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 4,730 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(4) This figure represents (i) 130,586 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 189,883 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(5) This figure represents (i) 309,380 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 189,818 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(6) This figure represents (i) 215,064 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 188,954 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(7) This figure represents (i) 74,394 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 252,591 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(8) This figure represents (i) 664,277 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 591,666 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(9) This figure represents (i) 752,781 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 475,000 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(10) This figure represents (i) 6,271,520 shares of our common stock and (ii) stock options to purchase 3,559,308 shares of our common stock, which have vested or will vest within 60 days of the date hereof.

(11) This information is based on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC by State Street Corporation on January 10, 2022.

(12) This information is based on a Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC by BlackRock, Inc. on February 3, 2022.

Changes in Control

We have no knowledge of any arrangements, including any pledge by any person of our securities, the operation of which may, at a subsequent date, result in a change in our control.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Related Party Transactions

Except as described in this Annual Report, the Company was not involved in any transactions during Fiscal 2022, and is not involved in any currently proposed transaction, in which the Company was or is to be a participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000 in which a related person had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.

271

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, we incurred $9,171 and $77,033, respectively, in general and administrative expenses due to Blender Media Inc. (“Blender”), a company controlled by Arash Adnani, a direct family member of our President and Chief Executive Officer, for various services including information technology, corporate branding, media, website design, maintenance and hosting, provided to our Company.  Our President and Chief Executive Officer does not sit on any of our Board of Directors’ key committees: Audit Committee; Compensation Committee; Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee; or Sustainability Committee. Blender is an award-winning design agency and a leader of investor marketing in North America. Blender works with over 500 private and publicly traded companies on all major stock exchanges including the NYSE, NASDAQ and TSX.

At July 31, 2022, amounts owed to Blender totaled $3,205 (July 31, 2021: $843).  These amounts are unsecured, non-interest bearing and due on demand.

Our Audit Committee is charged with reviewing and approving all related party transactions and reviewing and making recommendations to the Board of Directors, or approving any contracts or other transactions with any of our current or former executive officers.  The Charter of the Audit Committee sets forth the Company’s written policy for the review of related party transactions.

Director Independence

The Board of Directors has determined that David Kong, Vincent Della Volpe, Ganpat Mani and Gloria Ballesta each qualify as independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE American.

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has served as our independent registered public accounting firm and audited our financial statements for the fiscal years ended July 31, 2022 and 2021.  Aggregate fees for professional services rendered to us by our auditors for our last two years are set forth below:

	Year Ended July 31, 2022		Year Ended July 31, 2021
Audit Fees	$	464,943	$	270,347
Audit Related Fees		-		-
Tax Fees		138,787		33,521
Total	$	603,730	$	303,868

Audit Fees.  Audit fees consist of aggregate fees for professional services in connection with the audit of our annual financial statements, quarterly reviews of our financial statements included in our quarterly reports and services in connection with statutory and regulatory filings.

Audit-Related Fees.  Audit-related fees consist of aggregate fees for assurance and related services related to the audit or review of our financial statements that are not reported under “Audit Fees” above.

Tax Fees.  Tax fees consist of aggregate fees for professional services for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning, primarily, fees related to tax preparation services.

Pre-Approval of Services by the Independent Auditor

The Audit Committee is responsible for the pre-approval of audit and permitted non-audit services to be performed by the Company’s independent auditor. The Audit Committee will, on an annual basis, consider and, if appropriate, approve the provision of audit and non-audit services by the Company’s independent auditor. Thereafter, the Audit Committee will, as necessary, consider and, if appropriate, approve the provision of additional audit and non-audit services by the Company’s independent auditor which are not encompassed by the Audit Committee’s annual pre-approval and are not prohibited by law. The Audit Committee has delegated to the Chair of the Audit Committee the authority to pre-approve, on a case-by-case basis, non-audit services to be performed by the Company’s independent auditor. The Audit Committee has approved all audit and permitted non-audit services performed by its independent auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for Fiscal 2022.

272

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

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

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit
2.1	Merger Agreement & Plan of Merger between Uranium Energy Corp. and Concentric Energy Corp. dated May 5, 2011, including the Concentric Disclosure Schedule pursuant thereto (15)
2.2	Amendment to Merger Agreement & Plan of Merger between Uranium Energy Corp. and Concentric Energy Corp. dated July 5, 2011. (17)
2.3	Share Purchase Agreement between Pacific Road Capital A Pty Ltd., Pacific Road Capital B Pty Ltd., Pacific Road Holdings S.à.r.l and Uranium Energy Corp., dated May 9, 2017 (43)
2.4	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., Bayswater Holdings Inc., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 1 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 2 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 3 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 4 Ltd. and Reno Creek Unit Trust, dated August 7, 2017 (44)
2.5	Purchase Agreement between Uranerz Energy Corporation and Uranium Energy Corp., dated November 1, 2017 (47)
2.6	Share Purchase Agreement between Uranium One Investments Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated November 8, 2021 (60)
3.1	Articles of Incorporation, as amended (1)
3.1.1	Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation (2)
3.2	Bylaws, as amended (30)
4.1	Form of Indenture (27)
4.2	Form of Indenture (40)
4.3	Description of Registrant’s Securities †
10.1	Letter Agreement between La Merced del Pueblo de Cebolleta and Neutron Energy, Inc. (3)
10.2	Limited Liability Company Members’ Agreement of Cibola Resources LLC between Neutron Energy, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. (3)
10.3	Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Cibola Resources LLC between Neutron Energy, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. (3)
10.4	Consulting Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Obara Builders Ltd. (4)
10.5	Agreement to Purchase Assets between the Uranium Energy Corp. and Melvin O. Stairs, Jr. (5)
10.6	Option and Joint Venture Letter Agreement between Uran Limited and the Company dated January 14, 2009 (6)
10.7	Variation Agreement between Uran Limited and the Company dated May 28, 2009 (7)
10.8	Mineral Property Option and Joint Venture Agreement between the Company and Strategic Resources Inc. (8)
10.9	Further Amended and Restated Executive Services Agreement with Amir Adnani Corp. dated July 23, 2009 (9)
10.10	Further Amended and Restated Executive Services Agreement with Harry L. Anthony dated July 23, 2009 (9)
10.11	2009 Stock Incentive Plan (10)
10.12	Uranium Mining Lease dated October 6, 2004 (11)

273

10.13	Uranium Mining Lease dated August 24, 2005 (11)
10.14	Uranium Mining Lease dated August 24, 2005 (11)
10.15	Uranium Mining Lease dated October 6, 2004 (11)
10.16	Uranium Mining Lease dated December 19, 2005 (11)
10.17	Uranium Mining Lease dated April 9, 2007 (11)
10.18	Plant Site Surface Lease dated May 30, 2007 (30)
10.19	Uranium Mining Lease dated September 1, 2005 (30)
10.20	Uranium Mining Lease dated January 14, 2005 (30)
10.21	Uranium Mining Lease dated March 24, 2005 (30)
10.22	Uranium Mining Lease dated February 15, 2006 (30)
10.23	Uranium Mining Lease dated May 24, 2008 (30)
10.24	Uranium Mining Lease dated February 20, 2012 (30)
10.25	Uranium Mining Lease dated May 15, 2009 (30)
10.26	Uranium Mining Lease dated February 21, 2012 (30)
10.27	State Mining Lease dated July 6, 2011 (30)
10.28	Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Harry L. Anthony, dated February 22, 2010 (12)
10.29	2009 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended on May 25, 2010(13)
10.30	Executive Employment Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Mark Katsumata, dated January 5, 2011 (14)
10.31	Share Exchange Agreement among Transandes Resources, Inc., Piedra Rica Mining S.A., UEC Paraguay Corp., and Uranium Energy Corp. dated May 11, 2011, including schedules attached thereto (16)
10.32	Property Acquisition Agreement between Minas Rio Bravo S.A., Compania Minera Rio Verde S.A., Minas La Roca S.A. and Piedra Rica Mining S.A. dated October 25, 2011(18)
10.33	Property Acquisition Agreement between Cooper Minerals, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. dated November 7, 2011(19)
10.34	Amendment No. 1 to Property Acquisition Agreement between Minas Rio Bravo S.A., Compania Minera Rio Verde S.A., Minas La Roca S.A. and Piedra Rica Mining S.A. dated February 28, 2012(20)
10.35	Credit Agreement dated as of July 30, 2013 (21)
10.36	Form of Indemnification Agreement (22)
10.37	Engagement Letter, dated as of October 17, 2013, between Uranium Energy Corp. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC. (23)
10.38	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 17, 2013 (23)
10.39	Form of Warrant Certificate related to Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of October 17, 2013 (23)
10.40	Form of Warrant Certificate with respect to 2,600,000 warrants issued by Uranium Energy Corp. pursuant to Credit Agreement dated July 30, 2013 (24)
10.41	2013 Stock Incentive Plan (25)
10.42	Further Restated and Amended Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Amir Adnani Corp., dated July 24, 2013 (26)

274

10.43	Further Restated and Amended Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Harry L. Anthony, dated July 24, 2013 (26)
10.44	Restated and Amended Executive Consulting Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Mark Katsumata, dated July 24, 2013 (26)
10.45	Controlled Equity OfferingSM Sales Agreement, dated December 31, 2013, between Uranium Energy Corp. and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (28)
10.46	Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated March 13, 2014 (29)
10.47	2014 Stock Incentive Plan (31)
10.48	Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Scott Melbye, executed December 15, 2014 (32)
10.49	2015 Stock Incentive Plan (33)
10.50	Engagement Letter, dated as of June 22, 2015, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and amendment thereto dated June 23, 2015 (34)
10.51	Engagement Letter, dated as of June 24, 2015, among Uranium Energy Corp., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and Cantor Fitzgerald Canada Corporation (34)
10.52	Form of Warrant (34)
10.53	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated June 22, 2015, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and investors in the offering (34)
10.54	Amendment Letter Agreement to the Further Restated and Amended Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Amir Adnani Corp., dated August 13, 2015 (35)
10.55	Appointment Letter dated October 1, 2015 with Spencer Abraham †
10.56	Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated February 9, 2016 (36)
10.57	Share Purchase and Option Agreement between CIC Resources Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. dated March 4, 2016 (37)
10.58	Placement Agency Agreement, dated March 9, 2016, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., Dundee Securities Ltd., Dundee Securities Inc. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (38)
10.59	Form of Warrant (38)
10.60	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated March 6, 2016, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and investors in the offering (38)
10.61	2016 Stock Incentive Plan (39)
10.62	Underwriting Agreement, dated January 17, 2017, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and Haywood Securities Inc. (41)
10.63	Form of Warrant (41)
10.64	Amendment to the Share Purchase and Option Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and CIC Resources Inc., dated March 3, 2017 (42)
10.65	Amendment No. 2 to the Share Purchase and Option Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and CIC Resources Inc., dated June 29, 2017 (46)
10.66	Form of Warrant Certificate with respect to 11,308,728 warrants issued by Uranium Energy Corp. pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement dated May 9, 2017, as amended on August 7, 2017 (45)
10.67	Royalty Purchase Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Uranium Royalty Corp., dated August 20, 2018 (49)
10.68	2018 Stock Incentive Plan (48)

275

10.69	Underwriting Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2018, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H. C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., TD Securities Inc., Eight Capital, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Sprott Private Wealth LP (50)
10.70	Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated December 5, 2018 (51)
10.71	Securities Exchange Agreement, dated March 14, 2019, as entered between the Company and each of Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 1 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 2 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 3 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 4 Ltd. and Reno Creek Unit Trust (52)
10.72	At The Market Offering Agreement, dated April 9, 2019, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H. C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities (USA) Inc., TD Securities (USA) Inc., Eight Capital Corp., Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Cormark Securities (USA) Limited (53)
10.73	2019 Stock Incentive Plan (54)
10.74	Amending Agreement, dated March 19, 2020, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities (USA) Inc., TD Securities (USA) Inc., Eight Capital, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Cormark Securities (USA) Limited (55)
10.75	Underwriting Agreement, dated as of September 21, 2020, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., TD Securities Inc., Eight Capital and Roth Capital Partners, LLC (56)
10.76	Form of Warrant (56)
10.77	Engagement Agreement, dated as of March 16, 2022, as amended on March 18, 2022, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., TD Securities (USA) LLC and Roth Capital Partners, LLC(57)
10.78	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 17, 2022, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and the investors in the offering(57)
10.79	Engagement Agreement, dated as of April 5, 2022, between Uranium Energy Corp. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC.(58)
10.80	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 5, 2022, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and the investors in the offering.(58)
10.81	At The Market Offering Agreement, dated May 14, 2022 by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, TD Securities (USA) Inc., Haywood Securities (USA) Inc., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Eight Capital and BMO Capital Markets Corp.(59)
10.82	Settlement Agreement between Anfield Energy Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated April 19, 2022 (63)
10.83	Property Swap Agreement between Anfield Energy Inc., ARH Wyoming Corp., Highbury Resources Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated April 19, 2022 (63)
10.84	Arrangement Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated June 13, 2022 (64)
10.85	Form of Lock-up Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and certain Consenting Shareholders of UEX Corporation, dated June 13, 2022 (64)
10.86	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated June 23, 2022 (65)
10.87	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated August 5, 2022 (66)
10.88	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated August 15, 2022 (67)
21.1	Subsidiaries of Uranium Energy Corp. †
23.1	Consent of Independent Auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP *
23.2	Consent of Benjamin J. Schiffer *
23.3	Consent of Western Water Consultants, Inc. *
23.4	Consent of Douglas L. Beahm *
23.5	Consent of Clyde L. Yancey *
23.6	Consent of BRS, Inc. *
23.7	Consent of Victor Fernandez-Crosa *
31.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) *
31.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) *
32.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 *
96.1	Technical Report Summary Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project Campbell County, WY, effective date December 31, 2021 (61)
96.2	Technical Report Summary Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY, USA, dated March 31, 2022(62)
96.3	Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Yavapai County, Arizona, USA, dated March 9, 2023*
96.4	Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA, dated March 9, 2023*
96.5	Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, TX USA, dated March 9, 2023*
96.6	Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA, dated March 9, 2023*
101.1NS	Inline XBRL Instance Document
101.SCH	Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

276

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.

(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.

(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.

277

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary

None.

278

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

JULY 31, 2022

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms (Firm ID 271)

Consolidated Balance Sheets

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

F-1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Uranium Energy Corp.

Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Uranium Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries (together, the Company) as of July 31, 2022 and 2021, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended July 31, 2022, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the consolidated financial statements). We also have audited the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of July 31, 2022, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of July 31, 2022 and 2021, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended July 31, 2022 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of July 31, 2022, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

Basis for Opinions

The Company's management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers Place, 250 Howe Street, Suite 1400, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 3S7

T: +1 604 806 7000, F: +1 604 806 7806

“PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.

F-2

Critical Audit Matters

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (i) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (ii) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. - Valuation of the mineral rights and properties

As described in Notes 2 and 3 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of Uranium One Americas, Inc. on December 17, 2021 for total cash consideration of $128,495 thousand, which resulted in $110,693 thousand of mineral rights and properties being recorded. The acquisition was accounted for as a business combination. Management prepared a discounted cash flow model and applied significant judgment in determining the fair value of the mineral rights and properties, including the use of significant assumptions related to future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures, and the discount rate. The Company’s estimates of recoverable mineral resources are based on information prepared by qualified persons (management’s specialists).

The principal considerations for our determination that performing procedures relating to the acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. - valuation of the mineral rights and properties is a critical audit matter are: (i) the significant judgment by management, including the use of management’s specialists, in determining the fair value of the mineral rights and properties, which in turn led to (ii) a high degree of auditor judgment, subjectivity and effort in performing procedures to evaluate audit evidence relating to the valuation of the mineral rights and properties including the significant assumptions related to future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures and the discount rate; and (iii) the audit effort involved the use of professionals with specialized skill and knowledge.

Addressing the matter involved performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence in connection with forming our overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements. These procedures included testing the effectiveness of controls relating to management’s valuation of the mineral rights and properties, including controls over the development of significant assumptions related to future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures and the discount rate. These procedures also included, among others (i) reading the purchase agreement and (ii) testing management’s process for determining the fair value of the mineral rights and properties. Testing management’s process included evaluating the appropriateness of the discounted cash flow model, testing the completeness and accuracy of the data provided by management and evaluating the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures, and the discount rate. Evaluating the reasonableness of the future uranium prices assumption involved comparing those prices to external market and industry data. Evaluating the reasonableness of future operating costs and capital expenditures involved comparing these costs and expenditures to historical operating costs and capital expenditures to operate the mineral rights and properties of comparable mineral rights and properties. The work of management’s specialists was used in performing the procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources. As a basis for using this work, the management’s specialists’ qualifications were understood and the Company’s relationship with management’s specialists was assessed. The procedures performed also included evaluation of the methods and assumptions used by management’s specialists, tests of the data used by management’s specialists and an evaluation of management’s specialists’ findings. Professionals with specialized skill and knowledge were used to assist in the evaluation of the discounted cash flow model and the discount rate assumption.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

September 29, 2022

We have served as the Company's auditor since 2020.

F-3

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars)

	Note(s)		July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents		3,8	$	32,536		$	44,313
Inventories		3,5		66,570			29,172
Prepaid expenses and deposits		3		2,871			1,434
Other current assets				214			126
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS				102,191			75,045
MINERAL RIGHTS AND PROPERTIES		3,6		181,948			63,784
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT		3,7		20,234			7,358
RESTRICTED CASH		3,8		7,251			2,038
EQUITY-ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT		9		24,177			20,730
INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SECURITIES		4,17,21		14,834			-
OTHER NON-CURRENT ASSETS		3		3,612			586
TOTAL ASSETS			$	354,247		$	169,541
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities		10	$	8,162		$	2,764
Other current liabilities		3,13		336			430
Current portion of long-term debt		11		-			10,075
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES				8,498			13,269
ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS		3,12		17,276			3,939
OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES		3,13		1,028			337
DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES				536			541
TOTAL LIABILITIES				27,338			18,086
STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Capital stock
Common stock $0.001 par value: 750,000,000 shares authorized, 289,638,307 shares issued and outstanding (July 31, 2021 - 236,796,866)		14		289			237
Additional paid-in capital				613,179			441,990
Share issuance obligation				-			360
Accumulated deficit				(286,373	)		(291,625	)
Accumulated other comprehensive income				(186	)		493
TOTAL EQUITY				326,909			151,455
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY			$	354,247		$	169,541
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS		5,14,21

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-4

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)

			Year Ended July 31,
	Note(s)		2022			2021			2020
SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE		16	$	23,161		$	-		$	-
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES		16		(15,868	)		-			-
GROSS PROFIT				7,293			-			-
OPERATING COSTS
Mineral property expenditures		6		10,154			4,479			4,582
General and administrative		15		15,026			12,640			9,442
Acquisition-related costs		3		3,444			-			-
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		6,7,12		1,379			393			310
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS				30,003			17,512			14,334
LOSS FROM OPERATIONS				(22,710	)		(17,512	)		(14,334	)
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
Interest expenses and finance costs				(1,519	)		(2,880	)		(3,462	)
Income from equity-accounted investment		9		4,126			5,205			2,968
Debt receivable recovery		4		18,342			-			-
Gain on settlement of debt receivable		4		1,780			-			-
Gain (loss) on disposition of assets		4		6,427			(2	)		2
Unrealized loss on equity securities		4,17,21		(1,898	)		-			-
Realized gain on equity securities				547			-			-
Other income				152			372			210
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)				27,957			2,695			(282	)
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES				5,247			(14,817	)		(14,616	)
DEFERRED TAX BENEFIT				5			4			6
NET INCOME (LOSS) FOR THE YEAR				5,252			(14,813	)		(14,610	)
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME
Translation (loss) gain		9		(679	)		613			(133	)
TOTAL OTHER COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME				(679	)		613			(133	)
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) FOR THE YEAR			$	4,573		$	(14,200	)	$	(14,743	)
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE		18
Basic			$	0.02		$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)
Diluted			$	0.02		$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING,
Basic				271,019,472			210,295,992			183,041,766
Diluted				280,102,073			210,295,992			183,041,766

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-5

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars)

			Year Ended July 31
	Note(s)		2022			2021			2020
NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN):
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss) for the year			$	5,252		$	(14,813	)	$	(14,610	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash flows in operating activities
Stock-based compensation		15		4,681			5,471			3,493
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		6,7,12		1,379			393			310
Amortization of long-term debt discount		11		525			1,376			1,670
Income from equity-accounted investment		9		(4,126	)		(5,205	)		(2,968	)
Debt receivable recovery		4		(18,342	)		-			-
Gain on settlement of debt receivable		4		(1,780	)		-			-
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets		4		(6,427	)		2			(2	)
Unrealized loss on equity securities		4,17,21		1,898			-			-
Realized gain on equity security				(547	)		-			-
Gain on loan extinguishment				-			(286	)		-
Deferred tax benefits				(5	)		(4	)		(6	)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Inventories		5		(37,206	)		(28,961	)		-
Prepaid expenses and deposits				(1,398	)		(113	)		454
Other current assets				17			(6	)		146
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities				3,262			669			(1,281	)
Other liabilities				(170	)		7			(76	)
NET CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES				(52,987	)		(41,470	)		(12,870	)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from share issuances, net of issuance costs		14		168,014			95,436			-
Repayments of long-term debt		11		(10,000	)		(10,000	)		-
Repayments of other loans				(191	)		(145	)		-
Proceeds from government loans				-			-			307
Cash paid for withholding amounts on RSU and PRSU shares				(557	)		(833	)		-
NET CASH PROVIDED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES				157,266			84,458			307
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Net cash used in U1A Acquisition		3		(113,588	)		-			-
Investment in mineral rights and properties		6		(590	)		(80	)		(80	)
Purchase of property, plant and equipment				(620	)		(148	)		(84	)
Purchase of additional interest in equity-accounted investment				-			(3,397	)		-
Investment in term deposits				-			(10,000	)		-
Investment in equity securities		4,21		(15,215	)		-			-
Proceeds from redemption of term deposits				-			10,000			11,832
Proceeds from debt receivable recovery		4		9,171			-			-
Proceeds from sale of equity security				9,980			-			-
Proceeds from disposition of assets				19			-			3
NET CASH (USED IN) PROVIDED BY INVESTING ACTIVITIES				(110,843	)		(3,625	)		11,671
NET CHANGE IN CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH				(6,564	)		39,363			(892	)
CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH, BEGINNING OF YEAR				46,351			6,988			7,880
CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH, END OF YEAR		8	$	39,787		$	46,351		$	6,988

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-6

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except share data)

	Common Stock				Additional Paid-			Share Issuance			Accumulated			Accumulated Other Comprehensive			Stockholders'
	Shares		Amount		in Capital			Obligation			Deficit			Income (Loss)			Equity
Balance, July 31, 2021		236,796,866	$	237	$	441,990		$	360		$	(291,625	)	$	493		$	151,455
Common stock
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility		161,594		-		600			-			-			-			600
Issued under ATM offering, net of issuance costs		47,507,536		48		163,707			-			-			-			163,755
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs		628,803		-		(2,188	)		(360	)		-			-			(2,548	)
Issued upon exercise of stock options		2,152,095		2		932			-			-			-			934
Issued upon exercise of warrants		1,771,869		2		3,323			-			-			-			3,325
Issued for acquisition of mineral properties		111,864		-		426			-			-			-			426
Stock-based compensation
Common stock issued for consulting services		56,273		-		187			-			-			-			187
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan		451,407		-		1,478			-			-			-			1,478
Amortization of stock-based compensation		-		-		2,724			-			-			-			2,724
Net income for the year		-		-		-			-			5,252			-			5,252
Other comprehensive loss		-		-		-			-			-			(679	)		(679	)
Balance, July 31, 2022		289,638,307	$	289	$	613,179		$	-		$	(286,373	)	$	(186	)	$	326,909

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-7

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except share data)

	Common Stock				Additional Paid-			Share Issuance			Accumulated			Accumulated Other Comprehensive			Stockholders'
	Shares		Amount		in Capital			Obligation			Deficit			Income (Loss)			Equity
Balance, July 31, 2019		180,896,431	$	181	$	336,048		$	187		$	(262,202	)	$	13		$	74,227
Common stock
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility		1,743,462		2		1,398			-			-			-			1,400
Issued (accrued) upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs		105,844		-		(154	)		104			-			-			(50	)
Stock-based compensation
Common stock issued for consulting services		380,933		-		351			-			-			-			351
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan		1,509,200		2		1,308			(187	)		-			-			1,123
Amortization of stock-based compensation		-		-		2,085			-			-			-			2,085
Warrants
Issued for consulting services		-		-		23			-			-			-			23
Net loss for the year		-		-		-			-			(14,610	)		-			(14,610	)
Other comprehensive loss		-		-		-			-			-			(133	)		(133	)
Balance, July 31, 2020		184,635,870		185		341,059			104			(276,812	)		(120	)		64,416
Common stock
Issued under direct offerings, net of issuance costs		26,136,364		26		52,515			-			-			-			52,541
Issued under ATM offering, net of issuance costs		15,934,606		16		35,219			-			-			-			35,235
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility		1,249,039		1		1,169			-			-			-			1,170
Issued (accrued) upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs		536,361		1		(1,255	)		256			-			-			(998	)
Issued upon exercise of stock options		3,326,255		3		1,913			-			-			-			1,916
Issued upon exercise of warrants		3,692,865		4		3,585			-			-			-			3,589
Stock-based compensation
Common stock issued for consulting services		312,302		-		953			-			-			-			953
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan		973,204		1		1,593			-			-			-			1,594
Amortization of stock-based compensation		-		-		3,260			-			-			-			3,260
Warrants
Issued in connection with ATM offering		-		-		1,518			-			-			-			1,518
Issued in connection with a direct offering as issuance costs		-		-		461			-			-			-			461
Net loss for the year		-		-		-			-			(14,813	)		-			(14,813	)
Other comprehensive income		-		-		-			-			-			613			613
Balance, July 31, 2021		236,796,866	$	237	$	441,990		$	360		$	(291,625	)	$	493		$	151,455

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-8

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 1: NATURE OF OPERATIONS

Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003. Uranium Energy Corp. and its subsidiary companies and a controlled partnership (collectively, the “Company”) are engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing of uranium and titanium concentrates, on projects located in the United States, Canada and Paraguay.

As at July 31, 2022, we had working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of $93,693 including cash and cash equivalents of $32,536 and uranium inventory holdings of $66,160. Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we received further cash proceeds of $14,808 under the 2021 ATM Offerings (refer to Note 14: Capital Stock).  We believe our existing cash resources and, if necessary, cash generated from the sale of the Company’s liquid assets, will provide sufficient funds to carry out our planned operations for 12 months from the date that our audited consolidated financial statements are issued.  Our continuation as a going concern for a period beyond those 12 months will be dependent upon our ability to obtain adequate additional financing, as our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. 

Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and on debt financing in order to fund our operations, and this reliance is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Our continued operations, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets, are dependent ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations.

NOTE 2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and are presented in thousands of United States dollars. All inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated upon consolidation.

Certain financial statement line items have been reclassified to conform with current year’s presentation.

Exploration Stage

We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our Palangana and Christensen Ranch Mines (collectively, the “ISR Mines”). We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (“S-K 1300”), through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing in-situ recovery (“ISR”) mining, such as our ISR Mines. As a result, and despite the fact that we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines, we remain an Exploration Stage issuer, as defined by the SEC, and will continue to remain as an Exploration Stage issuer until such time proven or probable reserves have been established.

Beginning with our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2022, we report our mineral holdings in accordance with the SEC’s S-K 1300.

Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the Exploration Stage by establishing proven or probable reserves.  Expenditures relating to exploration activities, such as drill programs to establish mineralized materials, are expensed as incurred. Expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities, such as the construction of mine wellfields, ion exchange facilities and disposal wells, are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves are established for that project, after which expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred.

F- 9

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Companies in the Production Stage, as defined by the SEC, having established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to future reporting periods to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold.  We are in the Exploration Stage which has resulted in our Company reporting larger losses than if it had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing mine development activities.  Additionally, there would be no corresponding depletion allocated to future reporting periods of our Company since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage.  Any capitalized costs, such as expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method.  As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Business Combination

We recognize and measure the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date, while transaction costs related to business combinations are expensed as incurred. An income, market or cost valuation method may be utilized to estimate the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, if any, in a business combination. The income valuation method represents the present value of future cash flows over the life of the asset using: (i) discrete financial forecasts, which rely on management’s estimates of resource quantities and exploration potential, costs to produce and develop resources, revenues and operating expenses; (ii) appropriate discount rates; and (iii) expected future capital requirements (the “income valuation method”). The market valuation method uses prices paid for a similar asset by other purchasers in the market, normalized for any differences between the assets (the “market valuation method”). The cost valuation method is based on the replacement cost of a comparable asset at the time of the acquisition adjusted for depreciation and economic and functional obsolescence of the asset (the “cost valuation method”). If the initial accounting for the business combination is incomplete by the end of the reporting period in which the acquisition occurs, an estimate will be recorded. Subsequent to the acquisition date, and not later than one year from the acquisition date, we will record any material adjustments to the initial estimate based on new information obtained that would have existed as of the date of the acquisition. Any adjustment that arises from information obtained that did not exist as of the date of the acquisition will be recorded in the period the adjustments arises.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported revenues and expenses during the reported periods.  Areas requiring significant judgements, estimates and assumptions include the valuation of acquired mineral rights and properties, existence of impairment indicators for the Company’s long-live assets, valuation and measurement of impairment losses on mineral rights and properties, valuation of recoverability of a credit loss, valuation of stock-based compensation and asset retirement obligations. Other areas requiring estimates include allocations of expenditures to inventories, depletion and amortization of mineral rights and properties and depreciation of property, plant and equipment.  Actual results could differ significantly from those estimates and assumptions.

Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of our Company, including its subsidiaries, is the United States dollar. Our subsidiaries, UEC Resources Ltd., UEC Resources (SK) Ltd. and Cue Resources Ltd., maintain their accounting records in their local currency, the Canadian dollar. Piedra Rica Mining S.A., Transandes Paraguay S.A., Metalicos Y No Metalicos S.R.L. and Trier S.A. maintain their accounting records in their local currency, the Paraguayan Guarani. In accordance with ASC 830: Foreign Currency Matters, the financial statements of our subsidiaries are translated into United States dollars using period-end exchange rates as to monetary assets and liabilities and average exchange rates as to revenues and expenses. Non-monetary assets are translated at their historical exchange rates. Net gains and losses resulting from foreign exchange translations and foreign currency exchange gains and losses on transactions occurring in a currency other than our Company’s functional currency are included in the determination of net loss in the period.

F- 10

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents consist of bank deposits and term deposits with an original maturity of three months or less.

Fair Value Measurement

Fair value accounting establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

● Level 1 - Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical unrestricted assets or liabilities;

● Level 2 - Quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability, and model-based valuation techniques for which all significant inputs are observable in the market or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities; and

● Level 3 - Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (supported by little or no market activity).

The financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, are carried at cost, which approximate their fair values due to the immediate or short-term maturity. Investments in equity securities are carried at fair value. Other loans payable and long-term debt are carried at amortized costs which approximate their respective fair values.

Inventories

Inventories are comprised of supplies, work-in-progress and uranium concentrates (“U₃O₈”) from production and purchased uranium concentrates from the market. Expenditures related to the extraction and processing of uranium concentrates and depreciation and depletion charges of extraction and processing plant and equipment are capitalized as work-in-progress and uranium concentrates from production. Costs of purchased uranium concentrates include the purchase price and other direct costs incurred during the purchase process.

Inventories are carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value and are charged to cost of sales using the average costing method.

Equity Investments

Investments in an entity in which our ownership is greater than 20% but less than 50%, or where other facts and circumstances indicate that we have the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financing policies of an entity, are accounted for using the equity method in accordance with ASC 323: Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures. Equity-accounted investments are recorded initially at cost and adjusted subsequently to recognize our share of the earnings, losses or other changes in capital of the investee entity after the date of acquisition. We periodically evaluate whether declines in fair values of our equity investments below the carrying value are other-than-temporary and, if so, whether an impairment loss is required.

F- 11

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Additionally, we hold certain equity investments in entities that we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence. These equity investments represent our ownership interests in certain entities, and therefore meet the definition of an equity security under ASC 321 Investments – Equity Securities and are measured at fair value at each period end, with unrealized holding gains or losses recorded to earnings.

Other Non-Current Assets

Other non-current assets include future expenditures that we have paid in advance but will not receive benefits within one year. Expenses are recognized over the period the expenditures are used or the benefits from the expenditures are received. Transaction costs incurred in connection with acquisitions of long-term assets are also included in other non-current assets, which will be capitalized as acquisition costs if the transaction succeeds or will be written off if the transaction does not complete. Right-of-use (“ROU”) assets recognized in connection with recognition of lease liabilities are also included in Other Non-Current Assets.

Mineral Rights

Acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under S-K 1300, are established for that project.

Where proven and probable reserves have been established, the project’s capitalized expenditures are depleted over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method upon commencement of production. Where proven and probable reserves have not been established, the project’s capitalized expenditures are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method upon commencement of extraction. We have not established proven or probable reserves for any of our projects.

Databases

Expenditures relating to mineral property databases are capitalized upon acquisition while those developed internally are expensed as incurred. Mineral property databases are amortized using the straight-line method over a five-year period during which management believes these assets will contribute to our cash flows. Databases are included in Mineral Rights and Properties in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated to their estimated residual values using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives, as follows:

● Plant and processing facilities: 10 to 21 years;

● Mining and logging equipment and vehicles: 5 to 10 years;

● Computer equipment: 3 years;

● Furniture and fixtures: 5 years; and

● Buildings: 20 years.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets including mineral rights and property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. Management applies judgment to assess whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable giving rise to the requirement to conduct an impairment test. Circumstances which could trigger an impairment test include, but are not limited to: significant decreases in the market price of the asset; significant adverse changes in the business climate or legal factors including significant decreases in uranium or titanium prices; significant increases in reclamation costs and accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of the asset; current period cash flow or operating losses combined with a history of losses or a forecast of continuing losses associated with the use of the asset; and current expectation that the asset will more likely than not be sold or disposed of significantly before the end of its estimated useful life. Recoverability of these assets is measured by comparing the carrying value to the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. When the carrying value of an asset exceeds the related undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recorded by writing down the carrying value of the related asset to its estimated fair value, which is determined using discounted future cash flows or other measures of fair value.

F- 12

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities. We provide a valuation allowance on deferred tax assets unless it is more likely than not that such assets will be realized.

Restoration and Remediation Costs (Asset Retirement Obligations)

Various federal and state mining laws and regulations require our Company to reclaim the surface areas and restore underground water quality to the pre-existing quality or class of use after the completion of mining. We recognize the present value of the future restoration and remediation costs as an asset retirement obligation in the period in which we incur an obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development and/or normal use of the assets.

Asset retirement obligations consist of estimated final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal and environmental remediation costs to be incurred by our Company in the future. The asset retirement obligation is estimated based on the current costs escalated at an inflation rate and discounted at a credit adjusted risk-free rate at inception. The asset retirement obligations are capitalized as part of the costs of the underlying assets and amortized over its remaining useful life. The asset retirement obligations are accreted to an undiscounted value until they are settled. The accretion expenses are charged to earnings and the actual retirement costs are recorded against the asset retirement obligations when incurred. Any difference between the recorded asset retirement obligations and the actual retirement costs incurred will be recorded as a gain or loss in the period of settlement.

Long-Term Debt

Long-Term Debt is carried at amortized cost. Debt issuance costs, debt premiums and discounts and annual fees are included in the long-term debt balance and amortized using the effective interest rate over the contractual terms of the Long-Term Debt.

Leases

We determine if a contractual arrangement represents or contains a lease at inception. Operating leases with lease terms greater than 12 months are included in Other Non-Current Assets, Other Current Liabilities and Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheet. Assets under finance leases are included in Property, Plant and Equipment and the related lease liabilities in Other Current Liabilities and Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

F- 13

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Operating and finance lease ROU assets and lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of the future lease payments over the lease term at the commencement date. When the rate implicit to the lease cannot be readily determined, we utilize the incremental borrowing rate in determining the present value of the future lease payments. The incremental borrowing rate is the rate of interest our Company would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term and the amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment.

The operating lease expenses are recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term and included in general and administration expenses. Short-term leases, which have an initial term of 12 months or less, are not recorded in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We have leases arrangements that include both lease and non-lease components. We account for each separate lease component and its associated non-lease components as a single lease component for all of our asset classes.

Revenue Recognition

Our revenues are primarily derived from the sale of U₃O₈ that we purchased under our Physical Uranium Program.  The sales contracts specify the quantity to be delivered, the price, payment terms and the year of the delivery.  Ten days before the scheduled delivery date, the Company notifies the conversion facility with instructions for a title transfer to the customer. Revenue is recognized once a title transfer of the U₃O₈ is confirmed by the conversion facility.

Stock-Based Compensation

We measure stock-based awards at fair value on the date of the grant and expense the awards over the requisite service period of employees or consultants.  The fair value of stock options is determined using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model.  The fair value of restricted stock units (“RSU”s) is determined using the share price of the Company at the date of grant.  The fair value of performance based restricted stock units (“PRSU”s) is determined using the Monte Carlo Simulation Model.  Stock-based compensation expense related to stock option awards is recognized over the requisite service period on a graded vesting basis.  Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur.

The Company’s estimates may be impacted by certain variables including, but not limited to, stock price volatility, employee stock option exercise behaviors, additional stock option grants, the Company’s performance and related tax impacts.

Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

Basic earnings or loss per share includes no potential dilution and is computed by dividing the earnings or loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings or loss per share reflect the potential dilution of securities that could share in the earnings or loss of our Company. Dilutive securities are excluded from the calculation of our diluted weighted average common shares outstanding if their effect would be anti-dilutive based on the treasury stock method or due to a net loss from continuing operations.

NOTE 3: ACQUISITION OF URANIUM ONE AMERICAS, INC.

On December 17, 2021, we completed the acquisition of all the issued and outstanding shares of Uranium One Americas, Inc. (“U1A”), a Nevada corporation, from Uranium One Investments Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., for total cash consideration of $128,495 (the “U1A Acquisition”). Subsequent to the completion of the U1A Acquisition, we changed the name of U1A to UEC Wyoming Corp. (“UEC Wyoming”) and, in conjunction therewith, we also changed the name of U1A’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Uranium One USA Inc., a Delaware corporation, to UEC Uranium Corp.

The UEC Wyoming Portfolio consists of the Irigaray Processing Facility, the Christensen Ranch Mine and the Ludeman, Antelope, Moore Ranch and Barge Projects located in Wyoming, which creates a Wyoming hub-and-spoke operation for the Company.

F- 14

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The U1A Acquisition was accounted for as a business combination with UEC identified as the acquirer. The Company’s judgement that the U1A Acquisition is a business combination is based on the Company’s assessment that substantially all the fair value of the assets are not concentrated in a single asset or group of similar assets. In accordance with the acquisition method of accounting, the purchase price has been assigned to the assets acquired, and the liabilities assumed, based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. In connection with the U1A Acquisition, we incurred acquisition-related costs of $3,444, which were expensed in Fiscal 2022.

As of July 31, 2022, we had completed the analysis to assign fair values to all assets acquired and liabilities assumed and, therefore, the purchase price allocation for the U1A Acquisition is final.

The table below sets forth the consideration paid and the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed for the U1A Acquisition as at July 31, 2022:

Consideration paid
Cash	$	125,593
Working capital adjustment (1)		2,902
Total consideration paid	$	128,495
Assets acquired and liabilities assumed
Cash & cash equivalents (1)	$	1,183
Prepaid expenses and deposits (1)		1,550
Other current assets (1)		73
Inventories (1)		192
Mineral rights and properties (2)		110,693
Property, plant and equipment (3)		13,004
Restricted cash		13,755
Debt receivable (4)		-
Other non-current assets (5)		1,613
Total assets		142,063
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (1)		96
Other liabilities (5)		765
Asset retirement obligations (6)		12,707
Total liabilities		13,568
Total net assets	$	128,495

Notes:

(1) The working capital adjustment represents the working capital of U1A at the date of the U1A Acquisition, which was comprised of: (i) cash and cash equivalents of $1,183; (ii) prepaid expenses and deposits of $1,550; (iii) other current assets of $73; (iv) inventories of $192; and (v) accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $96.  The fair value of these working capital items approximates their respective carrying values at the date of the acquisition.

(2) The fair value of mineral rights and properties was determined using the discounted cash flow model (being the net present value of expected future cash flows).  Expected future cash flows are based on estimates of future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures and the discount rate.  The Company’s estimates of recoverable mineral resources are based on information prepared by qualified persons (management’s specialists).

(3) The fair value of property, plant and equipment was determined using a replacement cost approach.

(4) Other non-current assets included certain material and supply inventories classified as non-current and ROU assets associated with U1A’s operating leases. The fair value of long-term inventory was determined to approximate its carrying value. ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases are measured based on the present value of the future lease payments over the remaining lease terms at the acquisition date.

(5) The fair value of asset retirement obligations was measured based on the expected costs and timing for final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal, and environmental remediation, which are discounted to present value using credit adjusted risk-free rates.

F- 15

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Since it has been consolidated from December 17, 2021, UEC Wyoming’s net income of $15,616, primarily resulted from the recovery of the Anfield Debt, and operating costs of $4,206 were included in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for Fiscal 2022. 

The following unaudited proforma financial information presents consolidated results assuming the U1A Acquisition occurred on August 1, 2020.

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021
Sales and service revenue	$	23,298	$	192
Net income (loss) for the year		2,626		(21,945	)

NOTE 4: ANFIELD DEBT SETTLEMENT AND PROPERTY SWAP

In connection with the U1A Acquisition, we acquired certain indebtedness totaling $18,342 due from Anfield, which was owed to U1A prior to the closing of the U1A Acquisition (the “Anfield Debt”). We assigned a value of $Nil to the Anfield Debt net of the expected credit loss on the preliminary purchase price allocation given that the probability of the Anfield Debt being collectable was remote at December 17, 2021.

On April 19, 2022, we entered into a debt settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) and a property swap agreement (the “Swap Agreement”; and together with the Settlement Agreement, the “Anfield Agreements”) with Anfield to settle the Anfield Debt. Pursuant to the Anfield Agreements, the Anfield Debt was settled by the payment by Anfield to UEC of $9,171 in cash and the issuance by Anfield to UEC in units of Anfield (each, an “Anfield Unit”) with a deemed value of $9,171, with each such Anfield Unit being comprised of one common share in the capital of Anfield (each, an “Anfield Common Share”) and one Anfield Common Share purchase warrant (each whole such warrant being an “Anfield Warrant”). Each Anfield Warrant entitles UEC to acquire one Anfield Common Share at a price of CA$0.18 until May 12, 2027 (collectively, the “Anfield Debt Settlement”). Completion of the Anfield Agreements was contingent on Anfield raising additional financing.

On June 7, 2022, we closed the Anfield Debt Settlement whereby we received $9,171 in cash and Anfield Units, being comprised of 96,272,918 Anfield Common Shares with a fair value of $7,702 and 96,272,918 Anfield Warrants with a fair value of $3,249. As a result, UEC owns approximately 16% of Anfield’s outstanding shares. 

Anfield Common Shares were measured using the Anfield share price of US$0.08 per share at the date of issuance. Anfield Warrants were measured at US$0.03 per share using the Black-Sholes Valuation Model at the date of issuance with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.93	%
Annual Volatility	64.94	%
Life in Years	4.94
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0	%

Our investment in Anfield Common Shares and Anfield Warrants are accounted for as Investment in Equity Securities with changes in fair value charged to Unrealized Gain or Loss from Equity Securities on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Consequently, we reversed the entire expected credit loss on the debt receivable and recognized a recovery on debt receivable of $18,342 on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.  The fair value of the cash and the Anfield Common Shares and Anfield Warrants totaled $20,122, which exceeded the amounts of $18,342 previously written off at the date of U1A Acquisition by $1,780.  In accordance with ASC 326 Financial Instruments – Credit Loss, as amended by ASU 2019-04, “expected recoveries of amounts previously written off and expected to be written off shall be included in the valuation account and shall not exceed the aggregate of amounts previously written off and expected to be written off by an entity.”  As a result, we recorded a gain of $1,780 on settlement of the Anfield Debt receivable on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

F- 16

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Concurrent with the Anfield Debt Settlement, we completed the Swap Agreement whereby we have received from Anfield 25 ISR uranium projects with a fair value of $6,500 located in Wyoming in exchange for the Company’s  Slick Rock Project and Long Park Project located in Colorado with a total carrying value of $92.  The Property Swap was considered a nonmonetary transaction, and in accordance with ASC 850 – Nonmonetary Transactions, the accounting for nonmonetary transactions should be based on the fair values of the assets involved. The cost of a nonmonetary asset acquired in exchange for another nonmonetary asset is the fair value of the asset surrendered to obtain it, and a gain or loss is recognized on the exchange.  The fair value of properties we surrendered was estimated to be $6,500 using the discounted cash flow model.  As a result, we recorded a gain of $6,408 on disposition of assets on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

NOTE 5: INVENTORIES

As at July 31, 2022, we held 1,800,000 pounds of purchased uranium concentrate inventory. Costs of inventory consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Material and supplies	$	232	$	33
Uranium concentrates from production		178		178
Purchased uranium inventories		66,160		28,961
	$	66,570	$	29,172

As at July 31, 2022, our uranium inventory purchase commitments over the next five fiscal years are as the follows:

	Purchase Commitments in Pounds		Total Purchase Price
Fiscal 2023		1,721,000	$	65,309
Fiscal 2024		895,000		38,913
Fiscal 2025		600,000		23,120
Fiscal 2026		100,000		3,620
Total		3,316,000	$	130,962

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we sold 150,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $7,178 and entered into agreements to sell 600,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $30,675 with delivery dates in October 2022. 

F-17

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 6: MINERAL RIGHTS AND PROPERTIES

Mineral Rights

As at July 31, 2022, we had mineral rights in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay. These mineral rights were acquired through staking and purchase, lease or option agreements and are subject to varying royalty interests, some of which are indexed to the sale price of uranium. As at July 31, 2022, annual maintenance payments of approximately $4.2 million were required to maintain these mineral rights.

As at July 31, 2022, the carrying value of these mineral rights and properties was as follows:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Mineral Rights and Properties
Palangana Mine	$	6,028		$	6,028
Goliad Project		8,689			8,689
Burke Hollow Project		1,496			1,496
Anderson Project		3,470			3,470
Workman Creek Project		1,000			900
Reno Creek Project		31,528			31,528
Christensen Ranch Mine		39,062			-
Ludeman Project		32,306			-
Antelope Project		29,855			-
Moore Ranch Project		4,972			-
Irigaray Project		1,362			-
Barge Project		3,136			-
Gas Hills Project		980			-
Nine Mile Project		954			-
Charlie Project		905			-
Diabase Project		982			547
Yuty Project		11,947			11,947
Oviedo Project		1,133			1,133
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		1,933			1,433
Other Properties		4,139			540
		185,877			67,711
Accumulated Depletion		(3,930	)		(3,930	)
		181,947			63,781
Databases and Land Use Agreements		2,459			2,459
Accumulated Amortization		(2,458	)		(2,456	)
		1			3
	$	181,948		$	63,784

We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under the S-K 1300, for any of our mineral projects. We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Since we commenced uranium extraction at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated.

F- 18

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Mineral property expenditures incurred on our projects were as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Mineral Property Expenditures
Palangana Mine	$	1,060	$	890	$	1,343
Burke Hollow Project		3,647		1,446		1,130
Goliad Project		240		237		190
Anderson Project		108		79		71
Workman Creek Project		33		33		33
Reno Creek Project		821		672		597
Christensen Ranch Mine		1,257		-		-
Ludeman Project		219		-		-
Antelope Project		70		-		-
Moore Ranch Project		143		-		-
Barge Project		37		-		-
Yuty Project		86		31		66
Oviedo Project		619		372		350
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		574		199		230
Other Mineral Property Expenditures		1,240		520		572
	$	10,154	$	4,479	$	4,582

United States Projects

● Palangana Mine, Texas

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Palangana Mine. These agreements are subject to certain royalty and overriding royalty interests indexed to the sale price of uranium and generally have an initial five-year term with extension provisions.

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, we continued with reduced operations at the Palangana Mine to capture residual uranium only.  As a result, no depletion for the Palangana Mine was recorded on our consolidated financial statements.

● Goliad Project, Texas

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Goliad Project. These agreements are subject to certain fixed royalty interests based on net proceeds from sales or indexed to the sales price of uranium and have an initial five-year term with extension provisions.

● Burke Hollow Project, Texas

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Burke Hollow Project. These agreements are subject to fixed royalty interests based on net proceeds from sales and have an initial five-year term with extension provisions.

● Anderson Project, Arizona

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims and state leases at the Anderson Project located in Yavapai County, Arizona.

F- 19

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

● Workman Creek Project, Arizona

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims in the Workman Creek Project located in Gila County, Arizona. The Workman Creek Project is subject to a 3.0% net smelter royalty requiring an annual advance royalty payment of $50 for 2016 and 2017, and $100 thereafter. We have an exclusive right and option to acquire 1.5% of the net smelter royalty for $1,000 at any time until January 21, 2024. Additionally, certain individuals hold an option to acquire a 0.5% net smelter royalty exercisable by paying the Company the sum of $333 at any time until January 21, 2024. We have made all required payments.

● Reno Creek Project, Wyoming

The Reno Creek Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases, various private mineral leases and certain surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium.

During Fiscal 2022, we acquired the following projects through the U1A Acquisition. The fair value of these projects was determined using a discounted cash flow model, being the net present value of expected future cash flows. Refer to Note 3: Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc.

● Christensen Ranch Mine, Wyoming

The Christensen Ranch Mine consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements, which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. These state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine (through end of mining and final reclamation) if held by production.

● Irigaray Project, Wyoming

The Irigaray Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. These state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, through end of mining and final reclamation, if held by production.

● Ludeman Project, Wyoming

The Ludeman Project consists of various U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. These state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales or indexed to the sales price of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, if held by production.

● Moore Ranch Project, Wyoming

The Moore Ranch Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. The state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales or indexed to the sales price of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, if held by production.

F- 20

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

● Barge Project, Wyoming

The Barge Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. We currently do not have a surface use agreement, therefore there are no royalty requirements at this time.

● Antelope Project, Wyoming

The Antelope Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims along with several state mineral leases. Only the state leases are subject to royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales, not the mineral lode claims. The state leases have a term of 10 years and the federal mineral claims are held by payment on an annual basis.

During Fiscal 2022, we acquired the following projects through the Swap Agreement with Anfield. The allocated fair value of these projects was determined based on the identified or historic resources. Refer to Note 4: Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap.

● Gas Hills Project, Wyoming

The Gas Hill Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims and several state mineral leases. Only the state leases are subject to royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, not the mineral lode claims. The state leases have a term of 10 years and the federal mineral claims are held by payment on an annual basis.

● Nine Mile Project, Wyoming

The Nine Mile Lake Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases private mineral leases and surface use agreements. The state mineral leases and the private mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, through end of mining and final reclamation, if held by production.

● Charlie Project, Wyoming

The Charlie Project consists of a single State of Wyoming mining lease. The state mineral lease is subject to a royalty interest based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, with a lease term of 10 years, extendable for the life of exploration and mining. The mineral leases and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, with terms ranging from five to 20 years, some of which have extension provisions.

Canadian Project

● Diabase Project, Canada

During Fiscal 2022, we entered into property purchase agreements whereby we acquired 10 mineral claims as additions to our existing Diabase Project (the “Diabase Additions”) located on the southern rim of the Athabasca Basin uranium district in Saskatchewan, Canada. In connection with the Diabase Additions, we paid total consideration of $435, which consisted of 111,864 shares with a fair value of $426 and transaction costs of $9. As a result of these claims being added to our existing Diabase Project, the carrying value of our Diabase Project increased to $982 ( July 31, 2021: $547).

F- 21

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Paraguay Projects

During Fiscal 2018 and Fiscal 2019, we had communications and filings with the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the former MOPC took the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Paraná Projects were not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages.  While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect our continuing rights in those concessions. 

● Yuty Project, Paraguay

The Yuty Project is a property under one exploitation concession and is subject to an overriding royalty of $0.21 per pound of uranium produced from the Yuty Project.

● Oviedo Project, Paraguay

The Oviedo Project is a property under one exploration permit and is subject to a 1.5% gross overriding royalty over which we have an exclusive right and option at any time to acquire 0.5% for $167 and a right of first refusal to acquire all or any portion of the remaining 1.0%.

● Alto Paraná Titanium Project, Paraguay

The Alto Paraná Titanium Project is a property under certain titanium mineral concessions located in the departments of Alto Paraná and Canindeyú in Paraguay.  The Alto Paraná Titanium Project is subject to a 1.5% net smelter returns royalty. We have the right, exercisable to July 2023, to acquire 0.5% of the net smelter royalty at a purchase price of $500.

During Fiscal 2022, the Company exercised its option to acquire one-half percent of the net smelter returns royalty payable on its Alto Paraná Project for total consideration of $500 pursuant to the terms of a Net Smelter Returns Royalty Agreement under a Share Purchase and Option Agreement as entered between UEC and CIC Resources Inc. in March 2016.   The consideration of $500 paid for this option exercise was capitalized to mineral rights and properties and added to the carrying value of the Alto Paraná Titanium Project.

NOTE 7:         PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

During Fiscal 2022, in connection with the U1A Acquisition, we acquired a satellite plant located at the Christensen Ranch Mine, a central processing plant (the “Irigaray Processing Facility”) and various equipment with a total fair value of $13,004 (refer to Note 3: Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc.). The recently acquired plants, facility and equipment have an estimated useful life of three to 21 years and will be depreciated using the straight-line method over their respective useful lives.

As at July 31, 2022, property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022							July 31, 2021
	Cost		Accumulated Depreciation			Net Book Value		Cost		Accumulated Depreciation			Net Book Value
Plant and Processing Facilities	$	18,964	$	(1,306	)	$	17,658	$	6,643	$	(851	)	$	5,792
Mining Equipment		2,777		(2,382	)		395		2,355		(2,313	)		42
Logging Equipment and Vehicles		2,666		(1,851	)		815		1,924		(1,775	)		149
Computer Equipment		360		(313	)		47		326		(284	)		42
Furniture and Fixtures		190		(177	)		13		185		(172	)		13
Buildings		298		(72	)		226		298		(58	)		240
Land		1,080		-			1,080		1,080		-			1,080
	$	26,335	$	(6,101	)	$	20,234	$	12,811	$	(5,453	)	$	7,358

F-22

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 8: RESTRICTED CASH

Restricted cash includes cash and cash equivalents and money market funds as collateral for various bonds posted in favor of applicable state regulatory agencies in Arizona, Texas and Wyoming, and for estimated reclamation costs associated with our plants, processing facilities and various projects. Restricted cash will be released upon completion of reclamation of a mineral property or restructuring of a surety and collateral arrangement.

As at July 31, 2022, restricted cash consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	2,038		$	1,839
Restricted cash received from U1A Acquisition		13,755			-
(Release) addition of surety bond collateral		(8,550	)		199
Interest received		8			-
Balance, end of year	$	7,251		$	2,038

During Fiscal 2022, we received $8,550 as a result of the partial release of surety bond collateral related to the Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility.

Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash are included in the following accounts:

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021		July 31, 2020
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,536	$	44,313	$	5,149
Restricted cash		7,251		2,038		1,839
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash	$	39,787	$	46,351	$	6,988

NOTE 9: EQUITY-ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT

As at July 31, 2022, we owned 15,000,000 shares of Uranium Royalty Corp. (“URC”), representing a 15.5% ( July 31, 2021: 18.1%) interest in URC.  In addition, two of our officers are members of URC’s board of directors, and one is also an executive officer of URC.  As a consequence, our ability to exercise significant influence over URC’s operating and financing policies continued to exist during Fiscal 2022.  Should URC’s outstanding options and warrants be fully exercised, UEC’s ownership interest would decrease from 15.5% to 13.0%.

URC is a public company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange with the trading symbol URC.V and on NASDAQ with the trading symbol UROY. As at July 31, 2022, the fair value of our investment in URC was approximately $43.7 million.

F- 23

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the changes in carrying value of our equity-accounted investment are summarized as follows:

Balance, July 31, 2019	$	8,680
Share of loss from URC		(89	)
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,057
Translation loss		(133	)
Balance, July 31, 2020		11,515
Addition		3,397
Share of income from URC		732
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		4,473
Translation gain		613
Balance, July 31, 2021		20,730
Share of income from URC		153
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,973
Translation loss		(679	)
Balance, July 31, 2022	$	24,177

During Fiscal 2021, we participated in an equity financing and acquired an additional 1,000,000 common shares of URC at a price of CA$4.10 per share for total consideration of $3,397.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we recorded a gain on dilution of ownership interest of $3,973, $4,473 and $3,057, respectively, as a result of URC issuing more shares from its equity financings and the exercises of certain of URC’s share purchase warrants.

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2020, we recorded a translation loss of $679 and $133, respectively, whereas during Fiscal 2021 we recorded a translation gain of $613, as a result of translating the ending balance of the equity-accounted investment denominated in Canadian Dollars to U.S. Dollars using the period end exchange rates, which was included in other comprehensive income (loss) in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).

NOTE 10: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES

As at July 31, 2022, accounts payable and accrued liabilities consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Trade payables	$	2,019	$	1,301
Accrued purchases		1,497		459
Accrued payroll liabilities		3,946		418
Liabilities assumed from prior acquisitions		700		586
	$	8,162	$	2,764

F-24

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 11: LONG-TERM DEBT

As at July 31, 2022, our long-term debt consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	10,075		$	19,869
Amortization of discount and accrued fees		525			1,376
Payment of anniversary fees		(600	)		(1,170	)
Principal repayment		(10,000	)		(10,000	)
Balance, end of year	$	-		$	10,075

During Fiscal 2021, we made voluntary principal payments totaling $10,000 to certain Lenders, and during Fiscal 2022, we repaid the remaining $10,000 principal amount to the remaining Lender, which decreased the principal balance outstanding to $Nil as at July 31, 2022 under our Credit Facility.

Pursuant to the terms of our Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, during Fiscal 2022, we issued 161,594 shares with a fair value of $600 as payment of anniversary fees to our remaining Lender. During Fiscal 2021, we issued an aggregate of 1,249,039 shares with a fair value of $1,170, and during Fiscal 2020, we issued an aggregate of 1,743,462 shares with a fair value of $1,400, as payments of anniversary fees to the Lenders.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the amortization of debt discount and accrued fees totaled $525, $1,376 and $1,670, respectively, which was recorded as interest expense and included in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we paid $409, $1,255 and $1,627, respectively, in cash for interest on our long-term debt.

NOTE 12: ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS

Asset retirement obligations (“ARO”s) relate to future remediation and decommissioning activities at our Palangana Mine, Hobson Processing Facility, Reno Creek Project and Alto Paraná Titanium Project, as well as our recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility pursuant to the U1A Acquisition.

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	3,939	$	3,735
Accretion		630		204
Assumed from U1A Acquisition		12,707		-
Balance, end of year	$	17,276	$	3,939

The estimated amounts and timing of cash flows and assumptions used for the ARO estimates are as follows:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Undiscounted amount of estimated cash flows	$28,739			$8,221
Payable in years	1	to	23		9	to	21
Inflation rate	1.56%	to	5.32%		1.56%	to	2.17%
Discount rate	3.72%	to	6.35%		5.50%	to	5.96%

During Fiscal 2022, we assumed ARO of $12,707 related to the Christensen Ranch Mine and Satellite Plant and the Irigaray Processing Facility as a result of the U1A Acquisition. The estimated timing of cash flows for the remediation and decommissioning activities ranges from one year to 23 years from the date of U1A Acquisition.

F- 25

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The undiscounted amounts of estimated cash flows for the next five years and beyond are as follows:

Fiscal 2023	$	214
Fiscal 2024		1,300
Fiscal 2025		1,472
Fiscal 2026		2,489
Fiscal 2027		2,509
Remaining balance		20,755
	$	28,739

NOTE 13: LEASE LIABILITIES

The Company primarily has operating leases for corporate offices and processing facilities with a remaining term of 1.0 to 21.9 years as at July 31, 2022.  The lease for the processing facilities has an evergreen option that can continue for so long as they are in operation.  Short-term leases, which have an initial term of 12 months or less, are not recorded on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, total lease expenses include the following components:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2022
Operating Leases	$	274	$	220	$	230
Short-term Leases		1,401		607		445
Total Lease Expenses	$	1,675	$	827	$	675

As at July 31, 2022 and 2021, the weighted average remaining lease term was 16.5 and 17.0 years, and the weighted average discount rate was 4.52% and 4.74%, respectively.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021, and Fiscal 2020, cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of operating lease liabilities totaled $472, $252 and $176, respectively.

Minimum future lease payments under operating leases with terms longer than one year are as follows:

Fiscal 2023	$	291
Fiscal 2024		113
Fiscal 2025		104
Fiscal 2026		104
Fiscal 2027		69
Thereafter		975
Total lease payments		1,656
Less: imputed interest		(472	)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	1,184
Current portion of lease liabilities	$	244
Non-current portion of lease liabilities	$	940

Current lease liabilities are included in Other Current Liabilities, and non-current liabilities are included in Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

F-26

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 14: CAPITAL STOCK

Equity Financing

On September 23, 2020, we completed our September 2020 Offering of 12,500,000 units at a price of $1.20 for gross proceeds of $15,000. Each unit was comprised of one share of our Company and one-half of one share purchase warrant, and each whole warrant entitles its holder to acquire one share at an exercise price of $1.80 per share, exercisable immediately upon issuance and expiring 24 months from the date of issuance. In connection with the September 2020 Offering, we also issued compensation share purchase warrants to agents as part of share issuance costs to purchase 583,333 shares of our Company exercisable at an exercise price of $1.80 per share and expiring 24 months from the date of issuance.

The shares were valued at the Company’s closing price of $0.96 per share on September 23, 2020. The share purchase warrants were valued at $0.23 per warrant using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	0.14	%
Expected Annual Volatility	76.81	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	2.00
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0.00	%

Net proceeds from the September 2020 Offering were allocated to the fair values of the shares and share purchase warrants as presented below:

Fair Value of Shares	$	12,000
Fair Value of Share Purchase Warrants		1,446
Total Fair Value Before Allocation to Net Proceeds	$	13,446
Gross Proceeds	$	15,000
Share Issuance Costs - Cash		(878	)
Net Cash Proceeds Received	$	14,122
Relative Fair Value Allocation to:
Shares	$	12,603
Share Purchase Warrants		1,519
	$	14,122

During Fiscal 2021, we issued 13,668,906 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2020 ATM Offering for net cash proceeds of $29,321.

On March 19, 2021, we completed a registered direct offering of 10,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for net proceeds of $29,084.

On April 8, 2021, we completed a registered direct offering of 3,636,364 shares of the Company’s common stock for net proceeds of $11,316. In connection with the April 2021 Offering, we also issued, on a private placement basis, 181,818 common stock purchase warrants (each, an “Agent Warrant”) to the agent as partial compensation, and each Agent Warrant entitles its holder to acquire one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.125 per share and expiring five years from the date of issuance.

F- 27

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The Agent Warrants were valued at $1.80 per warrant using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	0.85	%
Expected Annual Volatility	72.17	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	5.00
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0.00	%

During Fiscal 2021, we issued 2,265,700 shares of the Company’s common stocks under our May 2021 ATM Offering for net cash proceeds of $6,157.

During Fiscal 2022, we issued 47,507,536 shares of the Company’s common stocks under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $163,814.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we issued a further 3,510,100 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $14,808.

Share Purchase Warrants

A continuity schedule of outstanding share purchase warrants as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the periods, is as follows:

	Number of Warrants			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Balance, July 31, 2019		19,443,910		$	1.94
Issued		300,000			1.38
Expired		(12,021,929	)		1.87
Balance, July 31, 2020		7,721,981			2.03
Issued in connection with September 2020 Offering		6,833,333			1.80
Issued in connection with April 2021 Offering		181,818			4.13
Exercised		(8,240,505	)		1.99
Expired		(1,109,304	)		1.87
Balance, July 31, 2021		5,387,323			1.90
Exercised		(1,771,869	)		1.88
Balance, July 31, 2022		3,615,454		$	1.92

A summary of share purchase warrants outstanding and exercisable as at July 31, 2022 is as follows:

Weighted Average Exercise Price		Number of Warrants Outstanding		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Years)		Expiry Date
$	1.80		3,408,636		0.15	September 23, 2022
	1.64		25,000		0.80	May 21, 2023
	4.13		181,818		3.68	April 5, 2026
$	1.92		3,615,454		0.33

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we received cash proceeds totaling $3,325, $3,589 and $Nil, respectively, from the exercise of share purchase warrants.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we received cash proceeds totaling $6,141 from the exercise of share purchase warrants.

F-28

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 15: STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

Stock Options

As at July 31, 2022, we had one stock option plan, our 2022 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2022 Plan”), which superseded and replaced the Company’s 2021 Stock Incentive Plan (collectively the “Stock Incentive Plan”), such that no further shares are issuable under the prior plan.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we granted stock options under the Stock Incentive Plan to certain of our directors, officers, employees and consultants to purchase an aggregate of 1,279,692, 959,588 and 4,838,900 shares of the Company, respectively, which are subject to a 24-month vesting provision whereby, at the end of each of the first three and six months after the grant date, 12.5% of the total stock options become exercisable, and whereby at the end of each of 12, 18 and 24 months after the grant date, 25% of the total stock options become exercisable. In addition, during Fiscal 2020, we granted performance stock options (the “PSO”s) under the Stock Incentive Plan to certain of our directors and officers to purchase an aggregate of 1,325,000 shares of the Company. The PSOs are subject to a three-year vesting provision whereby one-third of the total PSOs become exercisable at the end of each of the first, second and third year after the date of grant.

The fair value of these stock options was estimated at the date of grant, using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model, with the following weighted average assumptions:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate		2.73	%		0.70	%		0.40	%
Expected Volatility		78.75	%		72.57	%		60.48	%
Expected Life in Years		4.96			5.00			4.93
Expected Dividend Yield		0	%		0	%		0	%
Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value	$	2.45		$	1.30		$	0.45

A continuity schedule of outstanding stock options as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year periods, is as follows:

	Number of Stock Options			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Balance, July 31, 2019		15,738,350		$	1.30
Granted		6,163,900			0.95
Cancelled/Forfeited		(179,344	)		1.02
Expired		(6,208,156	)		1.39
Balance, July 31, 2020		15,514,750			1.13
Granted		959,588			2.21
Exercised		(4,705,005	)		1.09
Expired		(1,365,000	)		1.48
Balance, July 31, 2021		10,404,333			1.21
Granted		1,279,692			3.80
Exercised		(2,728,498	)		1.17
Expired		(75,000	)		2.50
Balance, July 31, 2022		8,880,527		$	1.58

F- 29

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The table below sets forth the number of shares issued and cash received upon exercise of stock options:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Number of Options Exercised on Cash Basis		872,580		1,734,127		-
Number of Options Exercised on Forfeiture Basis		1,855,918		2,970,878		-
Total Number of Options Exercised		2,728,498		4,705,005		-
Number of Shares Issued on Cash Exercise		872,580		1,734,127		-
Number of Shares Issued on Forfeiture Basis		1,279,515		1,592,128		-
Total Number of Shares Issued Upon Exercise of Options		2,152,095		3,326,255		-
Cash Received from Exercise of Stock Options	$	934	$	1,916	$	-
Total Intrinsic Value of Options Exercised	$	8,336	$	6,882	$	-

A continuity schedule of outstanding unvested stock options at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year periods, is as follows:

	Number of Unvested Stock Options			Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		3,310,600		$	0.59
Granted		6,163,900			0.45
Vested		(2,590,154	)		0.60
Cancelled/Forfeited		(86,875	)		0.43
Balance, July 31, 2020		6,797,471			0.46
Granted		959,588			1.30
Vested		(3,865,852	)		0.47
Balance, July 31, 2021		3,891,207			0.66
Granted		1,279,692			2.45
Vested		(2,984,745	)		0.59
Balance, July 31, 2022		2,186,154		$	1.79

As at July 31, 2022, the aggregate intrinsic value of all outstanding stock options granted was estimated at $23,292 (vested: $20,469 and unvested: $2,823). As at July 31, 2022, the unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested stock options was $3,196 expected to be recognized over 1.17 years.

A summary of stock options outstanding and exercisable as at July 31, 2022 is as follows:

			Options Outstanding						Options Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices			Outstanding at July 31, 2022		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Exercisable at July 31, 2022		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)
$0.80	to	$0.99		3,968,499	$	0.92		7.55		3,968,499	$	0.92		7.55
$1.00	to	$1.99		2,738,875		1.29		4.23		2,297,207		1.32		3.52
$2.00	to	$2.99		903,461		2.22		8.95		416,167		2.22		8.94
$3.00	to	$3.98		1,269,692		3.80		9.75		12,500		3.18		4.91
				8,880,527	$	1.58		6.98		6,694,373	$	1.14		6.25

F- 30

 

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Restricted Stock Units

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the Company granted RSUs to certain directors and officers of the Company under our Stock Incentive Plan. RSUs granted during Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021 have a vesting period of three years from the grant date, whereby one-third of the RSUs will vest at the end of the first, second and third year, respectively, from the date of grant. RSUs granted during Fiscal 2020 have a vesting period of three years from the grant date, whereby one-half of the RSUs will vest at the end of the first year, and one-third of the remaining one-half will vest at the end of each of the first, second and third year, respectively, from the date of grant. The fair value of these RSUs were determined using the share prices at the respective grant dates.

A continuity schedule of outstanding RSUs as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year end periods, is as follows:

	Number of Restricted Stock Units			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		465,000		$	0.94
Granted		1,305,000			0.91
Vested		(155,000	)		0.94
Balance, July 31, 2020		1,615,000			0.92
Granted		407,617			2.15
Vested		(1,025,005	)		0.91
Balance, July 31, 2021		997,612			1.42
Granted		346,790			4.03
Vested		(508,368	)		1.25
Balance, July 31, 2022		836,034		$	2.61

A summary of outstanding unvested RSUs as at July 31, 2022, is as follows:

Grant Date	Number of Restricted Stock Units		Grant Date Fair Value		Remaining Life (Years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value
July 16, 2020		217,498	$	0.91		0.96	$	913
July 21, 2021		271,746		2.15		1.98		1,141
May 01, 2022		58,824		4.25		2.75		247
July 29, 2022		287,966		3.98		3.00		1,209
		836,034	$	2.61		2.12	$	3,510

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the number of RSUs vested, the net RSU shares issued and the net RSU shares forfeited as payments of tax withholding amounts are as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Number of RSUs vested		508,368		1,025,005		155,000
Number of net RSU shares issued		267,681		536,361		105,844
Number of RSU shares forfeited as payments of withholding amount		240,687		488,644		49,156

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, stock-based compensation relating to the RSUs were $780, $1,060 and $309, respectively. As at July 31, 2022, unrecognized compensation costs related to unvested RSUs totaled $1,749, which is expected to be recognized over a period of approximately 1.85 years.

F- 31

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

Performance Based Restricted Stock Units

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, the Company granted 120,816 and 246,475 target PRSUs (the “Target PRSUs”) and allocated up to the same amount of respective PRSUs (the “Additional PRSUs”, and together with the Target PRSUs, the “PRSUs”) respectively, to the Company’s executive officers under our Stock Incentive Plan. These PRSUs vest based on certain performance goals measured by the Company’s share price relative to the Global X Uranium ETF share price over a three-year period (the “Performance Period”). The PRSUs vest based on relative Total Shareholder Return’s (“TSR”) (stock price appreciation) over the measurement period from the grant date of the PRSUs (the “Measurement Period”). No PRSUs were granted in Fiscal 2020.

These PRSUs have a market condition considered in the determination of the fair value such that the ultimate number of PRSUs that vest will be determined by the Company’s share performance relative to the Global X Uranium ETF share price from the grant date over the Performance Period. Depending on the TSR performance, the percentage eligible to vest at the end of the respective Measurement Period would range from 0% to 200% of the Target PRSUs for that Measurement Period. The vested PRSUs will accrue annually and will not settle until the end of the Performance Period. Each vested PRSU converts into one common share of the Company at the end of the Performance Period with no cash settlement alternatives. The PRSUs carry neither rights to dividends nor voting rights. The Company accounts for the PRSUs as an equity-settled plan.

The fair values of the Target PRSUs granted in Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021 were valued using the Monte Carlo Simulation Model at the date of grant with the following principal assumptions. No PRSUs were granted in Fiscal 2020.

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate		2.80	%		0.39	%
Expected Volatility		90.90	%		78.03	%
Expected Dividend Yield		0	%		0	%
Expected Life in Years		3			3
Correlation		76.89	%		66.02	%
Grant Price	$	3.98		$	2.15
Grant Date Fair Value	$	4.80		$	2.48

During Fiscal 2022, an aggregate of 445,000 PRSUs vested based on UEC’s share performance relative to the Global X Uranium ETF. These vested PRSUs, together with 222,500 and 90,001 PRSUs vested and accrued during Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, respectively, were settled in July 2022, which was the end of three-year Performance Period. As a result, 757,501 PRSU shares vested and were settled, with 361,122 net PRSU shares being issued and 396,379 net PRSU shares being forfeited as payment of tax withholding amounts.

F- 32

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

A continuity schedule of unvested PRSUs comprised of Target PRSUs and Additional PRSUs as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year end periods, is as follows:

	Number of Unvested PRSUs			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		890,000		$	1.15
Forfeited		(132,499	)		1.15
Balance, July 31, 2020		757,501			1.15
Granted		492,950			2.48
Balance, July 31, 2021		1,250,451			1.67
Granted		241,632			4.80
Vested		(757,501	)		1.15
Balance, July 31, 2022		734,582		$	3.24

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, stock-based compensation related to amortization of PRSUs totaled $293, $156 and $274, respectively. As at July 31, 2022, unrecognized compensation costs relating to unvested PRSUs totaled $981, which is expected to be recognized over a period of approximately 2.41 years.

Stock-Based Compensation

A summary of stock-based compensation expense for Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, is as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Stock-Based Compensation for Consultants
Common stock issued to consultants	$	770	$	877	$	540
Amortization of stock option expenses		220		288		240
		990		1,165		780
Stock-Based Compensation for Management
Common stock issued to management		-		135		225
Amortization of stock option expenses		471		774		645
Amortization of RSU and PRSU expenses		1,035		1,215		583
		1,506		2,124		1,453
Stock-Based Compensation for Employees
Common stock issued to employees		1,187		1,200		635
Amortization of stock option expenses		960		982		640
Amortization of RSU expenses		38		-		-
		2,185		2,182		1,275
Settlement of share issuance obligation		-		-		(15	)
	$	4,681	$	5,471	$	3,493

NOTE 16: SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE AND COST OF SALES AND SERVICES

During Fiscal 2022, we recorded sales of $22,946 from the sales of 500,000 pounds of our uranium concentrate inventory. During Fiscal 2022, we recorded revenue from toll processing services of $215, which was generated from processing uranium resins according to a toll processing agreement that we inherited from the U1A Acquisition. No sales of purchased inventory and revenue from toll processing services are recorded in Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020.

F- 33

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The table below provides a breakdown of sales and service revenue and cost of sales and service revenue:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021		2020
Sales of purchased uranium inventory	$	22,946		$	-	$	-
Revenue from toll processing services		215			-		-
Total sales and service revenue	$	23,161		$	-	$	-
Cost of purchased uranium inventory	$	(15,689	)	$	-	$	-
Cost of toll processing services		(179	)		-		-
Total cost of sales and services	$	(15,868	)	$	-	$	-

Of the total sales of purchased uranium inventory, sales to customer A represent 57% and sales to customer B represent 43%.

NOTE 17: UNREALIZED LOSS ON EQUITY SECURITIES

During Fiscal 2022, we recorded unrealized loss on equity securities as a result of re-valuating our investments in equity securities as at July 31, 2022. Our investments in Anfield and UEX shares are level 1 financial instruments, which was re-valuated using the quoted share prices, and our investment in Anfield Warrants is a level 2 financial instrument, which was re-valuated using observable inputs using the Black-Sholes Valuation Model with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.59	%
Annual Volatility	64.76	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	4.78
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0	%

Unrealized loss on equity securities for Fiscal 2022 consisted for the following:

Urealized loss from investment in Anfield shares	$	(1,925	)
Urealized loss from investment in Anfield warrants		(1,105	)
Urealized gain from investment in UEX shares		1,132
Total	$	(1,898	)

NOTE 18: NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

The following table reconciles the weighted average number of shares used in the computation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share for Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020:

	Year Ended July 31,
Numerator	2022		2021			2020
Net Income (Loss) for the Year	$	5,252	$	(14,813	)	$	(14,610	)
Denominator
Basic Weighted Average Number of Shares		271,019,472		210,295,992			183,041,766
Dilutive Effect of Stock Awards and Warrants		9,082,601		-			-
Diluted Weighted Average Number of Shares		280,102,073		210,295,992			183,041,766
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic	$	0.02	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted	$	0.02	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)

For Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, all outstanding share purchase warrants and stock awards including stock options, RSUs and PRSUs were excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share as their effects would be anti-dilutive.

F-34

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

NOTE 19: INCOME TAXES

As at July 31, 2022, we had U.S. net operating loss carry-forwards of approximately $199.0 million and Canadian net operating loss carry-forwards of approximately $4.5 million in Canadian dollars that may be available to reduce future years’ taxable income.  These carry-forwards will begin to expire, if not utilized, commencing in 2023.  In addition, as at July 31, 2022, we had U.S. net operating loss totaling $95.9 million and interest expenses of $5.5 million subject to IRC section 163(j) limitation, which will be carried forward indefinitely as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017.  Future tax benefits which may arise as a result of these losses have not been recognized in these consolidated financial statements, as their realization has been determined not likely to occur and, accordingly, we have recorded a full valuation allowance for the deferred tax assets relating to these tax loss carry-forwards.

We review the valuation allowance requirements on an annual basis based on projected future operations. When circumstances change resulting in a change in management’s judgement about the recoverability of deferred tax assets, the impact of the change on the valuation allowance will generally be reflected in current income.

A reconciliation of income tax computed at the federal and state statutory tax rates including the Company’s effective tax rate is as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Federal income tax provision rate		21.00	%		21.00	%		21.00	%
State income tax provision rate, net of federal income tax effect		2.95	%		0.83	%		0.72	%
Total income tax provision rate		23.95	%		21.83	%		21.72	%

The actual income tax provisions differ from the expected amounts calculated by applying the combined federal and state corporate income tax rates to our loss before income taxes.

The components of these differences are as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Income (Loss) before income taxes	$	5,247		$	(14,817	)	$	(14,616	)
Corporate tax rate		23.95	%		21.83	%		21.72	%
Expected tax expense (recovery)		1,257			(3,235	)		(3,175	)
Increase (decrease) resulting from
Foreign tax rate differences		158			77			86
Permanent differences		(326	)		(217	)		170
Prior year true-up		6			(270	)		118
Change in state tax rate		(460	)		(406	)		(553	)
Foreign exchange rate differences		(4	)		(56	)		17
Other		188			163			72
Change in valuation allowance		(824	)		3,940			3,233
Tax adjustment from operations		(5	)		(4	)		(32	)
Unrealized loss, other comprehensive loss		-			-			26
Deferred tax benefits	$	(5	)	$	(4	)	$	(6	)

We have incurred taxable losses for all years since inception and, accordingly, no provision for current income tax has been recorded for the current or any prior fiscal years.

F- 35

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

As at July 31, 2022, we re-evaluated the realizability of our tax loss carry-forwards and our conclusion that the realization of these tax loss carry-forwards is not likely to occur remains unchanged. As a result, we will continue to record a full valuation allowance for the deferred tax assets relating to the remaining tax loss carry-forwards.

The components of income (loss) from operations before income taxes, by tax jurisdiction, are as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2020			2019
United States	$	6,054		$	(14,297	)	$	(13,962	)
Canada		268			94			54
Paraguay		(1,075	)		(614	)		(708	)
	$	5,247		$	(14,817	)	$	(14,616	)

The Company’s deferred tax assets (liabilities) are as follows:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Deferred tax assets (liabilities)
Mineral properties	$	1,401		$	1,277
Exploration costs		1,875			6,547
Stock option expense		4,651			4,623
Depreciable property		1,078			(1,163	)
Inventories		(3,955	)		(3,608	)
Asset retirement obligations		2,924			107
Other		654			81
Section 163(j) interest expense carry forwards		2,040			1,061
Loss carry forwards		70,162			49,988
		80,830			58,913
Valuation allowance		(80,454	)		(58,913	)
Deferred tax assets		-			-
Deferred tax assets, other comprehensive loss		-			-
Deferred tax liabilities
Mineral properties		(536	)		(541	)
Net deferred tax liabilities	$	(536	)	$	(541	)

As the criteria for recognizing deferred tax assets have not been met due to the uncertainty of realization, a valuation allowance of 100% has been recorded for the current and prior years.

The Company’s U.S. net operating loss carry-forwards expire as follows:

July 31, 2023	$	1,887
July 31, 2024		2,035
July 31, 2025		2,398
July 31, 2026		8,461
July 31, 2027		6,807
Remaining balance		177,442
	$	199,030

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a change in ownership under IRC Section 382 has occurred as a result of the Company’s acquisitions in prior years. When an ownership change has occurred, the utilization of these losses against future income would be subject to an annual limitation, which would be equal to the value of the acquired company immediately prior to the change in ownership multiplied by the IRC Section 382 rate in effect during the month of the change.

F- 36

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The Company’s Canadian net operating loss carry-forwards in Canadian dollars expire as follows:

July 31, 2027	$	183
July 31, 2028		630
July 31, 2029		769
July 31, 2030		764
July 31, 2031		1,206
Remaining balance		980
	$	4,532

NOTE 20: SEGMENTED INFORMATION

We currently operate in a single reportable segment and we are focused on uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing of uranium concentrates.

As at July 31, 2022, long-term assets located in the U.S. were $196,137 or 78% of our total long-term assets of $252,056.

The table below provides a breakdown of the Company’s long-term assets by geographic segment:

	July 31, 2022
Balance Sheet Items	United States								Canada		Paraguay		Total
	Texas		Arizona		Wyoming		Other States
Mineral Rights and Properties	$	12,420	$	4,727	$	148,720	$	85	$	982	$	15,014	$	181,948
Property, Plant and Equipment		7,068		-		12,773		-		26		367		20,234
Restricted Cash		1,949		15		5,287		-		-		-		7,251
Equity-Accounted Investment		-		-		-		-		24,177		-		24,177
Investment in Equity Securities		-		-		-		-		14,834		-		14,834
Other Non-Current Assets		1,447		-		1,646		-		519		-		3,612
Total Long-Term Assets	$	22,884	$	4,742	$	168,426	$	85	$	40,538	$	15,381	$	252,056

	July 31, 2021
Balance Sheet Items	United States								Canada		Paraguay		Total
	Texas		Arizona		Wyoming		Other States
Mineral Rights and Properties	$	12,421	$	4,627	$	31,528	$	147	$	547	$	14,514	$	63,784
Property, Plant and Equipment		6,646		-		313		-		34		365		7,358
Restricted Cash		1,949		15		74		-		-		-		2,038
Equity-Accounted Investment		-		-		-		-		20,730		-		20,730
Other Non-Current Assets		522		-		16		-		48		-		586
Total Long-Term Assets	$	21,538	$	4,642	$	31,931	$	147	$	21,359	$	14,879	$	94,496

F- 37

URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

JULY 31, 2022

The table below provides a breakdown of our operating results by geographic segment. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated.

	Year ended July 31, 2022
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Sales and service revenue	$	-		$	-		$	215		$	22,946		$	-		$	-		$	23,161
Cost of sales and services		-			-			(179	)		(15,689	)		-			-			(15,868	)
Gross profit		-			-			36			7,257			-			-			7,293
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures		5,525			156			3,117			72			5			1,279			10,154
General and administrative		9,817			15			922			1			4,226			45			15,026
Acquisition-related costs		-			-			3,444			-			-			-			3,444
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		375			-			983			-			16			5			1,379
Total operating costs		15,717			171			8,466			73			4,247			1,329			30,003
Income (loss) from operations		(15,717	)		(171	)		(8,430	)		7,184			(4,247	)		(1,329	)		(22,710	)
Other income (expenses)		(1,096	)		(19	)		6,074			-			22,994			4			27,957
Income (loss) before income taxes	$	(16,813	)	$	(190	)	$	(2,356	)	$	7,184		$	18,747		$	(1,325	)	$	5,247

	Year ended July 31, 2021
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures	$	3,002		$	125		$	672		$	69		$	8		$	603		$	4,479
General and administrative		9,596			15			86			2			2,894			47			12,640
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		358			-			15			-			17			3			393
Total operating costs		12,956			140			773			71			2,919			653			17,512
Loss from operations		(12,956	)		(140	)		(773	)		(71	)		(2,919	)		(653	)		(17,512	)
Other income (expenses)		(2,542	)		(19	)		(10	)		-			5,259			7			2,695
Loss before income taxes	$	(15,498	)	$	(159	)	$	(783	)	$	(71	)	$	2,340		$	(646	)	$	(14,817	)

	Year ended July 31, 2020
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures	$	3,166		$	104		$	597		$	70		$	-		$	645		$	4,582
General and administrative		6,983			14			112			2			2,272			59			9,442
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		274			-			15			1			12			8			310
Total operating costs		10,423			118			724			73			2,284			712			14,334
Loss from operations		(10,423	)		(118	)		(724	)		(73	)		(2,284	)		(712	)		(14,334	)
Other income (expenses)		(3,418	)		(19	)		2			-			3,148			5			(282	)
Loss before income taxes	$	(13,841	)	$	(137	)	$	(722	)	$	(73	)	$	864		$	(707	)	$	(14,616	)

NOTE 21: SUBSEQUENT EVENT

On June 13, 2022, we entered into a definitive agreement with UEX pursuant to which UEC would acquire all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX in an all-share transaction by way of the UEX Acquisition.  On June 21, 2022, under the UEX Agreement, we completed a private placement in UEX, whereby UEC acquired 11,627,907 UEX common shares at a price of CA$0.43 per UEX common share for total consideration of $3,867.  Subsequently, UEC acquired an additional 6,844,000 UEX common shares for total consideration of $1,914 by making purchases through the facilities of the TSX subject to and in accordance with applicable laws.  As of July 31, 2022, we owned 18,471,907 UEX common shares, representing a 3% interest in UEX, with a fair value of $6,914.  The investment in UEX was accounted for as investment in equity securities with change in fair value of $1,132 recorded as unrealized gain in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we closed the UEX Acquisition under the Canada Business Corporations Act, pursuant to which UEC acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX that UEC did not already own.  The UEX Acquisition was approved at a special meeting of UEX securityholders held on August 15, 2022 and was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on August 18, 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the UEX Acquisition, UEX shareholders received 0.090 common shares of UEC for each UEX common share held.  As a result, we issued 48,518,745 shares of UEC in exchange for the common shares of UEX that UEC did not already own.  The UEX shares UEC owned before closing the UEX Acquisition were returned to treasury.

At the date of these consolidated financial statements are issued, we are not able to gather sufficient information to determine whether the UEX Acquisition is an asset acquisition or business combination.

F-38

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
	(Principal Executive Officer) and Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Annual Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By:	/s/ Amir Adnani
	Amir Adnani
	President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal
	Executive Officer) and Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

By:	/s/ Pat Obara
	Pat Obara
	Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer
	and Principal Accounting Officer)
	Date: April 3, 2023.

By:	/s/ Spencer Abraham
	Spencer Abraham
	Chairman and Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

By:	/s/ Vincent Della Volpe
	Vincent Della Volpe
	Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

By:	/s/ David Kong
	David Kong
	Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

By:	/s/ Ganpat Mani
	Ganpat Mani
	Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

By:	/s/ Gloria Ballesta
	Gloria Ballesta
	Director
	Date: April 3, 2023.

277

EX-23.1

Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-220404, 333-236571, 333-256170, 333-267992, and 333-268417), and S-8 (Nos. 333-147626, 333-162264, 333-172092, 333-192462, 333-201423, 333-213500, 333-227023, 333-233736, 333-249679, and 333-262197) of Uranium Energy Corp. of our report dated September 29, 2022 relating to the financial statements, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

April 3, 2023

EX-23.2

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 “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, 2022 (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, 333-236571, 333-256170, 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 and 333-262197), 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.
Western Water Consultants, Inc.
d.b.a. WWC Engineering

Date: April 3, 2023.

EX-23.3

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 “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022; the technical report summary entitled “Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, TX USA”, dated March 9, 2023; and the technical report summary entitled “Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming ISR 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, 2022 (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, 333-236571, 333-256170, 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 and 333-262197); 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

/s/ Brady S. Lewis
Brady S. Lewis, President/CEO

Western Water Consultants, Inc.

d.b.a. WWC Engineering

Date: April 3, 2023.

EX-23.4

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, 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, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2022 (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, 333-236571, 333-256170, 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 and 333-262197); 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 3, 2023.

EX-23.5

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, 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, prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended July 31, 2022 (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, 333-236571, 333-256170, 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 and 333-262197); 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 3, 2023.

EX-23.6

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, 2022 (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, 333-236571, 333-256170, 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 and 333-262197); 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.

/s/ Douglas L. Beahm
BRS, Inc.

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

Date: April 3, 2023.

EX-23.7

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 “Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA”, dated March 9, 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, 2022 (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, 333-236571, 333-256170, 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 and 333-262197); 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/ Victor Fernandez-Crosa

Victor Fernandez-Crosa, Paraguay Manager, Company

Date: April 3, 2023.

EX-31.1

Exhibit 31.1

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

I, Amir Adnani, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the “Annual Report”) of Uranium Energy Corp.;

2.         Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4.         The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.         The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 3, 2023.

By: /s/ Amir Adnani

Amir Adnani

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

__________

EX-31.2

Exhibit 31.2

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

I, Pat Obara, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the “Annual Report”) of Uranium Energy Corp.;

2.         Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4.         The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.         The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 3, 2023.

By: /s/ Pat Obara

Pat Obara

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

__________

EX-32.1

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Amir Adnani, the Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”), and Pat Obara, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended July 31, 2022, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 3, 2023.

/s/ Amir Adnani
Amir Adnani
President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and director

/s/ Pat Obara
Pat Obara
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________

EX-96.3

Exhibit 96.3

ANDERSON URANIUM PROJECT

INITIAL ASSESSMENT

US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report

Yavapai County, Arizona, USA

PREPARED FOR:

URANIUM ENERGY CORPORATION

AUTHORED BY:

Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G.

Principal Engineer BRS inc.

Clyde Yancey, P.G.

VP Exploration UEC

March 9, 2023

CONTENTS

1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
1.1	Interpretations and Conclusions	1
1.2	Recommendations	2
1.3	Risks	4
2.0	INTRODUCTION	5
2.1	Registrant	5
2.2	Terms of Reference	5
2.3	Information Sources and References	6
2.4	Inspection on the Property by Each Qualified Person	6
2.4.1	QP Qualifications	6
2.5	Previous Technical Report Summaries	7
3.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	8
3.1	Property Description and Location	8
3.2	Mineral Rights	8
3.3	Surface Rights	10
3.4	Mineral Exploration Permit Requirements	10
3.5	Environmental Liabilities	10
4.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	11
4.1	Physiography	11
4.2	Accessibility and Local Resources	11
4.3	Climate	11
4.4	Infrastructure and Local Resources	12
5.0	HISTORY	14
5.1	Prior Ownership and Exploration Activities	14
5.1.1	Historical Mineral Resource Estimates	15
6.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT	16
6.1	Regional Geology	16
6.2	Structure	18
6.3	Stratigraphy	18
6.4	Mineralization	21
6.5	Local Geology and Drilling	22
7.0	EXPLORATION	25
7.1	Exploration	25
7.1.1	Previous Exploration	25
7.1.2	Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information	26
7.2	Drilling On Property	26
7.2.1	Overview	26
7.2.2	Drill Holes Excluded from Mineral Resource Estimation	26
7.2.3	Drill Data Used in the Current Mineral Resource Estimation	26
7.2.4	Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information	26
7.2.5	Drill Hole Logging Procedure	26
7.2.6	Gamma Probe Calibration	27
7.2.7	Collar Surveys	27
7.2.8	Downhole Surveys	28
7.2.9	Radiometric Database	28
7.2.10	QP Statements Concerning Radiometric Drill Data	29
7.3	Core Data	29
7.4	Hydrogeology	30
7.5	Geotechnical Testing	31

CONTENTS (Continued)

8.0	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY	32
8.1	Sampling Methods	32
8.2	Security	32
8.3	Density Determinations	32
8.4	Downhole Geophysical Logging	32
8.4.1	Disequilibrium	33
8.4.2	Downhole Probe QC	33
8.5	Database	34
8.6	Authors’ Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures	34
9.0	DATA VERIFICATION	35
9.1	Drill Data	35
9.2	Drill Hole Locations	36
9.3	Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy	37
10.0	MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	38
10.1	Introduction	38
10.2	Acid Leaching	38
10.3	Alkaline Leaching	39
10.4	Heap Leaching	39
10.5	2013/2014 Metallurgical Testing	40
11.0	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	43
11.1	Introduction	43
11.2	Modeling Data Preparation and Interpretation	43
11.3	Geological Model	45
11.4	GT Contour Modeling: Key Assumptions and Basis of Estimation	45
11.5	Radiometric Equilibrium	46
11.5.1	General	46
11.5.2	Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) Determination	47
11.1	Risk Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate	50
11.11	QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate	51
12.0	MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	59
13.0	MINING METHODS	60
14.0	RECOVERY METHODS	61
15.0	INFRASTRUCTURE	62
16.0	MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS	63
17.0	ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	64
18.0	CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	65
19.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	66
20.0	ADJACENT PROPERTIES	67
21.0	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	68
22.0	INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	69
22.1	Conclusions	69
22.2	Risks and Opportunities	69
23.0	RECOMMENDATIONS	71
24.0	REFERENCES	74
24.1	Bibliography	74
25.0	RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT	76
26.0	DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE	77

CONTENTS (Continued)

TABLES

Table 1-1:	Indicated Mineral Resources	2
Table 1-2:	Exploration Budget	3
Table 5-1:	Historical Production at the Anderson Mine (Agapito, 2010)	14
Table 11-1:	Drilling Intercept Data by Resource Zone	44
Table 11‑2:	Project Indicated Mineral Resources	50
Table 23-1:	Exploration Budget	71
Table 23-2:	Environmental Baseline and Related Studies	72
Table 23-3:	Project Design Budget	72
Table 23-4:	Environmental Baseline and Permitting	73
Table 25-1:	Information Provided by the Registrant	76

FIGURES

Figure 2‑1:	Project Location Map	5
Figure 3‑1:	Anderson Project Area and Mineral Tenor.	9
Figure 4‑1:	Project Access	13
Figure 6‑1:	Regional Geologic Setting of the Date Creek Basin	17
Figure 6‑2:	Stratigraphic Column (Schneider, 1979)	20
Figure 6‑3:	Drill Hole and Cross Section Index Map	23
Figure 6‑4:	Cross Sections	24
Figure 9-1:	Scatter Plot of eU3O8 and U3O8 for Core Holes (Agapito, 2010)	35
Figure 9-2:	Q-Q Plot Comparison	36
Figure 11-1:	GT Model Zone A	52
Figure 11-2:	GT Model Zone B	53
Figure 11-3:	GT Model Zone C	54
Figure 11-4:	GT Model Zone D	55
Figure 11-5:	GT Model Zone E	56
Figure 11-6:	GT Model Zone F	57
Figure 11-7:	GT Model Zone G	58

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Anderson Project 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) (Figure 4-1). The general area is situated along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin. The Anderson Project is located on the south side of the Santa Maria River, approximately 13 miles west of State Highway 93. The Anderson Project 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. The planned mining method for the Project is by a combination of open-pit and underground conventional mining.

The Anderson Project covers 8,268 acres (12.9 square miles) and is comprised of 386 contiguous, unpatented lode mining and placer claims and one Arizona State land section. 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 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 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.

The area was discovered by radiometric surveys at outcrop in the 1950s, and 10,758 tons of material containing 33,230 pounds of uranium at a grade of 0.15 %U₃O₈ was mined and shipped to AEC buying stations prior to 1960.

Subsequently the area was explored extensively by,

● Getty Oil Company, 1967-1968, limited drilling;

● Urangesellschaft U.S.A Inc., 1973-1982, 319 rotary and 33 core drill holes;

● Minerals Exploration Company, 1974-1980, 970 rotary and 84 cores holes; and

● Concentric Energy Corp., 2006, 24 RC drill holes and 1 core hole.

Within the Anderson Project area, drill data from 1,175 drill holes were used in the current mineral resource estimate, including hole location and radiometric equivalent data in 0.5 foot downhole increments. Uranium Energy Corp has not completed any drilling on the Anderson Project.

1.1 Interpretations and Conclusions

This Initial Assessment for the Anderson Project has been prepared in accordance with the regulations set forth in S-K 1300 (Part 229 of the 1933 Securities Act). Its objective is to disclose the mineral resources at the Anderson Project.

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 Table 1-1 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. Indicated Mineral Resources are reported within the 2014 PEA Conceptual Mining envelopes as having reasonable prospects for economic extraction and represent an 18% reduction from the estimate of total mineralized material.

                1-1
March 9, 2023

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

Table 1-1:         Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource Estimates (0.1% Sum GT Cutoff)	Tons (millions)	Average Sum Thickness (ft)	Average Grade (%eU3O8)	Pounds eU3O8 (millions)
Resource Zone A
Indicated Resource	0.862	3.8	0.111	1.907
Resource Zone B
Indicated Resource	7.347	9.5	0.108	15.816
Resource Zone C
Indicated Resource	6.211	10.4	0.094	11.730
Resource Zone D
Indicated Resource	0.760	3.2	0.093	1.421
Resource Zone E
Indicated Resource	0.911	7.6	0.060	1.095
Resource Zone F
Indicated Resource	0.084	4.6	0.051	0.086
ALL ZONES GRAND TOTALS
Estimated Indicated Resource	16.175	8.2	0.099	32.055
Notes: 1. Mineral Resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. 2. Economic factors have been applied to the estimates in consideration of reasonable prospects for economic extraction. 3. Tools may not sum due to rounding. 4. Metallurgical Recovery estimated at 90%.

1.2 Recommendations

The authors have provided recommendations and costs estimates in Section 23 relative to exploration, environmental studies, project design and feasibility, and permitting for reference. At this time, only the drilling exploration program is recommended as the other work items are based on the successful completion of this work item.

The recommended drilling and assaying will attempt to confirm historic results and upgrade the classification of resources in some areas. Chemical assays will also be used to confirm historic results and determine the propriety of the disequilibrium correction applied to current eU₃O₈ grades.

                1-2
March 9, 2023

The following work items related to additional exploration are recommended for the Anderson Project:

Table 1-2: Exploration Budget

Item	Cost (USD)
Permitting and reclamation	$100,000
5 diamond drill holes (300 ft average, 1,500 ft total)	$200,000
45 RC and rotary holes (600 ft average 27,000 ft total)	$800,000
Site supervision including geological services and surveying	$200,000
Geophysical Logging 50 holes	$100,000
Assay of core and RC chips (2,000 samples by ICP-MS)	$150,000
Metallurgical heap leach testing	$200,000
Resource model update, reporting and preparation of PEA	$200,000
Road maintenance	$50,000
Total	$2,000,000

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

                1-3
March 9, 2023

1.3 Risks

Neither a Pre-feasibility nor a Feasibility study to estimate detailed capital and operational expenditures to the Anderson Project has been completed. Since these studies have not been completed for the Anderson Project, there has not been a formal demonstration of economic and technical capability.

Technical risks related to the Anderson Project exist, as large-scale conventional mining methods have not been demonstrated in the area. However, these risks are considered moderate as conventional mining and recovery methods are proven in similar sandstone hosted environments.

Risks related to permitting and licensing and public acceptance of the Anderson Project exist.

Mineral tenor is based on the 1872 mining law which establish mining claims in the US. There is a political risk that the changes in the 1872 act may affect the mineral tenor.

Other risk factors are typical for similar mining projects, including, without limitation:

● risks associated with mineral resource estimates, including the risk of errors in assumptions or methodologies;

● geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, less than expected recoveries, ground water control and other factors relating to the ISR mining methodology;

● risks associated with labor costs, labor disturbances, and unavailability of skilled labor;

● risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in the production processes;

● risks associated with environmental compliance and permitting, including those created by changes in environmental legislation and regulation, and delays in obtaining permits and licenses that could impact expected mineral extraction and recovery levels and costs; and

● Estimation of costs and uranium price for the purposes of constraining the mineral resource estimate, based on reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

Readers are cautioned that any estimate of forward cost or commodity price is by its nature forward-looking. It would be unreasonable to rely on any such forward-looking statements and information as creating any legal rights. The statements and information are not guarantees and may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and actual results are likely to differ (and may differ materially) and objectives and strategies may differ or change from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements or information as a result of various factors. Such risks and uncertainties include risks generally encountered in the exploration, development, operation, and closure of mineral properties and processing facilities. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks and uncertainties.

                1-4
March 9, 2023

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Registrant

This initial Assessment (IA) was prepared for Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) on the Anderson Project (the Project), located in Arizona, USA. UEC is incorporated in the State of Nevada, with principal offices located at 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401, and at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3.

This Technical Report Summary (TRS) was prepared for UEC by BRS Engineering (BRS) under the supervision of Douglas Beahm, PE, PG and co-authored by Clyde Yancey, PG, Vice President of Exploration, UEC. The effective date of this report is March 9, 2023. The effective date of the mineral resource estimate is July 1, 2022.

Figure 2‑1:         Project Location Map

2.2 Terms of Reference

In May of 2011, UEC entered into a merger agreement with Concentric (the Merger). According to the terms of the agreement, UEC Concentric Merge Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC, was the surviving corporation of the Merger and was vested with all of Concentric’s assets and property including the Project.

                2-5
March 9, 2023

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

2.3 Information Sources and References

The information and data presented in this IA was gathered from various sources described herein. UEC possesses the original drill data, from which a drill hole database has been developed and verified. The uranium mineral resource estimate was based on a total of approximately 655,000 feet of drilling from 1,464 holes, including 1,054 holes drilled by Minerals Exploration Company (MinEx), 385 holes by Urangesellschaft U.S.A. Inc. (Urangesellschaft) and 25 holes drilled by Concentric Energy Corp. (Concentric) as of 15 April 2012, the effective date for this estimate. UEC has not completed drilling on the Project.

Units of measurement unless otherwise indicated are feet (ft), miles, acres and pounds (lbs). Uranium production is expressed as pounds U₃O₈, Radiometric equivalent uranium grade is expressed as %eU₃O₈. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($) refer to United States currency.

2.4 Inspection on the Property by Each Qualified Person

Mr. Beahm was onsite the Project site on the 17th and 18th of December 2013. During this period, Mr. Beahm inspected uranium mineralization in outcrop and mineralized stockpiles from past mining operations and collected samples of mineralized material for metallurgical testing, which was subsequently completed by Resource Development Inc. (RDI) of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, under the direction of Dr. Terrence McNulty.

In addition, Mr. Beahm examined several drill sites and mineral claim monuments at the site and examined available core and drill cuttings stored at UEC’s facility in Wickenburg, Arizona.

Recently, Mr. Beahm visited the Anderson Project on February 11th of 2023. Inspection of the Southern half of the site revealed multiple claim monuments and test pits. Inspection of the Anderson mine area confirmed the presence of uranium mineralization. Mineralized and waste piles were measured using a handheld scintillometer (Ludlum Model 19 Micro R Meter) and XRF (Therno Scientific Miton XL3t). Mineralized fragments from the western stockpiles were found to have radiometric signals of 350 to 400 microRem per hour and a uraninite mineralized face from a grab sample measured 0.47% Uranium via handheld XRF. In addition, two open, steel-cased wells were located.

Mr. Yancey was onsite on the 24^th of February 2020. During this time, Mr. Yancey performed a reconnaissance of the Project area and visited the UEC office facility in Wickenburg, Arizona.

2.4.1 QP Qualifications

Mr. Beahm is the independent Qualified Person (QP) and co-author of this TRS. Mr Beahm is responsible for the preparation of Sections 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 and contributed to portions of Sections 1, 2 and 22-25 of this IA, which includes the mineral estimates herein. Mr. Beahm is a QP under the S-K 1300 standards responsible for the content of this IA and a Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist, and a SME Registered Member with 48 years of professional experience.

                2-6
March 9, 2023

Mr. Yancey is the Vice President of Exploration for UEC, a QP and co-author of this TRS. Mr. Yancey responsible for the preparation of section 3 and 5 and contributed to portions of 1, 2 and 22-25 of this IA. Mr. Yancey is a QP under the SK-1300 standards responsible for the content of this IA and a Professional Geologist with 44 years of professional experience.

2.5 Previous Technical Report Summaries

UEC has not previously filed an IA on the Project under SK-1300 standards.

Previous technical reports prepared under Canada’s NI 43-101 and CIM guidance include:

● “Mineral Resources of the Anderson Uranium Property Yavapai County, Arizona, USA” prepared for Global Uranium Corporation by Agapito Associates, Inc., July 1, 2010.

● “Technical Report and PEA of the Anderson Uranium Project, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA” prepared of UEC by BRS Inc., T. P. McNulty and Associates, BD Resource Consulting Inc., and SIM Geological Inc., July 31, 2014.

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

                2-7
March 9, 2023

3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Property Description and Location

The Project 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) (Figure 4-1). The general area is situated along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin. The Project is located on the south side of the Santa Maria River, approximately 13 miles west of State Highway 93. The Project 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.

3.2 Mineral Rights

The Project comprises the majority of the claim positions historically held by MinEx and Urangesellschaft in the 1970s. In 1995, Hanson Exploration, Inc. (Hanson) of Phoenix, Arizona consolidated these claim positions. By 1998, Hanson dropped the claims and Concentric restaked them in 2001. Concentric’s claim holdings consisted of 370 contiguous, unpatented, lode mining claims and 9 placer claims that superimpose part of the lode claim block. On 15 April 2010, Global Uranium Corporation (Global) entered into an option and joint venture agreement to acquire the Project property. Under the terms of the agreement, Global would earn a 70% in the Project property over a six-year period by paying $80,000 on signing and issuing 11.3 million shares incrementally over the six-year period. Global had to spend at least $2 million on the Project property before the fifth year of the agreement. After completing their commitment to acquire a 70% interest, Global had the option to acquire the remaining 30% by issuing an additional 2.7 million shares.

In May of 2011, UEC entered into a merger agreement with Concentric. According to the terms of the agreement, UEC Concentric Merge Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC, was the surviving corporation of the Merger and was vested with all of Concentric’s assets and property.

UEC staked an additional 89 lode mining claims in June and July of 2011, and acquired mineral leases on Arizona State Sections 16 (exploration permit 08-115674) and 36 (exploration permit 08-115675) of Township 11 North, Range 10 West, Gila and Salt River Base Meridian (Figure 4-2). Subsequently, in 2018, UEC dropped 73 claims and State Section 36 in order to streamline their land position. The entire claim block and the State mineral lease comprise an area of approximately 8,268 acres (12.9 square miles).

Unpatented mining claims, either lode or placer, are located under the authority of the Mining Law of 1872 (the Mining Law) on Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Under the Mining Law, the locator has the right to explore, develop and mine minerals on unpatented mining claims without paying production royalties to the Federal Government. Claim maintenance fees of $165 per claim are due on September 1 of each year.

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.

                3-8
March 9, 2023

Figure 3‑1:         Anderson Project Area and Mineral Tenor.

                3-9
March 9, 2023

3.3 Surface Rights

All of the Project mining claims are on public lands administered by the BLM. Arizona State sections are administered by the Arizona State Land Department; UEC has surface rights on these lands as outlined in their exploration permits. Under BLM regulations, surface use for the development and exploitation of mineral resources is permitted, subject to environmental permitting requirements, including the use of the surface for development of access and infrastructure, mine waste and mineral tailings disposal.

3.4 Mineral Exploration Permit Requirements

Exploration and mining activities for the mining claims of the Project are administrated by the BLM, Kingman Field Office. 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. This Project 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 the recommended program for BLM ground, as outlined in Section 26, UEC needs to submit a plan of operations, a minimal impact exploration permit and a special use permit. There are no royalties.

3.5 Environmental Liabilities

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 BLM. The disturbed area is a result of minor production dozer cuts from surface mining in the 1950s.

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

                3-10
March 9, 2023

4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Physiography

The Project is located in the northeast portion of the Date Creek Basin. The basin consists of low undulating terrain, centrally dissected by Date Creek Wash. The site lies along the south bank of the Santa Maria River, which runs along the northern edge of the basin.

The majority of the Project drains northward to the Santa Maria River. Headward erosion of these tributaries has produced a series of sub-parallel gullies and ridges trending north to northwest. The southern quarter of the Project drains southward to Date Creek Wash. Both the Santa Maria River and Date Creek Wash are generally intermittent. Significant flows can occur in the Santa Maria River during winter and spring run-off months. Elevations above sea level are between 1,700 ft and 2,400 ft. Maximum local topographic relief at the site is approximately 700 ft.

Vegetation on the property is typical of the Sonoran Desert of central Arizona and consists predominately of Joshua trees, palo verde bushes, saguaro, cholla, ocotillo, creosote bushes and desert grasses. Fauna includes jackrabbits, rattlesnakes, roadrunners, desert tortoise, various lizards and, less commonly, mule deer, wild burros and mules (Hertzke, 1997).

The alluvial valley of the Santa Maria River varies substantially in width and depth to bedrock. The volume of alluvium, and particularly the depth of the material, influences the proportion of surface flow to underflow in the river valley. The groundwater in the alluvium consists of underflow that is forced toward the surface as the depth of the alluvium decreases (MinEx, 1978b).

4.2 Accessibility and Local Resources

The Project is accessed by paved, all-weather gravel and dirt roads. The property is reached by taking the Alamo Lake turnoff, located approximately 21 miles northwest of Wickenburg on Arizona State Highway 93 (Joshua Tree Parkway), then driving 0.25 miles north of mile marker 179, and then following the Alamo Road for 5.8 miles to the Pipeline Ranch Road turnoff. The road passes through the Pipeline Ranch, located in the bottom of Date Creek Wash and continues for approximately 6.3 miles to FR 7581. The Project property boundary is located 1.4 miles north on FR 7581. There are alternate dirt roads, including a 15-mile primitive road from Highway 93 over Aso Pass (2,900 ft elevation) (Figure 4-1).

4.3 Climate

The climate is arid, with hot summers and mild winters. Annual rainfall averages 10 to 12 inches with rain showers from January through March and thunderstorms during the summer months. Snowfall is rare. On average, temperatures range between a low of 31°F during winter months and a high of 104°F during summer months. Temperature extremes of 10°F in winter and 120°F in summer have been recorded. The climate is favorable for year-round mining operations and requires no special operational or infrastructure provisions that relate to weather.

                5-11
March 9, 2023

4.4 Infrastructure and Local Resources

The Project area is undeveloped, with the exception of various access and drill roads and various water wells previously constructed. No utilities exist on or adjacent to the Project area. A transmission power line runs northwest-southeast along Highway 93, approximately 8 miles to the east; however, direct access to the power line may be obstructed by the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness and Tres Alamos Wilderness located between the power line and the Project. The construction of a power line would require routing along one of the existing road corridors, a distance of 16.2 miles to the Project boundary.

Various water wells exist on and near the Project that can support large-scale mining operations. There is plenty of usable land space to locate processing plants, heap leach pads, tailings storage areas, waste disposal areas and other infrastructure development associated with large-scale mining. The Project includes most of a 195-acre area designated by the BLM as “disturbed” resulting from surface mining in the 1950s. It may be possible to expedite the permitting process for future metallurgical exploration and mining activities, including waste disposal, within the disturbed area.

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. UEC’s surface rights encompass 15.4 square miles; this is sufficient for the surface structures associated with any proposed mining operation.

Arizona currently has a number of operating open pit mines and, historically, has had a number of operating underground mines. As a result, personnel with the required skill set exist in the State.

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

                5-12
March 9, 2023

Figure 4‑1:         Project Access

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

                5-13
March 9, 2023

5.0 HISTORY

5.1 Prior Ownership and Exploration Activities

In January 1955, T.R. Anderson of Sacramento, California detected anomalous radioactivity 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 (MinEx, 1978a). Work between 1955 and 1959 resulted in 10,758 tons that averaged 0.15% U3O8, and 33,230 pounds U3O8 (Table 6.1) were shipped to Tuba City, Arizona for custom milling (Gilbride et al, 2010). In 1959, production stopped when the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) ended the purchasing program.

Table 5-1: Historical Production at the Anderson Mine (Agapito, 2010)

Year	Tons	Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds (U3O8)
1955	9	0.56	101
1956	31	0.21	130
1957	3,614	0.19	14,043
1958	725	0.27	3,928
1959	6,379	0.12	15,028
Totals	10,758	0.15	33,230

During 1967 and 1968, Getty Oil Company (Getty) secured an option on claims in the northern portion of the Project. 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 Project. Following a field check and an evaluation of the 1968 Getty drill data, MinEx optioned the northern portion of the current Project (MinEx, 1978a).

In 1975, MinEx purchased the northern portion of the current Project after a 53-hole, 5,800 m (19,000 ft) drilling program on 250 m 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 m (74,000 ft) drill and core program on 120 m centers was conducted from November 1975 through February 1976 to further delineate the uranium resources (MinEx, 1978a). By 1980, MinEx had completed a total of 1,054 holes by rotary and core drilling.

In 1977, the Palmerita Ranch, located 11 km 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 (MinEx, 1978a-c).

                5-14
March 9, 2023

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 m (402,773 ft) of rotary and core drilling (Hertzke, 1997).

Depressed uranium prices stalled exploration activities until 1995 when Hanson consolidated portions of the former MinEx and Urangesellschaft claims under single ownership. Hanson dropped the claims by 1998. In 2001, 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 Project 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 Project for the 2007 field season, but the drill program was never done. UEC has not conducted any drilling activity to date.

5.1.1 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

Historical mineral resources estimates were completed by,

● MinEx (1978);

● Urangellschaft (1979);

● Agapito (2010); and

● On behalf of UEC (BRS et al, 2014).

UEC considered the previous mineral resource estimates as historical. These historical mineral resource estimates were prepared before the implementation of the SEC’s S-K or Canada’s current NI 43-101 standards, and do not necessarily use the categories for mineral reserve and mineral resource reporting as defined by those standards. The reader should not rely on these historical reserve estimates, as they are superseded by the mineral resource estimate presented in Section 11.0 of this TRS.

                5-15
March 9, 2023

6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT

6.1 Regional Geology

The Project is located along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States. 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 (Urangesellschaft, 1979a). The approximate location of the Basin boundaries is shown in Figure 6-1.

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 (MinEx, 1978). 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 (Urangesellschaft, 1979a).

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 ft thick in the central portion of the Date Creek Basin (Hertzke, 1997).

The regional stratigraphic sequence was summarized, from oldest to youngest by MinEx (1978b), 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

● Quaternary alluvium

                6-16
March 9, 2023

Figure 6‑1:         Regional Geologic Setting of the Date Creek Basin

Legend: Geologic Map Units

                6-17
March 9, 2023

6.2 Structure

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 Project property 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 (MinEx, 1978).

Three major faults cross the Project: the East Boundary Fault System; Fault 1878; and the West Boundary Fault System (MinEx, 1978b). Faults trend predominantly 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 Project. A fault set trending northeast-southwest has been speculated by Urangesellschaft and others, but has not been observed in the field (MinEx, 1978b). Many of the north-westerly surface water drainage tributaries are developed partially along fault traces (Figure 7-2).

Minor faults and shear zones occur throughout the Project. These probably represent fractures with slight offset of strata during differential compaction of the underlying sediments or local adjustment to major faulting.

The largest fold in the area is a broad, gentle, northwest-trending syncline in the south-eastern quarter of Section 9, T11N, R10W. Dips reach a maximum of 13º, except where modified by shearing. Many smaller folds with amplitudes of several feet are present in the lacustrine strata (MinEx, 1978b).

Fault displacements range from a few centimetres to more than 100 m. Fault movement is generally of normal displacement resulting in stair-stepped fault blocks. Local faults also have a tendency to hinge. Minor faulting across the mineralized area is often difficult to discern from variations in sedimentary dips. The lacustrine sediments dip south to south-westerly from 2º to 5º, to a maximum of 15º (Urangesellschaft, 1979a). Much of this dip is attributed to recurrent faulting during deposition.

6.3 Stratigraphy

Nine stratigraphic units were identified on the Project (MinEx, 1978b). 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

                6-18
March 9, 2023

● 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 m thick

● Lower Sandstone Conglomerate: arkosic sandstones and conglomerate, averaging about 60 to 100 m thick

● Basaltic Flows and Dikes: amygdular basalt, averaging about 20 m thick

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

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

A representative, stratigraphic column of the Project is shown in Figure 6-2.

Uranium mineralization at the Project occurs exclusively in the sequence of Miocene-age lacustrine lakebed sediments. The lacustrine sediments unconformably overlie the andesitic volcanic unit over most of the Project. However, to the east of the Project, they overlie the felsic to intermediate volcanic unit.

Evidence suggests that deposition of the lacustrine sediments occurred in a restricted basin less than 5 km wide by 10 to 12 km long on the northern edge of an old Paleogene lake (Chapman, Wood & Griswold Inc., 1977). Moving southward, these sediments inter-tongue with siltstones and sandstones. The lakebed sediments represent time-transgressive facies deposited within a narrow, probably shallow, basinal feature. This type of depositional environment exhibits complex relationships between individual facies, lensing out, vertical and horizontal gradation, and interfingering (MinEx, 1978, b-c).

The lake sediments include green siltstones and mudstones, white calcareous siltstones, and silty limestone or calcareous tuffaceous material. Much of this material is silicified to varying extents and was derived in part from volcanic ashes and tuffs common throughout the lakebeds. Also present in the lacustrine sequence are zones of carbonaceous siltstone and lignitic material. Along the boundary between the former MinEx and Urangesellschaft properties, drill holes encounter the basal arkosic sandstone. To the south and southwest, lakebeds interfinger with and eventually are replaced by a thick, medium to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone unit (MinEx, 1978, b-c).

                6-19
March 9, 2023

Figure 6‑2:         Stratigraphic Column (Schneider, 1979)

                6-20
March 9, 2023

6.4 Mineralization

Uranium mineralization in outcrops and the pit floor at the old Anderson mine was reported by the US 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), were 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 as shown in the subsequent picture.

Pictured above, secondary uranium mineralization coating fracture planes.

The uranium mineralization found at depth on the former Urangesellschaft property was reported by Hazen Research, Inc. of Golden, Colorado, (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 (Hertzke, 1997). Mineralogical studies performed by Hazen Research (1978a, 1978b, 1978c and 1979) 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).

                6-21
March 9, 2023

Of special note is the detection of high-grade, low-reflecting uraniferous material occurring with carbonaceous material in the siltstone. Similar assemblages in unoxidized mineralization have also been reported for the former MinEx property (Hertzke, 1997).

Urangesellschaft (1979a) 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 the syngenetic mineralization is observed along faults and at outcrops (Hertzke, 1997).

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 similar to 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. Figure 6.3 shows the Project drill hole locations and cross sections shown on Figures 6.4 and 6.5.

The style of mineralization within the sandstones at the Project includes some characteristics of the roll-front-type mineralization, as in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming in the United States. It is likely that the style of mineralization is a variety of the roll-front-type uranium mineralization (Wilson, 2008).

6.5 Local Geology and Drilling

Figure 6.3 is a drill hole and cross section index map. The Figure shows the surface location of the existing drill holes and reference locations for representative subsurface cross section shown in Figure 6.4. Five local mineralized geologic horizons have been interpreted from the drill data, Horizons A-G, with A being the upper-most horizon.

                6-22
March 9, 2023

Figure 6‑3:         Drill Hole and Cross Section Index Map

                6-23
March 9, 2023

Figure 6‑4:         Cross Sections

                6-24
March 9, 2023

7.0 EXPLORATION

7.1 Exploration

Since acquiring the Project, UEC has performed no exploration on the property and has relied entirely on legacy data for the updated mineral resource estimates and Project planning.

7.1.1 Previous Exploration

The subsequent table summarizes the phases of the historical exploration on the Project (Agapito, 2010). As described in Section 5: History, historical production occurred on the property near outcrop in the 1950s.

Company	Period	Exploration Activities
Mining Group Led by Mr. T. R. Anderson	1955−1959	Aerial scintillometer surveying, ground prospecting, and outcrop mining.
Getty	1967−1968	Limited exploration drilling.
Urangesellschaft	1973−1982	Exploration drilling: 352 total holes with 319 rotary holes and 33 core holes over a 610 ha area.
MinEx	1974−1980	Exploration drilling: 970 rotary holes and 84 core holes over a 425 ha area.
Concentric	2006	Confirmation drilling: 24 RC holes and one RC core hole.

                7-25
March 9, 2023

7.1.2 Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information

The QP considers the exploration completed to date on the Project to be consistent with industry standards and adequate to support mineral resource estimation.

7.2 Drilling On Property

7.2.1 Overview

Historical drilling on the Project for which the data is available and has been obtained by UEC totals 1,431-boreholes, including 105 core holes with chemical assay. The total reported footage drilled is approximately 702,330 ft. In addition, chemical assays are reported from a total of 3,577 samples.

Drill hole locations are shown on Figure 6.3, along with subsurface cross sections shown in Figure 6.4.

UEC has drilled no exploration holes.

Drilling included rotary percussion and diamond core drilling.

7.2.2 Drill Holes Excluded from Mineral Resource Estimation

Approximately 260 drill holes were dropped due to missing or conflicting data.

7.2.3 Drill Data Used in the Current Mineral Resource Estimation

The current drill hole database within the limits of the mineral resource model consists of 1,175 drill holes. These drillholes contained 9,279 unique intercepts within defined mineralized horizons.

The uranium quantities and grades are reported as equivalent U3O8 (eU3O8), as measured by downhole gamma logging.

7.2.4 Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information

The QP considers the exploration completed to date on the Project to be consistent with industry standards and adequate to support mineral resource estimation.

7.2.5 Drill Hole Logging Procedure

All holes were logged for gamma ray, resistivity, and self-potential (SP) curves plotted by depth. The resistivity and SP curves provide bed boundaries and were mainly used for correlation. The resistivity curve, calibrated in ohms, is a measure of the formation water resistivity. Generally, sandstones show a deflection to the right or a greater resistivity than shale. The spontaneous, or SP curve, indicates the natural potential differences, in millivolts, between an electrode at the surface and an electrode in the probe within the drill hole fluid that is pulled up past different beds. This potential depends on a number of factors, but it generally indicates the permeable zones, or sandstones, as a deflection left from the shale baseline.

                7-26
March 9, 2023

The gamma ray (radiometric) log is used to interpret the amount of equivalent U3O8 in a zone by measuring the gamma radiation of radioactive uranium decay products. Measurement units are in counts of gamma radiation per second (cps); these are converted to an equivalent percentage of uranium by weight (% eU3O8). The scintillation probes can delineate anomalous uranium mineralization to approximately 7 to 15 parts per million (ppm) eU3O8.

The logs comprised a hard-copy continuous-line plot of the values for gamma radiation, resistivity and SP. Resistivity and SP were logged only in select holes. Vertical deviation surveys were also completed in some holes, although survey data are not readily available.

In 1977, Century Geophysical Corporation (Century Geophysical) introduced computerized logging to the Urangesellschaft exploration program, which allowed equivalent uranium grades to be calculated at the time of logging.

Field data were produced in four forms:

● the regular gamma electric log;

● the digital printout of gamma data in cps;

● a grade analyses printout (% eU3O8); and

● a magnetic cartridge tape containing all data contained in the electric log.

Downhole measurements were reported for 0.5 ft intervals.

7.2.6 Gamma Probe Calibration

The principal quality control element that affects the accuracy of radiometric sampling data is the calibration of the logging probe. Records indicate that all logging was conducted with probes that were calibrated by Century Geophysical and other contractors. With only minor exceptions, probe calibration parameters, including k-factor and dead-time factor, were reported with each gamma log.

Probe calibration was audited by Chapman, Wood & Griswold Inc. (1977) on the MinEx project. Prior to the audit, two different series of radiometric probes were used to log MinEx holes AM-1 through AM-515. One series of probes was shielded (three probes) and the other unshielded (one probe). The audit evaluated calibration data from 24 June 1976 and 07 June 1977 and tested one probe as part of the audit at the Grand Junction, Colorado, N-3 test pit maintained by Bendix Field Engineering Corporation for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The audit did not identify any deficiencies within the calibration practices of the exploration program and determined the tested probe to be accurate (Chapman, Wood & Griswold, 1977).

7.2.7 Collar Surveys

The collar locations were provided by Concentric using aerial image interpretation, remote sensing and global navigation satellite system measurements. The first phase of data validation used the database coordinate locations; each drill hole location was reviewed in relation to the high-resolution orthoimage in ESRI ArcMap. The second phase of data validation involved locating and measuring drill hole locations in the Project area using a Trimble GeoXH mapping-grade GPS unit.

                7-27
March 9, 2023

7.2.8 Downhole Surveys

Down-hole surveying was not done. The formation is flat lying, so there would be no preferential direction of downhole drift due to the formation. It is the authors’ opinion that the downhole drift would be a function of the setup of the drilling equipment.

7.2.9 Radiometric Database

No digital gamma logs were available from the MinEx and Urangesellschaft exploration programs. A total of 1,049 paper strip logs from the former MinEx property (including 2 repeats) and 336 from the former Urangesellschaft property (8 holes missing logs) were available and used by Agapito 2010. Agapito scanned all strip logs to digital raster images using a high resolution flatbed scanner, producing black and white 200- or 400-dpi TIFF files.

Didger, version 3.0 (Golden Software, Inc., 2006), a commercially available digitizing program, was used. The digitizing procedure involved registering multiple calibration points at known positions around the on-screen gamma log. Calibration points normally included the corners and midpoints of the gamma versus depth chart. Positions X and Y were manually entered for each calibration point. X-values were entered in inches; these corresponded to a recorded scaling factor in cps/in. Y-values were entered in feet of depth below the hole collar. The calibration points allowed the software to automatically adjust for misalignment and distortion in the scanned logs. A total of 57 MinEx logs and 16 Urangesellschaft logs were eliminated from the dataset due to illegibility, excessive distortion, incomplete information or other reasons.

Once calibrated, the gamma trace was manually digitized on-screen by sampling points along the trace with the cursor. Points were sampled with sufficient resolution to represent the highs (peaks) and lows (valleys) of the trace. Between points, the digitized trace was treated as linear. Intermediate points were sampled where additional definition was required. The density of points was adjusted based on the variability of the trace. Care was taken to include enough points to capture the “peak” of spikes and the “tails” of spikes to avoid over- or under-representation of the gamma signature. A typical digitized log included 50 to 1,500 points per hole, depending on the variability of the log and its length.

The majority of logs contained “reruns,” where the original trace exceeded the range of the log strip at high gamma intercepts and required replotting at smaller scales. Reruns were superimposed on the original trace in the logs. A rerun required that the entire calibration and digitizing process be repeated separately for each alternative X-scale used. Typically, two to four reruns were encountered per hole.

Digitizing coordinates were temporarily stored in ASCII (.txt) files and later compiled into a single, dedicated MS Office Excel® spreadsheet per drill hole. The X-coordinate, expressed in inches, was converted to cps by multiplying the X-coordinate by the recorded cps/in scaling factor. A rerun was converted to cps by multiplying the X-coordinate by its respective scaling factor and manually adding the rerun to the original trace listing, which ultimately produced a continuous listing of cps versus depth.

Finally, all header information associated with the log was entered into a standardized header in the Excel® log file and combined with the gamma trace listing. Key header information included drill hole collar coordinates, hole diameter, water factor, k-factor and dead-time factor. Blank or illegible log entries were left blank in the Excel® file.

                7-28
March 9, 2023

Digitizing was completed by Concentric personnel. Agapito and SRK personnel were responsible for error checking and quality assurance (Agapito, 2010).

Instead of attempting a line-by-line translation of the original GAMLOG FORTRAN code, Agapito used the algorithm described by Scott (1962) to develop an independent code within Excel®, with spreadsheet rows representing depth intervals and columns representing successive iterations of the composite grades for each interval.

UEC and SRK reviewed the Excel® code and did not identify any errors in logic; they found that the macro appeared to perform as intended. Agapito tested their macro against five example logs included with the original GAMLOG program to illustrate various input and output options: each example was processed using the new procedure. Agapito, 2010 concluded the comparison of grades confirmed close agreement between the two calculation methods.

The depths versus cps data from the log file are interpolated to create an array of equivalent cps values at 15 cm (0.5 ft) intervals. In effect, the algorithm integrates the area under the counts curve for each interval. The interpolation step was not required for those holes that were digitized at 15 cm intervals.

The equivalent counts data are adjusted for dead-time and water factor and used to determine an initial grade estimate for each interval. This estimate represents the grade of an infinitely thick layer of mineralization that would produce the observed count rate. Provision is included to accommodate multiple water factors, corresponding to changes in hole diameter with depth.

7.2.10 QP Statements Concerning Radiometric Drill Data

The authors reviewed the methodology of the drilling and downhole logging procedures employed during the past drilling programs and the database derived from those programs to be reliable for the purposes of this IA.

7.3 Core Data

Historical core holes were drilled alongside approximately 7% of the MinEx rotary holes and 9% of the Urangesellschaft rotary holes to verify the geophysical logs. Chemical assaying of the core measured the concentration of uranium and other constituents, including metals, such as vanadium, and trace elements, such as lithium and manganese. MinEx and Urangesellschaft both conducted chemical assays on cores recovered from exploration core holes. Approximately 3,125 individual chemical assays were completed by MinEx from 72 core holes. Approximately 2,471 individual chemical assays were completed by Urangesellschaft from 33 core holes. Tables containing historical assay values are provided in MinEx and Urangesellschaft historical reports. The original assay certificates were not reviewed for this TRS because they are not available. Agapito (2010) compiled all the historical assay data and imported the data in Gemcom to use in resource estimation and validation. A total of 3,577 historical assays were reported: 1,610 from MinEx drill holes and 1,967 from Urangesellschaft drill holes.

                7-29
March 9, 2023

Two types of quantitative chemical assays were performed: fluorometric and colorimetric (wet) assays. Both methods reported percent uranium by weight. Chemical assays were performed by Hazen Research, which is certified under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Additional assays were completed at Chemical & Geochemical Laboratories in Casper, Wyoming and check assays were completed at Skyline Assayers and Laboratories, Inc. in Tucson, Arizona, both accredited commercial laboratories. Both the historic core drilling and sample assay program employed standard quality control and assurance procedures.

The authors reviewed the methodology of the core sampling and assay procedures employed during the past drilling programs and determined that the database derived from those programs is reliable for the purposes of this IA. It is, however, recommended that additional core data be collected as part of future mine design and/or feasibility studies for evaluation of disequilibrium conditions and for metallurgical testing.

7.4 Hydrogeology

Hydrologic investigations are limited to historic studies. Groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Project property was investigated jointly by Urangesellschaft and MinEx. Hydrologic studies were conducted by the Water Development Corporation of Tucson, Arizona (WDC 1978, 1979).

Within the immediate vicinity of the Project property, two aquifers contain most of the groundwater: the Barren Sandstone Unit and the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit. Water occurs near the base of the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit at the contact with the lacustrine sediments. A pump test conducted by MinEx in this zone yielded an average flow rate of 57 gallons per minute (gpm). The initial and final water depths in this test were 56.2 and 78.6 ft, respectively, yielding a total drawdown of 22.4 ft and a specific capacity of 2.5 gpm/ft of drawdown (MinEx 1978b).

The deeper Barren Sandstone Unit is generally quite permeable and contains an artesian system. Groundwater in this unit is expected to produce 50 to 100 gpm. The artesian head stands at 300 to 450 ft above the level at which the aquifer is encountered. Urangesellschaft’s drill water supply well produced water from the Barren Sandstone Unit at an estimated 80 to 100 gpm (Urangesellschaft 1979a). Specific capacity of the unit is approximately 1.4 gpm/ft of drawdown, based on well pump measurements conducted by Urangesellschaft (MinEx 1978b).

Considerable faulting and fracturing in the vicinity of the Project property has resulted in sufficient movement of water between units, such that it is not appropriate to treat the units as independent, particularly to the north on the former MinEx property where faults cut the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit. To the south on the former Urangesellschaft property, the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit occurs well above the water table.

The lacustrine sequence hosting the uranium mineralization is thought to be saturated but, due to poor permeability, water does not move readily through the unit. Faults in the lacustrine sequence in the deep areas to the south are considered too tight to allow significant water movement (Urangesellschaft 1979a).

The authors reviewed the methodology of hydrological studies employed during the past operators and consider these to be reliable for the purposes of this IA. It is, however, recommended that appropriate hydrological studies be completed as part of future mine design and/or feasibility studies.

                7-30
March 9, 2023

7.5 Geotechnical Testing

Geotechnical testing is limited to historic studies. Urangesellschaft commissioned a geotechnical study through Dames & Moore in the spring of 1979 to evaluate highwall design associated with a downdip extension of the proposed MinEx open pit onto the former Urangesellschaft property (Dames & Moore 1979).

The study concluded that highwall stability could be achieved under drained conditions. In an undrained condition, a uniform slope was determined not to be capable of achieving an acceptable safety factor, even at a relatively shallow slope angle of 35º. Under drained conditions, a uniform slope between 35º and 40º was determined to achieve an acceptable safety factor.

The study recommended a benched slope design consistent with the design recommendation for MinEx (Dames & Moore 1977), consisting of a shallower slope of 35º to 40º in the lower, weak rock units and a steeper slope of 50º in the more competent overlying rock units, with a 100-ft-wide catch bench located between the slopes.

The authors reviewed the methodology of geotechnical studies employed during the past operators and consider these to be reliable for the purposes of this IA. It is however, recommended that appropriate geotechnical studies be completed as part of future mine design and/or feasibility studies.

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

                7-31
March 9, 2023

8.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

8.1 Sampling Methods

As discussed in Section 7, the primary sampling method is the collection of radiometric equivalent data via downhole radiometric logging. The majority of the drilling was completed in the 1970s and early 1980s, and consists of analog geophysical logs. The geophysical logs were scanned and digitized using standard industry methods to create a digital database for which the downhole counts per second (CPS) were converted to equivalent uranium grades %eU₃O₈ using industry accepted algorithms.

Core data is available from past drilling programs, but original laboratory certificates are generally not available.

8.2 Security

The original drill logs and remaining samples are stored in a facility located in Wickenburg, Arizona. Available samples are from post-2010 drilling programs. Samples from drilling programs prior to that time were not preserved.

8.3 Density Determinations

Bulk density sample data, referred here as specific gravity (SG) data, is limited to samples from 48 drill holes in the Project area. The majority of the SG data is from Resource Zone B and C, with little or no data available from the other domains.

Bulk density data was collected from core intervals within mineralized intervals. The SG sample average is 18.9 cf/st (1.70 t/m3) and ranges from 32.0 to 12.8 cf/st (1.00 t/m3 to 2.51 t/m3). Historically, an average value of 20.5 cf/st (1.56 t/m3) was used to calculate resource tonnage for the Project deposit. Comments in previous technical reports suggest that the SG value represented near-surface rocks and that the density increases to as high as 16.9 cf/st (1.9 t/m3) with depth. Due to the limited sample data and the fact that more potentially important economic resources tend to occur nearer to the surface, a constant value reflecting the sample average of 18.9 cf/st (1.70 t/m3) was used to calculate tonnages from the resource model. This assumption is considered reasonable and somewhat conservative based on available information. The author was not able to verify this data, as the samples were not preserved. It is recommended that additional density sampling be conducted.

8.4 Downhole Geophysical Logging

As discussed in Section 7, geophysical logging was routinely conducted for every drill hole completed on the Project by all operators. Natural gamma logs provide an indirect measurement or radiometric equivalent measurement of uranium content by logging gamma radiation in counts per second at one-tenth foot intervals. Counts per second are then converted to eU308.

Conversion of the downhole CPS to equivalent uranium content expressed as %eU3O8 followed industry standard procedures as described in Section 7 of this TRS.

                8-32
March 9, 2023

8.4.1 Disequilibrium

The great majority of the data available for estimation of mineral resources is radiometric equivalent data from geophysical logging data. Radiometric equilibrium conditions may affect the grade and spatial location of uranium in the mineralization. Generally, an equilibrium ratio (Chemical U3O8 [c] to Radiometric eU3O8 [e]) is assumed to be 1, i.e., equilibrium is assumed. Equilibrium occurs when the relationship of uranium with its naturally occurring radioactive daughter products is in balance. Oxygenated groundwater moving through a deposit can disperse uranium down the groundwater gradient, leaving most of the daughter products in place.

Disequilibrium studies were completed by past operators, including Urangesellschaft and MinEx. Both studies concluded that remobilization of uranium had occurred, especially in the vicinity of faults.

In 1978, MinEx completed a disequilibrium study based on approximately 3,125 colorimetric and fluorimetric assays on core from 72 core holes distributed across the MinEx property (Lucht 1978). Average disequilibrium factors were calculated as the ratio of total uranium pounds chemical to total pounds gamma in each hole for a given polygonal area of influence. No attempt was made to correlate factors with individual radiometric beds. Disequilibrium factors varied over a wide range from 0.10 to 1.80, with low values generally associated with uranium depletion along faults. The average disequilibrium factor across the entire historical MinEx property was determined to be 0.999 (Agapito, 2010).

Urangesellschaft conducted a comparable disequilibrium study on the same 1.0-ft core samples from 33 core holes used in the 1979 bulk density study (Urangesellschaft 1979a). The program consisted of approximately 2,174 chemical assays. The disequilibrium factor per hole was calculated as the ratio of the total composite grade-tonnage (GT) for the flourimetric log to the GT for the associated gamma log. Factors were determined for four cutoff grades: 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%, and 0.05% U3O8. Results show the same trend toward increasing disequilibrium factors at higher grades. The average disequilibrium factor for the Urangesellschaft underground mining resource ranged from 0.992 at the 0.02% cutoff to 1.120 at the 0.05% cutoff (Agapito, 2010).

Although the historic studies show that a positive adjustment could be made for disequilibrium, the studies have not been verified. Thus, as a conservative measure, no adjustment in the equivalent uranium grades is recommended by the author.

8.4.2 Downhole Probe QC

The principal quality control element that affects the accuracy of radiometric sampling data is the calibration of the logging probe. Records indicate that all logging was conducted with probes that were calibrated by Century Geophysical and other contractors. With only minor exceptions, probe calibration parameters, including k-factor and dead-time factor, were reported with each gamma log.

Probe calibration was audited by Chapman, Wood & Griswold Inc. (1977) on the MinEx project. Prior to the audit, two different series of radiometric probes were used to log MinEx holes AM-1 through AM-515. One series of probes was shielded (three probes) and the other unshielded (one probe). The audit evaluated calibration data from 24 June 1976 and 07 June 1977, and tested one probe as part of the audit at the Grand Junction, Colorado, N-3 test pit maintained by Bendix Field Engineering Corporation for the DOE. The audit did not identify any deficiencies within the calibration practices of the exploration program, and determined the tested probe to be accurate (Chapman, Wood & Griswold, 1977).

                8-33
March 9, 2023

8.5 Database

As discussed in Section 7, the database for the Project was developed using standard industry methods. The author reviewed the database, which included locating, validating and compiling drill hole locations and downhole mineralized interval data within the Project area. From the overall dataset grade, thickness and X, Y and Z locations were derived for all mineralized intercepts. These mineralized intercepts were then screened by 3-dimensional location and geologically interpreted into six stratigraphically discrete and laterally continuous Resource Zones.

8.6 Authors’ Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

In the opinion of the authors:

● sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for drill programs are in line with industry-standard methods for similar uranium projects;

● drill programs included downhole gamma and calibration procedures are in line with uranium industry standard operating procedures; and

● digital database construction and security are adequate. The physical database is properly organized.

The authors are of the opinion that the quality of the uranium analytical data is sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation, without limitations on mineral resource confidence categories.

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

                8-34
March 9, 2023

9.0 DATA VERIFICATION

9.1 Drill Data

As previously discussed in Section 7, industry standard methods were utilized at the time of data collection. Geophysical logs for historic drillholes were analyzed and evaluated for completeness and sufficiently quality checked in the process of developing the drillhole database for the resource modeling. Original geophysical logs for pre-2010 drilling were scanned and digitized. Downhole gamma measurements were converted to gamma equivalent values in %eU3O8 using standard methods (Agapito, 2010). Post-2010 geophysical logs and drill data were provided in digital format and converted to gamma equivalent values using the same method as applied to the pre-2010 data.

To confirm that the conversion of the cps to eU3O8 was done correctly, Agapito (2010) compared the converted eU3O8 data with the chemical assays for the 109 holes containing chemical assay data. The correlation between the assayed U3O8 and the eU3O8 values showed a wide scatter and the correlation is not very clear on the subsequent figure.

Figure 9-1:          Scatter Plot of eU3O8 and U3O8 for Core Holes (Agapito, 2010)

A comparison of the Q-Q plot of the same data, however, demonstrates that for quartiles greater than 0.07%, the eU3O8 value is slightly less than the corresponding U3O8 assay value, which indicates that the eU3O8 values may be slightly underestimated or conservatively estimated (Figure 9-2).

                9-35
March 9, 2023

Figure 9-2:         Q-Q Plot Comparison

9.2 Drill Hole Locations

UEC validated the collar locations provided by Concentric using aerial image interpretation, remote sensing and global navigation satellite system measurements. The first phase of data validation used the database coordinate locations: each drill hole location was reviewed in relation to the high-resolution orthoimagery in ESRI ArcMap. Drill pads and areas of disturbance are easily identified on the orthoimagery. The location was deemed to be valid based on the following criteria: if the location of the drill hole matched a drill pad, the location and the elevation from the DEM were accepted; if the location of a drill hole did not match an area of disturbance in the image, the drill hole was flagged and rechecked in the field. Of the 1,336 drill hole locations originally provided in the database, approximately 20% (269 drill holes) were flagged for field-checking. An additional 27 areas were identified on the orthoimagery that showed disturbance, but were not correlated with a drill hole location.

The second phase of data validation involved locating and measuring drill hole locations in the Project area using a Trimble GeoXH mapping-grade GPS unit. The following drill hole classifications were used:

● located, if the drill hole was found and measured;

● location probable, if the original location was accepted after relocation in the field; and

● wrong location, if the drill hole could not be relocated or the site was obviously not suitable for drilling, such as on a steep hillside.

14 drill holes were found in the field that were ultimately not included in the database; they were classified as “unknowns”. One of these unknowns was identified from a Minex drill hole map. The drill hole database was updated with measured horizontal coordinates from the field work. Collar elevations were taken from the Cooper Aerial DEM, unless it was determined that subsequent earth works covered the drill hole; in this case, the original collar elevation was used.

                9-36
March 9, 2023

9.3 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy

The historic and more recent exploration data and the overall data adequacy is deemed to be reasonably sufficient by the authors for applying QA/QC techniques and verifying the legitimacy of the data incorporated into this IA.

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

                9-37
March 9, 2023

10.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

10.1 Introduction

Preliminary laboratory scale metallurgical testing programs have been completed for the Project. No definitive bench or pilot study has been completed. A summary of the testing follows.

Between 1977 and 1979, MinEx and Urangesellschaft conducted mineral processing and metallurgical test work. The historical mineral processing and metallurgical test work has not been verified. Testing for both companies was completed by Hazen Research. Testing focused on acid and alkaline leaching, with minor testing on heap leaching. Research had advanced to a relatively mature stage, culminating in a conventional acid-leach mill process flowsheet for the MinEx Final Feasibility Study (MinEx, 1978).

Prior to mid-1978, MinEx and Urangesellschaft conducted independent investigations on mineralized material from their respective properties. By late-1978, MinEx and Urangesellschaft began negotiations on a joint venture. From that point, metallurgical research was conducted cooperatively, with Urangesellschaft modifying its testing program to demonstrate the amenability of the Date Creek mineralization to MinEx’s process flowsheet. It was concluded that the MinEx acid-leach process, although viable, was costly due to the high reagent consumption and, considering the wide chemical variability of the mineralized material across both properties (Urangesellschaft, 1980), it was not the optimal process. MinEx and Urangesellschaft outlined additional research to address outstanding deficiencies.

10.2 Acid Leaching

The host rock consists mostly of carbonaceous shale, siltstone and limestone, with both relatively hard and soft layers. The deposit consists mainly of two mineralized horizons, referred to as the Middle Zone and the Lower Zone. These are highly variable with respect to both carbonate and uranium content. The CO3 content varies from 0.03% to 32% and U3O8 ranges from 0.03% to 0.5%, with no apparent correlation between the two (MinEx, 1978).

MinEx and Urangesellschaft performed leach amenability tests on representative core samples from mineralized horizons. This was complicated by the variability in Corg (lignite) and CO3 (limestone) contents. Uranium extraction through acid leaching varied from 80% to 95%, with most samples exceeding 90%. Acid consumption ranged from 50 kg/ t (110 lbs/ton) to over 490 kg/t (1,080 lbs/ton) of processed material (average 270 kg/t) (Urangesellschaft, 1980). Analysis of leach solutions showed Na2CO3 consumptions of 17 to 37 kg/t. Roasting of the mineralized material lowered acid consumptions by approximately 6% to 21%. Testing also showed increased uranium solubility with decreasing particle size through minus 28-mesh. Thickening characteristics for high-lime composites were generally poor (6 to 14 ft2/tpd), but improved with roasting (3 to 9 ft2/tpd) (Hertzke, 1997).

Metallurgical analyses by Hazen Research established near-optimal, acid-leach conditions for the northern portion of the Project property, capable of 90% uranium extraction (Hertzke, 1997). The metallurgical programs concluded that substantial quantities of sulfuric acid would be required to sustain extraction rates above 90%. Typical mineralization was estimated to contain a minimum of 19% to 20% calcium carbonate (CaCO3), corresponding to a minimum acid consumption of 180 kg (400 lbs) of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) per ton of ore. Leachability was further complicated by carbonate contents, which varied from 0% to over 50% CaCO3 (Urangesellschaft, 1980).

                10-38
March 9, 2023

Using acid-leach parameters employed by MinEx, comparative results were obtained (Hertzke, 1997):

● Average uranium solubility of 86.2% for Urangesellschaft mineralization versus 88.5% for MinEx ore

● Average acid consumption of 250 kg (551 lbs/ton) for Urangesellschaft mineralization versus 188 kg (415 lbs/ton) for MinEx ore

Further investigations to optimize leaching were briefly evaluated. One test involved the use of Caro’s acid instead of sulfuric acid. This resulted in higher initial uranium dissolution rates, suggesting the possibility of significantly shorter leaching times. Another study involved preliminary flotation tests to remove significant portions of the acid-consuming minerals by calcite flotation prior to acid leaching. Results proved inconclusive and suggested that further innovation and study are required to optimize the acid-leach process (Urangesellschaft, 1980).

10.3 Alkaline Leaching

Alkaline leach tests on bulk samples from the MinEx deposit showed uranium extractions of 96%. Lower zone extractions ranged from 94% to 95% (Hazen, 1977). Alkaline leaching tests conducted by Urangesellschaft resulted in early-term uranium extraction rates of 81% to 94%. Final-stage uranium dissolutions ranged from 84% to 97% (Urangesellschaft, 1980). Settling rates for four of five composites tested by Urangesellschaft were relatively good with unit area requirements of 1.6 to 3.7 ft2/tpd.

Studies determined that the feasibility of alkaline leaching was limited by the high organic carbon content, primarily in the form of lignite (Corg), which poses a potential for significant problems during uranium solvent extraction by inhibiting the precipitation of sodium diuranate. Typical Date Creek mineralized material is estimated to contain 2.6% Corg on average. Actual values varied widely, ranging from 0% to over 15% Corg (Urangesellschaft, 1980).

The program concluded that additional research was required to improve the understanding of the relationship between U3O8 grade and associated CO3 and Corg, and that future test work should be focused on reducing the carbonate and/or lignite content of the mineralization before leaching. Preliminary research by MinEx determined that activated carbon or surfactants, Aerosol C-61 and Arquad T-2C-50, are effective in removing the alkaline soluble organics, but the amounts needed are not likely to be economically viable. Roasting was determined to be effective in eliminating the organics, but proved detrimental to uranium solubilization at temperatures above 350ºC (Hazen, 1977).

10.4 Heap Leaching

Limited testing of acid-heap leaching was done by Urangesellschaft. Mineralized material was leached using a recirculating solution of 5 g/l sulfuric acid. The column flow rate was favorable, and almost 70% of the uranium was solubilized during the initial days. The flow rate and uranium content of the effluent decreased drastically, and after 45 days of leaching, an overall solubilization of 79% was achieved (Urangesellschaft, 1978).

                10-39
March 9, 2023

The historical metallurgical test work is limited and may not be representative of all types and styles of mineralization on the Project property. However, there is nothing in the test work to suggest that economic extraction of the mineralization will not be possible. More extensive testing will be required in order to determine this.

10.5 2013/2014 Metallurgical Testing

The current metallurgical scoping test results are provided in the report “Scoping Metallurgical Testing of Anderson Mine Samples” dated May 30, 2014, RDI, Appendix A.

On December 18, 2013, Mr. Beahm and Mr. McNulty were on site along with UEC personnel. During this time, four samples of approximately 50 lbs each were taken from discrete mineralized stockpiles across the site. Mr. Beahm cataloged the samples and delivered them personally to the RDI laboratory in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for analysis and testing. Upon delivery of the samples, RDI screened the samples by size fractions (i.e. +2 in, 2X1 in, 1X½ in, ½ inX10 mesh, 10X48 mesh and minus 48 mesh), assayed the samples through a commercial lab using Xray Fluorescence (XRF) for uranium, vanadium, and carbonates and completed Loss of Ignition testing for organic material. Three of the four composites showed a distinct concentration of uranium values in the size fractions less than 0.5 inches. The sample composite assays ranged from 474 to 976 ppm uranium, 388.4 to 515.7 ppm vanadium, and the combined CaO and MgO content of the samples was less than 3.5%, indicating relatively low acid consumption under leaching.

The metallurgical testing was then completed in a phased approach. The initial scope was to investigate conventional milling, heap leaching and/or the combination of size separation and attrition scrubbing to mechanically concentrate the mineralized material prior to leaching. For these scenarios, the testing was to first focus on acid lixiviant. If the initial testing indicted high acid consumption or low recoveries, then alkaline lixiviant would be tested. As the testing proceeded, it was clear that the leaching parameters for an acid lixiviant were acceptable and alkaline lixiviant was not tested.

Limited testing of mechanical upgrading with including sizing and attrition scrubbing was inconclusive, although a concentration of uranium values in the fines was achieved. As the leach tests had demonstrated high recoveries with favorable acid consumption, acid leach was used in further testing. Mechanical upgrading would be appropriate if agitated leaching conventional mill) or vat leaching would be considered for the concentrate. However, in either case, heap leach recovery would likely also be needed for processing the oversize material. Further testing relating to mechanical upgrading of the mineralized material is recommended, particularly if regulators view this process to be a mining process rather than “milling”, which would require NRC licensing.

Initial leach tests were completed using standard “bottle roll” methods. Bottle roll leach tests provide reliable predictions of maximum uranium/vanadium extractions and maximum sulfuric acid consumption as functions of particle size and pH. Tests demonstrated that leaching extractions are somewhat higher at a fine grind (200-mesh) than at a fine crush (6-mesh), but not dramatically so. The respective 24-hour uranium extractions at pH 1.0 were 96.1% and 90.3%, indicating that coarser feed will leach satisfactorily if given enough time. The tests did clearly show that a high free acid concentration is necessary to satisfactorily extract uranium and to at least extract 25% of the vanadium. Bottle roll sulfuric acid consumption was lower (48.4 lb/ton) with the coarser feed than with finely ground feed (55.9 lb/ton), which is consistent with increased rock particle surface area at the finer grind. Leaching at different sodium chlorate (oxidant) concentrations indicated that a modest dosage of 2.0 lb/ton is adequate. However, future test work may reveal that less will be sufficient.

                10-40
March 9, 2023

Once the leach chemistry parameters were established from the bottle roll tests, bucket leach test were conducted to simulate heap leaching at a bench scale. Bucket leach simulation of heap leaching is primarily useful in showing whether mineralization will degrade physically during heap leaching, generating fines and impairing solution percolation. For one of the four composites, the fines (minus 400-mesh) increased significantly from 23% to 33% of the total weight. This effect can be mitigated during operation by agglomerating the heap feed with dilute sulfuric acid at an addition rate of about half of the total acid consumption, as indicated by bottle rolls.

Acid consumptions in the bucket tests were very high at 1125-180 lb/ton, but it reflects aggressive exposure of various rock forming minerals to strong acid. Acid is then consumed during alteration or decomposition of those minerals. With respect to anticipated recovery and acid consumption, the bottle roll tests are the most conclusive and were applied in the PEA.

Note that acid consumption from the current heap leach testing is considerably lower than was reported for metallurgical testing in the 1970s. There are two major factors which contribute to this difference in acid consumption. First, the historical mine plans were based on maximum resource recovery, at a low cut-off and with bulk mining, which would add dilution. This would have resulted in mining more of the calcareous material as well as lignitic materials. The current mining plan focuses on only three of the mineralized horizons and only in the areas where the economic factors are most favorable. As such, the historical metallurgical testing reflected somewhat different mineralized material than the current testing program. Second, mineralization was not contemporaneous with the formation of the host rock, but occurred later. Mineralization at the site was observed as a filling interstitial voids and coating factures. While the heap leach process includes sizing the mineralized material by crushing, it is not ground as finely as would be the practice in conventional milling. Coarser sizing results in fewer reactive sites to consume acid. Current bottle roll test demonstrated the effect of sizing on acid consumption, with the finer grind (200 mesh) consuming more acid than the fine crush (6-mesh). Also, in conventional agitated leaching, the host rock is sufficiently exposed to the acid to fully react with the acid. This was demonstrated by the current bucket tests, which showed acid consumption similar to the historic testing when the host rock was left in contact with the acid for a long period of time. In summary, current testing indicates that heap leaching can recover uranium at reasonable acid consumption levels, without reacting fully with the host rock.

                10-41
March 9, 2023

Conclusions from the current metallurgical testing include:

● Uranium extraction of over 90% was obtained at a pH of 1.0.

● Static bucket test confirm that uranium can be recovered via heap leaching.

● Vanadium extraction will be low at 25-40%.

● Acid consumption was reasonable at +/- 50 lbs per ton.

● Some degradation of the samples during the bucket test was observed, indicating that acid leaching may reduce heap permeability.

There is a risk that the samples taken from existing stockpiles may not be representative of the mineralized material, which may be treated throughout the life of the Project. The stockpile did originate from the C horizon, which is the primary focus of the conceptual mine plans, as described in Section 16. However, the stockpiles have been exposed at the surface and have likely oxidized to some extent relative to the condition of freshly mined material.

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

                10-42
March 9, 2023

11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

11.1 Introduction

The mineral resource estimation described herein utilizes geological interpretation methodologies, which have been employed by the authors for similar projects while working at operating mines within similarly hosted uranium mineralization. The primary method utilized in estimating the uranium mineral resources is the GT contour method, which is the CIM method recommended for sandstone-hosted deposits, such as those within the Project. The resource estimate was generated using drill hole sample results and the interpretation of a geologic model that relates and constrains the spatial distribution of U₃O₈. Mineral resources in the lacustrine sediment hosted deposits within each of six Resource Zones of the Project area were estimated using the same GT contour modeling methodology. Mineral resource estimates are presented for each Resource Zone separately.

The Project is within a well-known mining district. The Anderson mine was first discovered in 1955 due to anomalous surface radioactivity and the discovery of uranium oxide in outcrop. The Anderson mine is a Brownfield site with historic open pit mine production and extensive exploration, which resulted in the disturbance of approximately 195 acres of lands. These lands are federally administered by the BLM. The disturbances pre-date environmental regulatory regulations and standards and, as a result, there is no current obligation for reclamation of the site. In some states, such disturbances would be addressed by the state Abandoned Mine Lands program, which is funded through the Office of Surface Mining and based on a tax on current coal mine production. The Arizona program has not addressed this site and is not likely to do so. Both the BLM and the United States Geological Service have and/or are considering the development of AML-like programs, however, it is not known whether the historic mine related disturbances at the Anderson mine would be addressed. Although some local opposition is expected, the author is not aware of any factors, including environmental, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political or other factors that would materially affect the mineral resource estimate herein.

11.2 Modeling Data Preparation and Interpretation

Historical drilling on the Project for which the data is available and has been obtained by UEC total of 1,431-boreholes, including 105 core holes with chemical assay. The total reported footage drilled is approximately 702,330 ft. In addition, chemical assays are reported from a total of 3,577 samples.

Data preparation included locating, validating and compiling drill hole locations and downhole mineralized interval data within the Project area. Data verification is discussed in detail in Section 9 of this TRS. From the overall dataset grade, thickness and X, Y and Z locations were derived for all mineralized intercepts. These mineralized intercepts were then screened by 3-dimensional location and geologically interpreted into six stratigraphically discrete and laterally continuous Resource Zones.

Approximately 260 drill holes were dropped due to missing or conflicting data. The modeled drill hole database consists of 1,175 drill holes. These drillholes contained 9,279 unique intercepts, which were categorized in the following manner:

                11-43
March 9, 2023

Table 11-1: Drilling Intercept Data by Resource Zone

Resource Zone	No. Boreholes Intercepting Zone	Total No. Intercepts	No. Intercepts meeting 0.02% eU3O8 cutoff
A	232	657	310
B	811	3625	1822
C	619	3350	1548
D	212	720	426
E	198	761	488
F	47	166	103

The following criteria were used to build databases for the six Resource Zones referred to as A, B, C, D, E and F.

● Individual mineralized intervals were identified in each drill hole using characteristics of shape and position of natural gamma radiation from electric logs and chemical assay of core holes, where available. Cutoff criteria were applied to screen out intervals below 0.02% eU₃O₈.

● Mineralized Bedding Thickness Cutoffs and compositing of intercept data into sum grade x thickness values for each Resource Zone varied dependent upon the intended mining extraction method.

o Surface Mining extraction methods applied to Zones A and B are assumed to allow for recovery of mineralized beds under 0.5 ft in thickness. As such, an idealized sum GT compositing method was applied to Zones A and B, with no minimum intercept thickness.

o Highwall mining and underground mining extraction methods require a minimum mining thickness of 3 ft. This compositing criterion was applied to intercepts within Resource Zones C, D, E and F. Intercepts below 3 ft in thickness were recomposited to a minimum of 3 ft using 0.005% interstitial background grades. Intercepts overlapping within 3 ft were composited together. The resulting composited intercepts with average grades lower than the 0.02% eU₃O₈ were then screened out. Only intercepts with average grades greater than 0.02% were used to produce a sum GT product to model resource.

Following application of screening and compositing criteria, a single composited thickness, grade and GT value for each Resource Zone in each drill hole was calculated. Digital database records thus consist of X-Y-Z coordinates and composited interval data (thickness, grade and sum GT values) for each of the six modeled Resource Zones.

The QP considers the data used for the mineral resource estimate to be adequately prepared and is satisfied that the digital data are adequate for 2-D mineral resource estimation.

                11-44
March 9, 2023

11.3 Geological Model

The Project mineralization is of syngenetic origin and similar in style to deposits found in Argentina and Lake Maitland, Australia. Most or all of the lakebeds on the property exhibit some uranium mineralization. The highest grades and most continuous mineralization are confined to the carbonaceous siltstones and lignitic materials. Occasional mineralization also exists in the basal sandstone of the lacustrine sediments and in the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit. Carbonaceous material is known to interfinger with the basal sandstone, and carbon has been noted in the Lower Sandstone Conglomerate Unit. Remobilization of the uranium has resulted in the deposition of uranium as fracture fillings around and below the main mineralized zones (MinEx, 1978b-c).

Carbon tends to immediately fix uranium when it comes into contact with uranium in solution. Therefore, much of the mineralization is restricted to the top or bottom of the carbonaceous facies. However, mineralization can occur in the middle of some carbonaceous zones. This latter relationship implies that mineralization occurred during the deposition of the carbonaceous material (MinEx, 1978b-c). Mineralization is also prevalent in calcareous facies.

Uranium mineralization occurs within a host sequence of lacustrine sediments that dip gently towards the south. These sediments become interfingered with siltstones and sandstones toward the south, resulting in a more layered distribution of uranium-bearing zones. Each zone is roughly tabular due to being stratabound by the lacustrine bedding. Within each zone there are multiple mineralized beds separated vertically by beds of low to barren grades.

The most likely scenario for mineralization may be from alteration of tuffaceous sediments, which were deposited in the lacustrine environment combined with solution, mobilization and deposition of uranium contained in the granitic highlands to the north. Liberation of uranium in proximity to organic material resulted in the formation of the semi-cyclic blanket deposits with the richer grades being associated with organic-rich facies. The uranium in the lacustrine host rocks has not been remobilized by geochemical cells, such as those responsible for the well-known roll-front deposits of Wyoming and south Texas. This lack of mobility is demonstrated by the absence of uranium mineralization in the barren sandstone unit, which should be an ideal host for roll-front type deposits (Hertzke, 1997).

Historically, Urangesellschaft (1979) distinguished seven mineralized zones, identified as Zones A, B, C, D, E, F and G, with the youngest (uppermost) being Zone A and the oldest (deepest) being Zone G. Most of the uranium mineralization occurs in Zones 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 Zones C and D. Consequently, Zones A through C have been called the Upper Lakebed Sequence and Zones D through G have been called the Lower Lakebed Sequence. The lowermost G Zone was excluded from modelling as it had too few intercepts to be reliably modeled via the GT contour method.

11.4 GT Contour Modeling: Key Assumptions and Basis of Estimation

The Indicated Mineral Resource model was completed using the inverse distance squared GT (Grade x Thickness) Contour Modeling Method for each of mineralized zones of the deposit. The Contour Modeling Method, also known as the Grade x Thickness (GT) method, is a well-established approach for estimating uranium resources and has been in use since the 1950s in sedimentary hosted uranium deposits in the US. The technique is most useful in estimating tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies where lateral extent of the mineralized body is much greater than its thickness, as is observed with the data for Project.

For tabular and roll-front style deposits, the GT method provides a clear illustration of the distribution of the thickness and average grade of uranium mineralization. The GT method is particularly applicable to the tabular, stratigraphically-controlled mineralization of the Property, as it can be effective in reducing the undue influence of high-grade or thick intersections, as well as the effects of widely spaced, irregularly spaced or clustered drill holes. This method also makes it possible for the geologist to fit the contour pattern to the geologic interpretation of the deposit.

                11-45
March 9, 2023

Indicated mineral resources were estimated by summation of GT intervals only when Resource Zone drillhole intercepts presented:

● minimum individual intercepts having grades above 0.02% _eU₃O₈;

● minimum Sum GT per resource zone at or above 0.1 ft%; and

● proximity of at least three contiguous intercepts each given a maximum isotropic radius of influence of 200 ft.

No smoothing was applied to the internal contours following the creation of the GT model, as smoothing of contours adds resources beyond strict data interpretations by using statistical methodology not justified in this context. Structural influences were not given any special interpretative prominence to be conservative (previous models assumed anisotropic enrichment along faults). Lastly, the bulk density factor applied was the cross-Project sample average of 18.9 cubic ft per ton (1.7 tonne per cubic meter).

For each zone, the limits of mineralization were determined by interpretation of the drill data. Within these limits, the GT and T (Grade x Thickness and Thickness) were contoured, as described above. Although an automated contouring program was used to produce the model surface itself, 3-dimensional limits were established where appropriate to constrain the model by the appropriate 0.1 ft% GT cutoff. The volume of the 3D model was then calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D program software. To that volume, a bulk unit weight of 18.9 cubic ft per ton (1.7 tonne per cubic meter) was applied to calculate the pounds of eU3O8. Similarly, the tons of mineralization were calculated using the same methodology by constructing a 3D model of mineral thickness within the same area. Average grade was then calculated by dividing GT model _eU₃O₈ pounds by the T model-calculated mineralized tons.

In the case of historical mining performed within the A Resource zone, the full area of disturbance was removed from the resource. This was to provide a conservative estimate, as the full disturbance includes spoils piles and haulages.

The GT contour method is used as common practice for mineral reserve and mineral resource modeling for similar sandstone-hosted uranium projects (CIM, 2003). It is the opinion of the author that the GT contour method, when properly constrained by geologic interpretation, provides an accurate estimation of contained pounds of uranium.

11.5 Radiometric Equilibrium

11.5.1 General

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay products are of two general categories, the first being the sub-atomic energy-generating product (i.e., the radiation) and the second being the atomic isotope. Decay product isotopes are referred to as daughters, and occur down what is known as a decay chain. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U₂₃₈ for the order of a million years or more, the decay chain will reach equilibrium with the parent isotope, whichmeans that the daughter isotopes will be decaying in the same quantity as they are being created (McKay, 2007).

                11-46
March 9, 2023

An otherwise equilibrated decay system may be put into a state of disequilibrium when one or more decay products are mobilized and removed from the system because of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughter isotopes. In addition, both the primary isotope of uranium U238 and its daughters emit different forms of radiation as they decay. The primary field instruments for the indirect measurement of uranium, either surface or down-hole probes, measure gamma radiation. Within the uranium decay, the gamma-emitting elements are primarily Radium₂₂₆, Bismuth₂₁₄, and uranium, with Radium₂₂₆ being the dominant source of gamma radiation.

Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters, and negative where daughters are accumulated and uranium is depleted. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU₃O₈ to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1, and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.

Except in cases where uranium mineralization is exposed to strongly oxidized conditions, most of the sandstone roll-front deposits reasonably approximate radiometric equilibrium. Disequilibrium is normally spatially variable in sandstone-hosted deposits. The nose of a roll-front deposit tends to have the most positive DEF, and the tails of a roll-front would tend to have the lowest DEF (Davis, 1969).

11.5.2 Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) Determination

The high carbon reductant content and syngenetic nature of the mineralization of the Project means that very little remobilization of U3O8 is observed across the site. As such, and unlike roll-front style deposits, the mineralization at the Project can be considered at equilibrium. Review of the historic data and information indicates gamma probe and chemical assay procedures were carefully calibrated and compared. Correction for differences between equivalent and chemical assay (disequilibrium) was properly applied per each sample interval. Similarities that exist between historic drilling data (location, style and tenor) suggest that there is no reason to question the results from earlier drilling programs. It is the author’s opinion that the sample database is of sufficient accuracy and precision to generate a mineral resource estimate, and that the disequilibrium factor be otherwise treated as 1.0.

11.6 Commodity Price

Uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed since buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC. UEC has not begun any negotiations of any contracts to develop the property, including those associated with uranium sales, which is appropriate for a project at this level of development.

The following figure provides a Long Term Uranium Price Forecasts from TradeTech LLC™ (“TradeTech™”) 2022: Issue 3. The Forward Availability Model (FAM 2) forecasts how future uranium supply enters the market assuming restricted project development because of an unsupportive economic environment. Currently most US producers are in a mode of care and maintenance and numerous facilities globally are also slowing or shutting in production at least on a temporary basis. This condition aligns with the FAM 2 projections.

                11-47
March 9, 2023

Term forecasts beginning 2025 or later and extending into the future are considered the most reasonable for purposes of this report, as they consider the effects of prices on future existing and new production. In addition, larger projects are typically supported by long-term contracts with investment-grade nuclear utilities. Therefore, term prices are most appropriate for purposes of this report.

TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM1 (Nominal US$)

From TradeTech™ 2022

The Term price projections for uranium oxide (USD) from TradeTech™ 2022, for 2023, FAM 2, Term Ref, exceed $75/lb. Projections of uranium price through 2040 increase from these values. The author recommends, as a conservative measure, the use of a long-term uranium price of $65.00 USD per pound uranium oxide for the consideration of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.

By their nature, all commodity price assumptions are forward-looking. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction and Cutoff Determination

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Project can be reasonably and economically recoverable through a combination of surface and underground mining methods using a long-term price of $65/lb. An additional portion of resource, outside of the pit shell, can be reasonably extracted through highwall mining and underground mining methods where justified.

                11-48
March 9, 2023

A Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Project was completed under NI 43-101 and CIM guidance and regulations in 2014 (Beahm, et al, 2014). The cutoff applied was a minimum grade of 0.02% U₃O₈ and a GT of 0.1%Ft for mineral resources within the envelope of the conceptual open pit. This equates to a minimum economic extraction criterion of 0.02% recoverable grade over 5 ft of minimum mining thickness. For the portions of the resource falling within the 2014 Pit Bottom, highwall mining and underground mining envelope and extracted via underground and highwall mining methods, the 0.02% average grade cutoff criteria was applied to composited mining thicknesses of a minimum of 3 ft and a sum GT cutoff of 0.1%Ft. Within the conceptual mine limits and at the cutoff criteria applied, the operating costs (Beahm, et al 2014) were estimated at $34/lb, or about half of the Project commodity price. Based on the US CPI production costs may have escalated approximately 30% since 2014, however, they would still be well below the projected commodity price of $65/lb (Section 11.6). For this IA, the mine limits and cutoff criteria of the 2014 PEA were applied to the mineral resource estimate solely to segregate mineral resources having reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction from within the overall envelope of mineralization. It is recommended that mining methods and costs be updated in a future preliminary economic assessment or pre-feasibility study.

11.8 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate

The continuity of individual mineralized lacustrine bedding deposits is demonstrated by drill hole results, as displayed in the cross sections in Figure 6.4. Thickness and grade continuity within the Resource Zones is typical of tabular stratabound uranium deposits.

For this IA, the Project mineral resource for only indicated mineral resource was evaluated. For the indicated mineral resource, the classification strategy was based on the following criteria:

1) where contiguous mineralized drill holes were less than 200 ft apart;

2) a minimum of three contiguous mineralized drill holes were needed to justify reasonable economic extraction;

3) whether a portion of the Resource volume fell within UEC's property boundary; and

4) whether the resource volume fell within the 2014 PEA Conceptual Mining Envelope and thus had reasonable prospects of economic extraction.

11.9 Mineral Resource Statement

Mineral resources were estimated separately for each resource zone. First, the total contained mineralized material was estimated. Then, reasonable prospects for economic extraction were applied. Indicated Mineral Resources are reported within the 2014 PEA Conceptual Mining envelopes as having reasonable prospects for economic extraction, and represent an 18% reduction from the estimate of total mineralized material. The results of the estimation of indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in Table 11-2.

Figures illustrating spatial distribution of the U₃O₈ resource in the five Resource Areas of the Project with respect to GT and Thickness contours follow at the end of this section.

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

                11-49
March 9, 2023

Table 11‑2:         Project Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resource Estimates (0.1% Sum GT Cutoff)	Tons (millions)	Average Sum Thickness (ft)	Average Grade (%eU3O8)	Pounds eU3O8 (millions)
Resource Zone A
Indicated Resource	0.862	3.8	0.111	1.907
Resource Zone B
Indicated Resource	7.347	9.5	0.108	15.816
Resource Zone C
Indicated Resource	6.211	10.4	0.094	11.730
Resource Zone D
Indicated Resource	0.760	3.2	0.093	1.421
Resource Zone E
Indicated Resource	0.911	7.6	0.060	1.095
Resource Zone F
Indicated Resource	0.084	4.6	0.051	0.086
ALL ZONES GRAND TOTALS
Estimated Indicated Resource	16.175	8.2	0.099	32.055
Note:
1. Mineral Resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
2. Economic factors have been applied to the estimates in consideration of reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
3. Totals may not sum due to rounding. 4. Metallurgical Recovery estimated at 90%.

11.10 Risk Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● density assignments;

● assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

                11-50
March 9, 2023

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Project.

The QP expects that the majority of the indicated mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling. Larger inferred and indicated resources may also be quantified with further evaluation of current Project economics.

11.11 QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate

In the opinion of the authors, the data available for the Project is sufficiently reliable for estimation of mineral resources for the purpose of this IA.

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

                11-51
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-1:         GT Model Zone A

                11-52
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-2:         GT Model Zone B

                11-53
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-3:         GT Model Zone C

                11-54
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-4:         GT Model Zone D

                11-55
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-5:         GT Model Zone E

                11-56
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-6:         GT Model Zone F

                11-57
March 9, 2023

Figure 11-7:         GT Model Zone G

                11-58
March 9, 2023

12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                12-59
March 9, 2023

13.0 MINING METHODS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                13-60
March 9, 2023

14.0 RECOVERY METHODS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                14-61
March 9, 2023

15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                15-62
March 9, 2023

16.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                16-63
March 9, 2023

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

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                17-64
March 9, 2023

18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                18-65
March 9, 2023

19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

                19-66
March 9, 2023

20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

There are no adjacent properties not held by UEC that are considered relevant to this IA.

                20-67
March 9, 2023

21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

Neither the authors or UEC are aware of any other data or information which would materially change the conclusions of this report.

                20-68
March 9, 2023

22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

This IA for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the regulations set forth in S-K 1300 (Part 229 of the 1933 Securities Act). Its objective is to disclose the mineral resources at the Project.

22.1 Conclusions

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.

Assumptions regarding uranium prices, mining costs and metallurgical recoveries are forward-looking and the actual prices, costs and performance results may be significantly different. The authors are not aware of any relevant factors that would materially affect the mineral resource estimates. Additionally, the authors is not aware of any specific environmental, regulatory, land tenure or political factors that will materially affect the Project from moving forward to mineral resource recovery operations.

22.2 Risks and Opportunities

UEC has not completed a pre-feasibility nor a feasibility study to apply detailed capital and operational expenditures to the Project. Since these studies have not been completed for the Project, there has not been a formal demonstration of economic and technical capability.

Technical risks related to the Project exist as large-scale conventional mining methods have not been demonstrated in the area. However, these risks are considered to be moderate, as conventional mining and recovery methods are proven in similar sandstone-hosted environments.

Risks related to permitting and licensing the Project exist, as the regulatory process is not mature. However, these risks are considered to be moderate, as a variety of environmental baseline studies have been completed, and no specific impediments to the permitting process are known to the authors.

Mineral tenor is based on the Mining Law, which established the mining claim process in the US. Changes in this law could affect mineral tenor.

Other risk factors are typical for similar mining projects, including, without limitation:

● risks associated with mineral resource estimates, including the risk of errors in assumptions or methodologies;

● geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, less than expected recoveries, ground water control and other factors relating to ISR mining methodology;

● risks associated with labor costs, labor disturbances and unavailability of skilled labor;

● risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in the production processes;

                22-69
March 9, 2023

● risks associated with environmental compliance and permitting, including those created by changes in environmental legislation and regulation, and delays in obtaining permits and licenses that could impact expected mineral extraction and recovery levels and costs; and

● estimation of costs and uranium price for the purposes of constraining the mineral resource estimate based on reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

Readers are cautioned that any estimate of forward cost or commodity price is by its nature forward-looking. It would be unreasonable to rely on any such forward-looking statements and information as creating any legal rights. The statements and information are not guarantees and may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, actual results are likely to differ (and may differ materially) and objectives and strategies may differ or change from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements or information as a result of various factors. Such risks and uncertainties include risks generally encountered in the exploration, development, operation and closure of mineral properties and processing facilities. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks and uncertainties.

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

                22-70
March 9, 2023

23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following actions are recommended for the Project with respect to Exploration:

The recommended drilling and assaying will attempt to confirm historic results and upgrade the classification of resources in some areas. Chemical assays will also be used to confirm historic results and determine the propriety of the disequilibrium correction applied to current eU3O8 grades.

The following work items related to additional exploration are recommended for the Project:

Table 23-1: Exploration Budget

Item	Cost (USD)
Permitting and reclamation	$100,000
5 diamond drill holes (300 ft average, 1,500 ft total)	$200,000
45 RC and rotary holes (600 ft average 27,000 ft total)	$800,000
Site supervision including geological services and surveying	$200,000
Geophysical Logging 50 holes	$100,000
Assay of core and RC chips (2,000 samples by ICP-MS)	$150,000
Metallurgical heap leach testing	$200,000
Resource model update, reporting and preparation of PEA	$200,000
Road maintenance	$50,000
Total	$2,000,000

Based on the successful completion of this program and a decision to move the Project forward to production, the following general recommendations and cost estimates are provided for future reference. Only the exploration program is recommended at this time.

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

                23-71
March 9, 2023

The following additional work items related to baseline environmental studies are recommended for the Project:

Table 23-2: Environmental Baseline and Related Studies

Item	Cost (USD)
Baseline studies ground water quality	$100,000
Baseline studies surface water quality and sediment surveys	$50,000
Baseline studies air Quality	$150,000
Flora & fauna studies and T&E studies	$100,000
Background radiological studies	$125,000
Archaeological studies	$75,000
Land Use	$25,000
Geology and Overburden	$150,000
Soils and Vegetation for Reclamation Planning	$50,000
Socio-economic studies	$75,000
Section 106 Tribal Consultation	$100,000
Environmental Baseline Total	$1,000,000

The recommendations outlined in Tables 26.1 and 26.2 refer to a concurrent work schedule.

Following completion of the previous work items and presuming the Project is proceeding to development, the following work items related to final mine and facility design are recommended:

Table 23-3: Project Design Budget

Item	Cost (USD)
Delineation and Development Drilling	$500,000
Geotechnical Investigations and Design Recommendations	$250,000
Detailed Mine Design and Scheduling	$500,000
Detailed Closure and Reclamation Design and Scheduling	$250,000
Detailed Heap and Plant Design	$500,000
Pilot Scale Heap Leach	$500,000
Feasibility Study	$500,000
Rounded Use	$3,000,000

                23-72
March 9, 2023

Following completion of the previous work items and presuming the Project is proceeding to development, the following work items related to final mine and facility design are recommended:

Table 23-4: Environmental Baseline and Permitting

Item	Cost (USD)
BLM Plan of Operations and Environment Impact Statement (Mine)	$1,000,000
State and Local Mine and Related Permitting	$500,000
U. S. NRC Licensing and Environmental Impact Statement (Mill)	$1,500,000
Environmental Baseline Total	$3,000,000

The recommendations outlined in Tables 23-3 and 23-4 related to final design and development and permitting and licensing would need to be implemented on concurrent work schedules.

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

                23-73
March 9, 2023

24.0 REFERENCES

24.1 Bibliography

Agapito (2010), “Anderson Uranium Project, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA.” Report prepared for Global Uranium Corporation by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

BRS et al (2010), “Technical Report and PEA on the Anderson Uranium Project, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA.” Report prepared for Uranium Exploration Corporation (UEC) by BRS Inc., T. P. McNulty and associates, BD Resource Consulting Inc., and Sim Geological Inc.

Chapman, Wood & Griswold Inc. (1977), “A Review of Estimated Mineable Uranium Reserves, Anderson Mine Project, Yavapai County, Arizona,” September.

CIM (2003), “CIM Best Practice Uranium Estimation Guideline”, Canadian Institute of Mining.

COLEDT (1978), Minerals Exploration Company Exploration Drill Holes Coordinate Database Printout.

Gilbride, P.E., Hardy, M.P., and Hambley, D. (2010), “Mineral Resources of the Anderson Uranium Property Yavapai County, Arizona, USA” Report prepared for Global Uranium Corporation by Agapito Associates, Inc., July 1.

Harris and Thompson (2007), “Updated title opinion on Anderson mine project, Yavapai County, Arizona,” Richard W. Harris letter to Ralph W. Kettel, June 26, 14pp.

Hazen Research, Inc. (1977), “Alkaline Leaching of Anderson Mine Samples for Minerals Exploration Company,” August.

Hazen Research, Inc. (1978a), “Mode of Occurrence of Uranium in Core Samples From Date Creek Property, Arizona,” February.

Hazen Research, Inc. (1978b), “Uranium Recovery From Anderson Mine Ore- Laboratory Studies,” March.

Hazen Research, Inc. (1978c), “Mode of Occurrence of Uranium in Core Sample DC-77C from Date Creek Property, Arizona,” October.

Hazen Research, Inc. (1979), “Analytical Results of Date Creek Drill Cores,” February.

Hertzke, D. C. (1997), “Summary Report on the Uranium Potential of the Anderson Uranium Property, Yavapai County, Arizona,” July 28.

Lucht, Robert F. (1978), “Development Report on Equilibrium at the Anderson Mine Project,” April 28.

Minerals Exploration Company of Union 76 Minerals (1978a), “Feasibility Study, Anderson Project,” Volume 1, Executive Summary, July.

                25-74
March 9, 2023

Minerals Exploration Company of Union 76 Minerals (1978b), “Feasibility Study, Anderson Project,” Volume 2, Geology and Mining, July.

Minerals Exploration Company of Union 76 Minerals (1978c), “Feasibility Study, Anderson Project,” Volume 3, Ore Processing, July.

Roberts, John C. (1978), “Anderson Mine Bulk Density Study,” Minerals Exploration Company of Union 76 Minerals, January.

Scott, James H. (1962), “The GAMLOG Computer Program,” Report RME-143, US Atomic Energy Commission, Grand Junction, CO, 43pp.

Sherborne, J.E., Jr. (1979), “Major Uranium Discovery in Volcaniclastic Sediments, Basin and Range Province, Yavapai County, Arizona.” A.A.P.G. Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 621-646.

SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Third Edition, Chapter 13.2, Room and Pillar Mining of Coal.

Urangesellschaft USA, Inc. (1979a), “Date Creek Project Preliminary Evaluation for Prospective Underground Mine,” September.

Urangesellschaft USA, Inc. (1979b), “1978 Annual Report, Date Creek Project,” February.

Urangesellschaft USA, Inc. (1979c), “Mineable Ore Reserves by Polygon. Underground Mining Areas. Cutoff: 6’ min. mining width 0.05% eU3O8,” August 8.

Urangesellschaft USA, Inc. (1980), “1979 Date Creek Project, Annual Report,” January.

Water Development Corporation (1978), “Ground Water Hydrology of Anderson Mine Area, Arizona,” D.K. Greene, L.C. Halpenny, and S.D. Clark authors, February.

Water Development Corporation, (1979), “Hydrogeology of Anderson Mine Area, Arizona,” D.K. Greene, S.D. Clark, and L.C. Halpenny authors, August.

                25-75
March 9, 2023

25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

Reliance on information provided by UEC is identified in Table 25-1 below.

Table 25-1:         Information Provided by the Registrant

Category of Information	Section of Report	Reason
Macroeconomic trends, data, and assumptions	Section 11	UEC provided data regarding future commodity price estimates. The authors believe that it is reasonable to rely on this information, as it was sourced from industry consultants who specialize in uranium price forecasting.

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

                25-76
March 9, 2023

26.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

I, Clyde L. Yancey, Texas Professional Geologist, of 1846 Tramway Terrace Loop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, do hereby certify that:

● I am currently employed by Uranium Energy Corporation, 500 N. Shoreline, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, as Vice President of Exploration.

● I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology in May 1975 from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and a Master of Science degree in Geology in May 1978 from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota.

● I am a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Texas. My registration number is 129 and I am a member in good standing. I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. My Registration Number is 03580620 and I am in good standing.

● I have worked as a geologist for over 40 years in uranium exploration, production and restoration.

● My direct experience with uranium involves uranium exploration, resource analysis, uranium ISR project development, project feasibility and licensing, and project closures. My relevant experience for the purpose of this analysis includes Field Geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Uranium and Thorium Resources, Senior Geologist for Wyoming Minerals Corporation at their Bruni, Texas ISR Mine; Mine Geologist for Caithness Mining Corporation at their McBride ISR Mine in Duval County, Texas; Exploration Geologist for Mobil Oil/Nufuels Uranium Division, South Texas District; Senior Uranium Exploration Geologist for Moore Energy Corporation, South Texas District; Consulting Geologist for the U.S. Department of Energy, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Title I. Consulting Geologist for UMTRA Title II clients such as Umetco Minerals, Rio Algom Mining, Conoco Minerals, and the Hopi Tribe. Vice President of Exploration for Uranium Energy Corporation with responsibility of their projects in Canada, U.S.A. and South America.

● 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.

Dated this 9th day of March, 2023

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

                26-77
March 9, 2023

I, Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., do hereby certify that:

1. I am the Principal Engineer and President of BRS, Inc., 1130 Major Avenue, Riverton, Wyoming 82501.

2. I am a co-author author of the report “ANDERSON URANIUM PROJECT INITIAL ASSESSMENT”.

3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in 1974. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Oregon; a licensed Professional Geologist in Wyoming; a Registered Member of the SME.

4. I have worked as an engineer and a geologist for over 48 years. My work experience includes uranium exploration, mine production, and mine/mill decommissioning and reclamation. Specifically, I have worked with numerous uranium projects hosted in sandstone environments in Wyoming.

5. I was present at the site on the 17th and 18th of December, 2013 and on the 11^th of February, 2023.

6. I am independent of the issuer. I hold no stock, options or have any other form of financial connection to UEC. UEC is but one of many clients for whom I consult.

7. I do have prior working experience on the property as stated in the report.

8. 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.

Dated this 9th day of March, 2023

Douglas L. Beahm, PE, PG, SME Registered Member

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

                26-2
March 9, 2023

EX-96.4

Exhibit 96.4

YUTY URANIUM PROJECT

INITIAL ASSESSMENT

US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report

PARAGUAY, SA

PREPARED FOR:

URANIUM ENERGY CORPORATION

AUTHORED BY:

Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G.

Principal Engineer, BRS Inc.

Clyde Yancey, P.G.

VP Exploration, UEC

Victor Fernandez-Crosa

Paraguay Manager, UEC

MARCH 9, 2023

CONTENTS

1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
1.1	Interpretations and Conclusions	1
1.2	Recommendations	2
1.3	Risks	3
2.0	INTRODUCTION	4
2.1	Registrant	4
2.2	Terms of Reference	4
2.3	Information Sources and References	5
2.4	Inspection on the Property by Each Qualified Person	5
2.4.1	QP Qualifications	5
2.5	Previous Technical Report Summaries	6
3.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	7
3.1	Property Description and Location	7
3.2	Mineral Rights	7
5.2.1	Acreages and annual holding costs for the Project	8
3.3	Surface Rights	8
3.4	Significant Encumbrances or Risks to Perform Work on Property	9
3.4.1	Existing and Required Permits	9
3.4.2	Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Right to Perform Work	9
4.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	11
4.1	Physiography	11
4.2	Accessibility and Local Resources	11
4.3	Climate	11
4.4	Infrastructure	11
5.0	HISTORY	12
5.1	Prior Ownership	12
5.2	Type, Amount, Quantity and Results of Work by Previous Owners	13
5.2.1	Previous Drilling	13
5.2.2	Historical Mineral Resource Estimates	13
6.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT	14
6.1	Regional Geology	14
6.2	Local Geology	16
6.2.1	Upper Sand Unit	16
6.2.2.	Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit	16
6.2.3	Massive Sand Unit	17
6.2.4	Fine-Grained Sand Unit	17
6.2.5	Wavy Unit	17
6.3	Property Geology	19
6.3.1	Deposit Type	19
6.3.2	Mineralization	19
7.0	EXPLORATION	23
7.1	Exploration	23
7.1.1	Previous Exploration	23
7.1.2	QP’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information	23
7.2	Drilling On Property	23
7.2.1	Overview	23

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

7.2.2	Drill Holes Excluded from Mineral Resource Estimation	24
7.2.3	Drill Data Used in the Current Mineral Resource Estimation	24
7.2.4	QP’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information	24
7.2.5	Drill Hole Logging Procedure	26
7.2.6	Recovery	26
7.2.7	Collar Surveys	26
7.2.8	Downhole Surveys	26
7.2.9	Radiometric Logging	27
7.2.10	QP Statements Concerning Radiometric Drill Data	27
7.3	Hydrogeology	27
7.4	Geotechnical Testing	28
8.0	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	29
8.1	Sampling Methods	29
8.2	Analysis	29
8.3	Security	29
8.4	Density Determinations	29
8.5	Downhole Geophysical Logging	30
8.5.1	Disequilibrium	30
8.6	Quality Assurance and Quality Control	31
8.6.1	Downhole Probe QC	31
8.7	Database	32
8.8	QP’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures	32
9.0	DATA VERIFICATION	33
9.1	Drill Data	33
9.2	Calibration of Doan-Hole Geophysical Instruments	33
9.3	Check Assays	33
9.4	Confirmation Drilling	33
9.5	QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy	34
10.0	MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	35
10.1	Introduction	35
11.0	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	37
11.1	Introduction	37
11.2	Mineral Resource Summary	37
11.3	Resource Estimation Methods	38
11.3.1	Geological Models	39
11.3.2	GT Contour Method	39
11.4	Cutoff Grade and Commodity Price	40
11.5	Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction	41
11.6	Radiometric Equilibrium	42
11.7	Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate	42
11.8	QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate	43
12.0	MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	48
13.0	MINING METHODS	49
14.0	RECOVERY METHODS	50
15.0	INFRASTRUCTURE	51
16.0	MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS	52
17.0	ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	53
18.0	CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	54
19.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	55
20.0	ADJACENT PROPERTIES	56
21.0	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	57

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

22.0	INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	58
22.1	Conclusions	58
22.2	Risks and Opportunities	58
23.0	RECOMMENDATIONS	60
24.0	REFERENCES	61
24.1	Bibliography	61
25.0	RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT	64
26.0	DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE	65

TABLES

Table 1-1:	Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources	2
Table 1-2:	Inferred Mineral Resources	2
Table 11‑1:	Total Indicated Mineral Resources at Varied GT Cutoffs	38
Table 11‑2:	Total Inferred Mineral Resources at Varied GT Cutoffs	38
Table 25-1:	Information Provided by the Registrant	64

FIGURES

Figure 2‑1:	Project Location Map	4
Figure 3‑1:	Project Area Location.	7
Figure 6‑1:	Regional Geologic Setting of the Parana Basin	15
Figure 6‑2:	Yuty Type Log	18
Figure 6‑3:	Cross-Section Index t Map	2021
Figure 6‑4:	Cross-Section A-A’	21
Figure 6‑5:	Cross-Section B-B’	22
Figure 7-1:	Drill Hole Location Map	25
Figure 8‑1:	Comparison of Radiometric and Chemical Data	31
Figure 11-1:	Massive Unit GT Resource Model	44
Figure 11-2:	Massive Unit Thickness Model	45
Figure 11-3:	Fine-Grained and Wavy Unit GT Resource Model	46
Figure 11-4:	Fine-Grained and Wavy Unit Thickness Model	47

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

The Project comprises 117,232 ha in southeastern Paraguay. 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. 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 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 area was explored extensively by Anschutz Corporation of Denver, Colorado in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Cue Resources Ltd. controlled the Project 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 area in the possession of UEC and have been reviewed by the authors. Within the 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 initial assessment (IA).

1.1 Interpretations and Conclusions

This IA for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the regulations set forth in S-K 1300 (Part 229 of the 1933 Securities Act). Its objective is to disclose the mineral resources at the Project.

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

Estimated mineral resources are summarized in Table 1-1 and 1-2 for Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources, respectively, at a 0.02 %eU3O8 grade cutoff and a 0.1 ft% GT cutoff. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability in accordance with CIM standards. However, considerations of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction were applied to the mineral resource calculations herein.

               1-1
March 2023

Table 1-1:         Indicated Mineral Resources

Unit	Tons (millions)	Weighted Average Thickness (ft)	Weighted Average Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds U3O8 (millions)
Massive Sand Unit
0.1 ft% GT	7.233	10.2	0.048	6.969
Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
0.1 ft% GT	1.842	3.5	0.054	1.994
Total Indicated Mineral Resource
0.1 ft% GT	9.074	7.3	0.049	8.962
Notes: 1.         SEC S-K definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. 2.         Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound. 3.         Numbers may not add up to the finalized amount due to rounding. 4.         Metallurgical Recovery 70% from CIM guidelines for ISR projects.

Table 1-2:         Inferred Mineral Resources

Unit	Tons (millions)	Weighted Average Thickness (ft)	Weighted Average Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds U3O8 (millions)
Massive Sand Unit
0.1 ft% GT	1.690	14.5	0.045	1.528
Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
0.1 ft% GT	1.043	6.8	0.032	0.675
Total Inferred Mineral Resource
0.1 ft% GT	2.733	10.1	0.040	2.203
Notes: 1.         SEC S-K definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. 2.         Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound. 3.         Numbers may not add up to the finalized amount due to rounding. 4.         Metallurgical Recovery 70% from CIM guidelines for ISR projects.

1.2 Recommendations

The authors recommend:

● Completion of additional metallurgical test work to further demonstrate and refine amenability with respect to in-situ and/or heap leach recovery.

● Completion of further drilling on the San Antonio deposit with the objective of resource expansion and reclassification. A program of 125 holes at 120 m each, for a total of 15,000 m is recommended, with a 90 m offset spacing for 75 step-out holes and < 50m for infill holes. However, as the drilling program proceeds, the results should be compared to the current resource model and the program adjusted as appropriate.

● Completion of a Preliminary Economic Assessment on the conceptual development of a mine at San Antonio.

● Continuation of the regional exploration program to assess the exploration potential for uranium mineralization within its vast mineral lands in southeastern Paraguay. The objective of this work is to discover uranium mineralization similar to known roll front type deposits.

               1-2
March 2023

UEC has prepared a preliminary drilling and testing budget for the Project on the order of $3.0 million, as detailed in Section 23. The authors have reviewed this budget and conclude that it is of sufficient magnitude to achieve the recommendations as stated herein.

1.3 Risks

Technical risks related to the Project exist, because ISR mining methods have not been demonstrated in the area. However, these risks are considered to be moderate, because ISR mining and recovery methods are proven in similar sandstone-hosted environments.

Risks related to permitting and licensing the Project exist, because the regulatory process is not mature. However, these risks are considered to be moderate, because a variety of environmental baseline studies have been completed, and no specific impediments to the permitting process are known to the authors.

Mineral tenor is based on the Contract issued by Paraguay and is in effect though 2008. There is a political risk that the changes in the concession may affect the mineral tenor.

Other risk factors are typical for similar mining projects, including, without limitation:

● risks associated with mineral resource estimates, including the risk of errors in assumptions or methodologies;

● geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, less than expected recoveries, ground water control and other factors relating to ISR mining methodology;

● risks associated with labor costs, labor disturbances and unavailability of skilled labor;

● risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in the production processes;

● risks associated with environmental compliance and permitting, including those created by changes in environmental legislation and regulation, and delays in obtaining permits and licenses that could impact expected mineral extraction and recovery levels and costs;

● Estimation of costs and uranium price for the purposes of constraining the mineral resource estimate based on reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

Readers are cautioned that any estimate of forward cost or commodity price is, by its nature, forward-looking. It would be unreasonable to rely on any such forward-looking statements and information as creating any legal rights. The statements and information are not guarantees and may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual results are likely to differ (and may differ materially), and objectives and strategies may differ or change from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements or information as a result of various factors. Such risks and uncertainties include risks generally encountered in the exploration, development, operation and closure of mineral properties and processing facilities. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks and uncertainties.

               1-3
March 2023

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Registrant

This initial assessment (IA) was prepared for Uranium Energy Corporation (UEC) on the Yuty In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project (the Project), located Paraguay, SA (Figure 2-1). UEC is incorporated in the State of Nevada, with principal offices located at 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401, and at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3.

This Technical Report Summary was prepared for UEC by BRS Inc. (BRS) under the supervision of Douglas Beahm, PE, PG. The effective date of the report is March 9, 2023. The effective date of the mineral resource estimate is July 1, 2022.

Figure 2‑1:         Project Location Map

2.2 Terms of Reference

UEC, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Transandes Paraguay S.A. (TPSA) holds a 100% interest in the Yuty Concession. The Project is operated by TPSA, and this IA has been prepared for UEC to report mineral resources for the Project.

               2-4
March 2023

The Project comprises 117,232 ha in southeastern Paraguay. The Project area is located within the Paraná Basin and is underlain mainly by sedimentary rocks of undivided upper Permo-Carboniferous age (UPC). The area was explored extensively by Anschutz Corporation (Anschutz) of Denver, Colorado, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Paraná Basin is host to a number of known uranium deposits, including Figueira and Amorinópolis in Brazil, and the San Antonio deposit on the Yuty Concession.

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. The Contract was signed into Law 3575/08 (the Law) as an Act of Congress in August 2008. The Law calls for payment of a 2.5% royalty to the Republic on all production, based on the value of the production at the point of sale.

2.3 Information Sources and References

The information and data presented in this IA was gathered from various sources described herein. UEC possess the original drill data from which a drill hole database has been developed and verified. Samples from the Anschutz were not preserved, however, core samples from area in the possession of UEC and have been reviewed by the authors. Within the 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 IA.

Units of measurement, unless otherwise indicated, are feet (ft), miles, acres, pounds (lbs) and short tons (2,000 lbs). Uranium production is expressed as pounds U₃O₈, the standard market unit. ISR is sometimes also termed in-situ leach (ISL). Unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($) refer to United States currency.

2.4 Inspection on the Property by Each Qualified Person

Mr. Beahm was onsite during the period of November 12 through November 15, 2010, during core drilling. At that time, Mr. Beahm observed drilling operations, examined core samples and reviewed lithologic and gamma logging procedures, and examined cores from previous drilling campaigns, which were stored at the site.

Mr. Clyde Yancey was onsite during the period of December 12 through December 15, 2017. At this time, Mr. Yancey examined core samples from previous drilling campaigns, which were stored at the site, and examined lithologic logs, electric logs and maps at the UEC office in Asuncion, Paraguay.

Mr. Victor Fernandez-Crosa has been onsite as the project manager on numerous occasions. Mr. Fernandez-Crosa’s most recent visit to the site was on December 23, 2021. During this time, he confirmed that core samples from the developed drilling campaigns were available at the deposits of the camp. All core samples are properly packaged and labeled to guarantee the information about their origin, coordinates and depth intervals. He was also able to verify that the maintenance tasks of the samples and infrastructure of the mining camp continue normally.

2.4.1 QP Qualifications

Douglas Beahm, PE, PG is the independent Qualified Person (QP) and co-author of this IA, responsible for the preparation of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 and contributed to portions Sections 1, 2 and 22-25 of this IA, which includes the mineral estimates herein. Mr. Beahm is a QP under the S-K 1300 standards responsible for the content of this IA and a Professional Engineer and Geologist with 48 years of professional experience.

               2-5
March 2023

Mr. Yancey, PG is the Vice President of Exploration for UEC, a QP and co-author of this IA responsible for the preparation of Section 5and contributed to portions of 1,2, and 22-25 Mr. Yancey is a QP under the SK-1300 standards responsible for the content of this IA and a Professional Geologist with 44 years of professional experience.

Mr. Fernandez-Crosa currently serves as Country Manager and Chief Geologist of UEC’s wholly-owned subsidiary in Paraguay in charge of exploration activities for the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Crosa is responsible for preparation of Section 3.0 and contributed to portions of 2, 5, 23 and 25. Mr. Fernandez-Crosa graduated in 1987 as a Geologist from the National University of Asuncion and completed his formal training at the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Mineral Resources in Hannover, Germany. He has over 35 years of professional experience in Paraguay.

2.5 Previous Technical Report Summaries

UEC has not previously filed an IA on the Project.

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

               2-6
March 2023

3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Property Description and Location

The Project 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 Property, 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.

3.2 Mineral Rights

In Paraguay, it is constitutionally established that all minerals in the soil and subsoil are property of the Paraguayan State (the State). This is why TPSA, although it is currently, through an agreement signed with the government of Paraguay, has a mining concession contract that will allow it to extract minerals within the concession area in exchange for the payment of 2.5% of the mineral production as royalties to the State. This agreement has a term of 20 years, renewable every 5 years indefinitely.

In 2011, Law 4269 was enacted, which modified the Mining Law and established a quarterly payment of royalties equivalent to 8% of the profits of mining companies, a modification to which the Project can benefit automatically, as this possibility is established in its concession contract.

Figure 3‑1:         Project Area Location

               3-7
March 2023

5.2.1 Acreages and annual holding costs for the Project

The two blocks of the Project cover an area of 289,687 acres (117,232 hectares). In Paraguay, mining companies must pay a mining land fee equivalent of $2.50 to the State for each hectare that covers a mining project’s concession area. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the mining legislation of Paraguay, UEC must pay a total of $293,800.00 annually to the State at the beginning of each year of the exploitation phase. In addition to this mining land fee, Paraguayan mining law stipulates that all concessionaires must commit to making annual investments established on a scale of amounts of US dollars per hectare. In the case of the Project, to enter the exploitation phase, an investment commitment equivalent to $690,000 per year was established as indicated in the respective laws, which is equivalent to one third of the investment commitment approved by the mining regulator for the last year of exploration phase. Although this expense can be included within UEC’s investment commitments, another fixed expense established in the concession contract is that the Project must contribute a yearly fund of $10,000.00 during the four first years of the exploitation phase to finance training activities for Officers of the Vice Ministry of Mines and Energy (VMME) of the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (MOPC).

A	B	C=AXB
Area	Mining Land Fee	Mining Land Fee payable per year
(Hectares)	($ x Hectare)	($)
117,232	2.50	293,800.00
Annual fixed expenses
Mining Land Fee		293,800.00
Investment Commitment (**)		690,000.00
(**)Includes all administrative and operating expenses and training funds for VMME officials

3.3 Surface Rights

From the moment UEC acquired the concession of the Project in 2012 granted by the Law, the MOPC, through respective rulings, provided the authorization of the extension of the exploration phase. Throughout the exploration period (2007 to 2014) for this Project, an investment of $26 million (more than $14 million of direct investment in exploration expenses) has been made. Thus, in 2015, the enforcement authority granted the approval of the exploration phase by Resolution 559 and, at the same time, authorized movement to the exploitation phase. Based on the terms and conditions of the Concession Contract, it also provided a suspension of terms for 1 year until April 2016 and reduced the Project area to two exploitation lots (Blocks 1 and 2 unified), reducing the current area of the Project to 289,687 acres.

In April 2016, UEC submitted a request for an extension of the suspension of terms of the exploitation phase, and based on this request, the MOPC and UEC entered into a commitment agreement wherein minimum requirements were established as a condition to grant the second year of extension of the additional suspension of terms.

In September 2016, the MOPC extended the suspension of exploitation terms for one more year by Ruling Nr.1482.

               3-8
March 2023

During 2018, a new administration was installed in Paraguay and the newly-installed MOPC regulators disagreed with the previous administration’s position that the concession of the Project was eligible for extension to the continuation of the exploitation phase. Therefore, in 2018, UEC began legal actions to protect the mining rights of the Yuty Concession. In August 2021, following several years of negotiations that resulted in the signing of an extrajudicial agreement between the Paraguayan General Attorney Office, the MOPC and UEC, UEC’s litigation ended. This restarted the process of re-instatement of the Project concession. The reinstatement process is estimated to culminate in the second half of 2022 by a resolution that will authorize the official start of the exploitation phase by MOPC.

3.4 Significant Encumbrances or Risks to Perform Work on Property

3.4.1 Existing and Required Permits

In August 2021, an extrajudicial agreement was signed, concluding the litigation against the MOPC and restarting the process for the re-instatement of this concession rights. The mining activities of the exploitation phase may be started once the aforementioned re-instatement is completed. According to estimations, the rights restitution process should end between June and August 2022.

The mining laws of Paraguay require compliance with current environmental laws, for which the Project has external consultants in charge of obtaining and maintaining environmental licenses that are in force and in the process of being adapted to satisfy the environmental requirements required for the start of the exploitation phase. In order to comply with the environmental requirements mentioned above that were established by the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development, certain mining concessions were obtained:

● the environmental license for the closure of the exploration phase for blocks 1 and 2 of the Project (DGCCARN A.A. Licenses No. 4402/2021 and DGCCARN A.A. No. 1099/2022 respectively), which is pending; and

● the process of the license for the exploitation phase itself that will be granted once the process of restitution of the rights has been completed in its entirety.

Environmental License
Resolution Nr.	Description	Status
DGCCARN A.A. 4402/2021	Exploration Phase Closure Resolution for Block 1	In force
DGCCARN A.A. 1099/2022	Exploration Phase Closure Resolution for Block 2
In process of issuance	License for exploitation phase for blocks 1 and 2	Granting Pending

3.4.2 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Right to Perform Work

Unlike other Latin American countries, Paraguay is an agricultural and livestock country with a small, emerging mining sector that began in the 2000s. Therefore, the country lacks NGOs, environmental and conservationist organizations opposed to this sector. However, due to this lack of mining tradition in Paraguay, political risk does exist. Political and legislative instability has been experienced in the past and has been successfully resolved by the UEC at the Project.

               3-9
March 2023

Additionally, due to the lack of mining experience in Paraguay, bureaucracy within the regulatory institutions of the mining and environmental sector may result in delays in the processing of applications, mining permits and environmental licensing. This lack of experience with respect to mining projects may also result in variations in the interpretation of the law by different administrations of the mining law enforcement authority.

The authors consider this risk as moderate, as UEC has dealt with these issues in the past and has maintained consistent staff and local representation in these matters since the acquisition of the Project.

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

               3-10
March 2023

4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Physiography

The Project area lies within the Parana Basin of South America, which spans portions of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina.

The Project is located approximately 200 km east and southeast of Asunción, the capital of Paraguay, as shown Figure 6-1. The vast majority of the property lies within an area of low relief, ranging from 5 m to 20 m. The elevation in the low-lying areas is in the order of 125 m above mean sea level. The geographic coordinates of the San Antonio area in Block 1, the central part of the property where the bulk of past exploration has been carried out is located at approximately 26°37’S and 56°20’W.

The area is covered with extensive lateritic and saprolitic material, and outcrops are rare. Vegetation consists predominantly of tall grass and fruit trees, typical of the pampas in Argentina and Paraguay. Overburden cover ranges from 5 m to 15 m.

The land in the southeastern part of Paraguay, and in particular the Yuty area, is used mainly for agriculture by local villagers.

4.2 Accessibility and Local Resources

Access to the Project area is by roads or by fixed-wing aircraft. The Project area is adjacent to Yuty, a town of approximately 3,000 people. Supplies and heavy equipment are brought to the community by trucks.

4.3 Climate

The climate in southeastern Paraguay is sub-tropical to temperate, with little difference in seasonal temperature. The mean temperature during the winter months (June to September, the “dry season”) is 20°C and ranges from 15°C to 30°C. The mean temperature during the summer months (December to March, the “rainy season”) is 30°C and ranges from 25°C to 35°C. The average annual precipitation ranges from 75 cm to 150 cm. Exploration in the Yuty area may be carried out throughout the year, although there may be heavy rains during the summer months, which affects transportation and exploration activities.

4.4 Infrastructure

Local infrastructure is available at Yuty and in nearby towns. Infrastructure at the site includes electrical power, a cell phone network, and road building equipment. Water, both industrial and potable, is drawn from wells.

               4-11
March 2023

5.0 HISTORY

5.1 Prior Ownership

Exploration for uranium in Southeastern Paraguay was started in 1976 by Anschutz, after the Government of Paraguay and Anschutz signed a concession agreement in December 1975 (Anchutz Concession). This 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 peoples.

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 (Pearson, 1981). The regional correlation of stratigraphic horizons favorable for uranium mineralization is shown in various figures of that report (Anschutz, 1981).

The initial uranium exploration by Anschutz in 1976 covered an exclusive exploration-exploitation concession covering some 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 km apart. The station spacing for the Track Etch survey was subsequently reduced to 5 km in the southern part of the Anschutz 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 (Dunlop, 1979).

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 m to 200 m and geochemical stream sediment and soil sampling. Flight line spacing for the airborne radiometric survey was 5 km with a clearance of 100 m 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, signed between the Government of the Republic and TPSA for the exploration and exploitation of metallic and non-metallic minerals, precious and semiprecious Gems.

In March 2012, UEC acquired Cue Resources Ltd. (CUE). At the time of the acquisition, the Project 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 m of core and rotary drilling was available and a NI 43-101 technical report was completed.

               5-12
March 2023

5.2 Type, Amount, Quantity and Results of Work by Previous Owners

5.2.1 Previous Drilling

Anschutz and CUE have completed the following drilling programs on the Project.

● drilling by Anschutz circa 1978 to 1983, 285 total drill holes, of which 264 drill holes have complete data,

● drilling by CUE circa 2007 to 2010, 255 total drill holes, of which 251 drill holes have complete data, and

● drilling completed in 2011, 36 total drill holes, of which 35 drill holes have complete data.

The Anschutz drill data was in the public record as a requirement of Paraguay. The original logs were scanned and digitized to create a digital database. No samples are available from the Anschutz drilling. The CUE drill data and samples were passed with the title of The Mining Exploration and Exploitation Concession. Drilling included rotary percussion and diamond core drilling.

5.2.2 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

Historical mineral resources estimates were completed by:

● Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc, dated May 15, 2008 (Scott Wilson (2008));

● Healex Consulting Ltd, dated May 27, 2009 (Healex, 2009); and

● BRS and ExplorMine Consultants, 2011 (BRS, 2011).

UEC considered the previous mineral resource estimate as historical. These historical mineral resource estimates were prepared before the implementation of the SEC’s S-K or Canada’s current NI 43-101 standards, and do not necessarily use the categories for mineral reserve and mineral resource reporting as defined by those standards. The reader should not rely on these historical reserve estimates, as they are superseded by the mineral resource estimate presented in Section 11.0 of this IA.

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

               5-13
March 2023

6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT

6.1 Regional Geology

The Project area is situated within the Paraná Basin in Southeastern Paraguay (Figure 6.1). The property 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 UPC sequence and determine favorable areas of the host sandstone.

The stratigraphic sequence of the lithologies in the 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 m thick;

● Tapyata Formation: 125 m thick;

● Tacuary Formation: 280 m thick; and

● San Miguel Formation: 20 m to 90 m thick.

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” (Blair, 2006a).

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 m to 90 m thick unit known as the San Miguel Formation (within the Independencia Formation), is the best host for uranium mineralization in the 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 high radioactive background” (Blair, 2006a).

               6-14
March 2023

Figure 6‑1:         Regional Geologic Setting of the Parana Basin

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

               6-15
March 2023

6.2 Local Geology

Local sandstone units in descending stratigraphic order are:

● Upper Sand Unit: Estimated to be approximately 50 m thick;

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

● Massive Sand Unit: Estimated to be 60 m to 100 m thick;

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

● Wavy Unit: Estimated to be up to 20 m thick.

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 Project. At the Project, soils are typically 5 – 15 m 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. Refer to Figure 6.2.

6.2.1 Upper Sand Unit

The Upper Sand Unit is comprised essentially of massive, locally cross-bedded medium to fine-grained sandstone with some clay interbeds. Strong oxidation and distinctively low radiometric response are the characteristic features of this unit in the area (Anschutz, 1981).

6.2.2. Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit

This unit occurs more commonly in the northern UPC region. For the most part, it is comprised of thinly-laminated, fine-grained to silty layers of sandstone alternating with shale layers. In places, this sequence is interrupted “by a one-metre-thick sandstone layer which scours into the beds underlying them” (Anschutz, 1981). The sandstones exhibit graded bedding, with conglomeratic material at the base, and medium-grained sandstone to fine-grained sandstone at the top. Oolitic chert horizons are present in the lower part of the Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit. During the site visit, sub-outcrops of this oolitic chert horizon were observed along the second field traverse. Scott Wilson, RPA is of the opinion that this may represent a marker horizon and may have acted as a resistive unit during the mineralizing process of the underlying San Miguel Formation.

The depositional environment of the Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit is interpreted as mainly fluvial to shallow marine, for the oolitic zone. It is uncertain if the cherty nature of the oolitic zone is a primary (sedimentary) or secondary (diagenetic alteration) feature. No significant radiometric anomalies are reported to be present within the Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit (Anschutz, 1981).

               6-16
March 2023

6.2.3 Massive Sand Unit

The Massive Sand Unit is characterized by generally massive, occasionally cross-bedded, coarse to medium-grained, rounded, poorly sorted, friable and sub-arkosic sandstone, and is interpreted to represent a beach facies (Anschutz, 1981).

In the western part of the Project area, the massive Sand Unit is intensively oxidized. In the east, it exhibits a reducing environment “with abundant pyrite and moderate to abundant amounts of carbonaceous material. These reduced sands within the Massive Sand Unit contain several gamma anomalies and/or weakly mineralized horizons throughout the unit” (Anschutz, 1981).

6.2.4 Fine-Grained Sand Unit

“The Fine-grained Sand Unit represents a regressive depositional change from a shallow marine to a beach environment” (Anschutz, 1981). Only minor radiometric anomalies are reported from this unit.

6.2.5 Wavy Unit

This unit overlies the black shale unit of the LPC. It contains fine to very fine-grained sandstone interlayered with siltstones and shales. “Wavy, flaser, lenticular and bioturbated structures are present. A few ±20 cm thick, indurated fine-grained sandstone stringers within the unit show strong radiometric anomalies” (Anschutz, 1981).

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

               6-17
March 2023

Figure 6‑2:         Yuty Type Log

               6-18
March 2023

6.3 Property Geology

6.3.1 Deposit Type

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. Figure 6.3 shows the Project drill hole locations and cross-sections shown on Figures 6.4 and 6.5.

The style of mineralization within the sandstones at the Project includes some characteristics of the roll front-type mineralization, as in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming in the United States. It is likely that the style of mineralization is a variety of the roll front-type uranium mineralization (Wilson, 2008).

6.3.2 Mineralization

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, USA.

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 Project area. Honea (1981) examined three sandstone samples in a polished section under the scanning electron microscope (SEM). 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, 1981). 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” (Honea, 1981).

               6-19
March 2023

Figure 6‑3:         Cross-Section Index Map

               6-20
March 2023

Figure 6‑4:         Cross-Section A-A’

               6-21
March 2023

Figure 6‑5:         Cross-Section B-B’

               6-22
March 2023

7.0 EXPLORATION

7.1 Exploration

Since acquiring the Project, UEC performed no exploration on the property and has relied entirely on legacy data for the updated mineral resource estimates and project planning.

7.1.1 Previous Exploration

During the exploration programs by Anschutz, airborne radiometric surveys, regional geological mapping and geochemical sampling were the main exploration tools for uranium exploration in the southeastern part of Paraguay. This was followed-up by core and rotary drilling, in two phases. The initial phase was to drill wide-spaced reconnaissance diamond drill holes along fences spaced approximately 16 km apart. The objective of this initial phase was to obtain stratigraphic information across an inferred host trend. The second phase was to drill rotary holes, spaced approximately 0.5 km apart, within—as well as in between—the fences of the reconnaissance holes to establish and outline target areas. All drill holes were logged and probed by gamma, neutron and resistivity surveys. From 1978 to 1983, Anschutz completed more than 75,000 m of drilling.

Of a total of 266 drill holes reported by Anschutz to have been drilled in the San Antonio area, data from 257 holes are available to CUE, and are incorporated in Scott Wilson (2008) and this IA. Figure 7.1 shows the locations of drill holes.

7.1.2 QP’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information

The QP considers the exploration completed to date on the Project to be consistent with industry standards and adequate to support mineral resource estimation.

7.2 Drilling On Property

7.2.1 Overview

UEC's database includes:

● drilling by Anschutz circa 1978 to 1983, 285 total drill holes, of which 264 drill holes have complete data;

● drilling by CUE circa 2007 to 2010, 255 total drill holes, of which 251 drill holes have complete data; and

● drilling completed in 2011, 36 total drill holes, of which 35 drill holes have complete data.

The Anschutz drill data was in the public record as a requirement of Paraguay. The original logs were scanned and digitized to create a digital database. No samples are available from the Anshutz drilling. The CUE drill data and samples were passed with the title of the Mining Exploration and Exploitation Concession.

UEC has drilled no exploration holes.

Drilling included rotary percussion and diamond core drilling.

               7-23
March 2023

7.2.2 Drill Holes Excluded from Mineral Resource Estimation

Drill holes that were reasonably known to exist but for which no geological or geophysical data were discovered were excluded from mineral resource estimation.

Questionable drill hole data that could not be verified were not used in the resource estimation. Assignment of a value of zero (equivalent to designation as a barren point) would not be appropriate because it could be misleading.

7.2.3 Drill Data Used in the Current Mineral Resource Estimation

The current drill hole database within the limits of the mineral resource model consists of 543 drill holes. These drill holes contained 963 unique intercepts, which were categorized in the following manner:

● 454 Massive Sand Unit intercepts, of which 40 were below 0.03 %m (0.1 %ft) GT cutoff;

● 311 Fine-Grained/Wavy Sand Units intercepts, of which 107 were below 0.03 %m GT cutoff;

● 125 intercepts with trace mineralization;

● 60 barren drill holes; and

● 13 drill holes were excluded due to missing and/or incomplete data.

The uranium quantities and grades are reported as equivalent U3O8 (eU3O8), as measured by downhole gamma logging.

7.2.4 QP’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information

The QP considers the exploration completed to date on the Project to be consistent with industry standards and adequate to support mineral resource estimation.

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

               7-24
March 2023

Figure 7-1:         Drill Hole Location Map

               8-25
March 2023

7.2.5 Drill Hole Logging Procedure

Standard operating procedure for logging of drill core and/or rotary cutting samples includes recording all down-hole data, including radiometric values and subsequently assay values, when they become available. All information is recorded on previously prepared logging forms, including:

● Lithologic contacts

● Descriptive geology

● Intensity of various alteration types

● Structural features, bedding orientation, fracture and brecciated zones

● Core angles

● Core diameter

● Percent core recovery record

● Calculation of Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values

● Measurement of rock density

● Maintaining a photographic record of the core with a digital camera. Photographs are taken of all exploration drill core and key information is summarized in a digital database.

● Relative increase or decrease in the amount of limonitic, hematitic, chloritic and/or pyrolusite (MnO2) alteration.

● Carbonate alteration: Calcite generally occurs as vertical veinlets within the overlying diabase as well as the host sandstones.

● Pyrite alteration: Pyrite and marcasite veins occur in the diabase as well as in the sandstones.

7.2.6 Recovery

Core recovery as observed by the author during drilling in 2010 was in excess of 90%.

7.2.7 Collar Surveys

The collar locations of all drill holes are surveyed and marked in the field. A Global Positioning System instrument is used to mark the collar locations of both old Anschutz drill holes and CUE drill holes. This survey was carried out by a qualified third-party surveyor from Búscore Consulting Ltd. in Ecuador.

7.2.8 Downhole Surveys

Down-hole surveying was not done. The formation is flat lying, so there would be no preferential direction of downhole drift due to the formation. It is the author’s opinion that the downhole drift would be a function of the setup of the drilling equipment. The maximum depth drilled 150 m. If the drilling equipment was set slightly off vertical, say 1° to 2°, the downhole drift at 150 m would be in the range of 2.6 to 5.3 m and the difference between true thickness and apparent thickness would be less than 1/100^th of a metre per 10 m. It is the author’s opinion that this variance would not materially affect the mineral resource estimation herein.

               8-26
March 2023

7.2.9 Radiometric Logging

Post-2000 drilling:

A Mount Sopris Instrument (MGX II model and Matrix digital logger S/N 0713) was used for this purpose. The logging unit is equipped with one Poly Gamma Probe, type 2PGA-1000, S/N 3842 that can record in one run the gamma ray intensity (Gamma) in counts per second (CPS), or in another run simultaneously the electrical self-potential field and the so-called single point electrical resistance. The cable winch unit carries a cable length of 500 m, and the Matrix logger carries a cable length of 1,000 m. The logging unit provides a continuous digital record of CPS by depth in specified increments (0.1m).

The logging unit is portable, and was shipped to the manufacturer in the United States for calibration at the standard Department of Energy (DOE) facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. This calibration provided the dead time and K factor used in the conversion of natural gamma CPS recorded by the instrument to equivalent grade eU₃O₈. Downhole gamma readings were recorded in 0.1m increments. The CPS was corrected for dead time for each 0.1m interval and converted to eU₃O₈ by multiplying the corrected CPS by two times the K factor.

An onsite drill hole was cased at the surface, such that it could be preserved. This hole was geophysically logged prior to, periodically during, and after each drilling campaign, and compared to previous results to ensure that the instrument remained calibrated.

Pre-2000 drilling:

The pre-2000 drill logs (Anschutz drill data) were in the public record as a requirement of Paraguay. The original logs were scanned and digitized to create a digital database comparable to the post-2000 drill logs and the same conversion procedures were followed. The pre-2000 drill logs included radiometric calibration factors, dead time and K factor.

7.2.10 QP Statements Concerning Radiometric Drill Data

The author considers the drilling and downhole logging procedures employed during the past drilling programs and the data derived from those programs to be reliable for the purposes of this IA.

7.3 Hydrogeology

Hydrologic testing of the San Miguel Formation (host formation) at the San Antonio project was completed through a pumping test performed by Hydro Engineering, LLC in 2011 (Hydro). Hydro’s final report titled “Aquifer Properties and Estimated Recovery and Injection Rates for the Yuty Uranium Project”, April, 2011, is included in the references.

The report concludes that transmissivities range from 2.3 to 6.7 m²/day and averaged 3.7 m²/day. The storage coefficient ranged from 9.9 E^-5 to 6.0 E^-4 and averaged 2.0 ^E-4. The aquifer properties for the San Miguel aquifer at the Project are very similar to two of the Powder River Basin ISR projects in Wyoming. One of these two sites has been commercially mined by ISR, while the other has been extensively tested for ISR recovery. This indicates that the Project mineral deposit may be suitable for ISR recovery based on the aquifer properties observed during this testing. (Hydro, 2011).

               8-27
March 2023

7.4 Geotechnical Testing

Geotechnical testing has been limited. The RQD values were recorded from all core holes. RQD values were generally above 75%, which indicates good rock strength. The author observed coring in 2010 and calculated RQD values in excess of 90% and concludes the host formation sandstone are very competent.

Rock strength is not a critical factor for in-situ mining. If conventional mining were employed, the rock strength would be critical for the design of highwalls and/or roof support for convention open pit or underground mining, respectively.

The diabase was not cored, but is quarried in the area for road base. If conventional open pit mining were considered, blasting will be required.

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

               8-28
March 2023

8.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

8.1 Sampling Methods

Conventional rotary holes were not sampled. Grade was determined by calibrated downhole gamma detection probes.

The sampling procedures when a core drilling program is conducted for the purpose of sample analysis are as follows:

● Drill core is brought by authorized exploration personnel one or more times per shift from the drill rig directly to a drill logging and sampling area within the Project. Within 48 hours, the material core intervals (e.g., potentially mineralized intervals) are photographed, logged and sampled and the samples are shipped directly to the sample preparation laboratory. The method of delivery is by air freight.

● Sampling of drill core is done at half-metre intervals. Samples are handled only by Búscore or Seminsa contract geologists and are sent to SGS Sample Preparation Laboratory (SGS), in San Juan, Argentina, where sample preparation is carried out. Thereafter, samples are sent to Energy Labs in Casper, Wyoming (Energy Labs), a certified lab, for uranium assays by both chemical and the Closed Can method.

● Each sample is assigned a unique sample number that allows it to be traced through the sampling and analytical procedures for validation against the original sample site. The second half of the split core is stored at the Project site as a control sample, available for review and resampling if required.

● Blanks and standards are inserted after every ten samples. Two types of standards are used. These were acquired from the Saskatchewan Research Council laboratory, and the blanks are collected from diabase sill overlying the mineralized units at the Project with expected nil uranium values.

8.2 Analysis

Chemical analysis on drill core is carried out only on selected samples. The purpose of these analyses is to compare the equivalent uranium grades obtained by down-hole probing the holes with the chemicals and to determine the disequilibrium in the uranium grades, if any.

8.3 Security

The drill core not utilized for analysis is stored in a secured area near the town of Yuty, and samples are handled only by Búscore or Seminsa contract geologists, as noted above. The core is stored in a covered area inside the exploration camp compound and secured with fencing.

8.4 Density Determinations

Previous reports (Healex, 2009) state that the average density measurements of 80 representative core samples ranged from 2.35 g/cm3 to 2.61 g/cm3 and averaged 2.43 g/cm3.

               8-29
March 2023

The author was not able to verify this data, as the samples were not preserved. However, the author has direct conventional mining experience in sandstone-hosted uranium in the western United States and has observed that rock density in host sandstones typically range from 2 gm/cm3 (16 ft3/ton) in Tertiary sandstone hosts, common to Wyoming, to 2.25 gm/cm3 (14.5 ft3/ton) in more lithified Cretaceous sandstones, common to the Colorado Plateau. It is the author’s opinion that the average density of 2.43 g/cm3 (13ft3/ton) applied to mineral resource calculations herein is considered appropriate, given the age and degree of lithification of the sandstone host. It is recommended that additional density sampling be conducted.

8.5 Downhole Geophysical Logging

As discussed in Section 7, geophysical logging was routinely conducted for every drill hole completed on the Project by all operators. Natural gamma logs provide an indirect measurement or radiometric equivalent measurement of uranium content by logging gamma radiation in CPS at one-tenth ft intervals. CPS are then converted to eU308.

Conversion of the downhole CPS to equivalent uranium content expressed as %eU3O8 followed industry-standard procedures, as described in Section 7 of this IA.

8.5.1 Disequilibrium

The great majority of the data available for estimation of mineral resources is radiometric equivalent data from geophysical logging data. Radiometric equilibrium conditions may affect the grade and spatial location of uranium in the mineralization. Generally, an equilibrium ratio (Chemical U3O8 [c] to Radiometric eU3O8 [e]) is assumed to be 1 (i.e., equilibrium is assumed). Equilibrium occurs when the relationship of uranium with its naturally occurring radioactive daughter products is in balance. Oxygenated groundwater moving through a deposit can disperse uranium down the groundwater gradient, leaving most of the daughter products in place. The dispersed uranium will be in a favorable state of disequilibrium (c/e = greater than 1) and the depleted area will be in an unfavorable state (c/e = less than 1). The effect of disequilibrium can vary within a deposit and has been shown to be variable from the oxidized to the reduced side of the roll fronts.

The author reviewed the previous Technical Reports (Wilson, 2008 and Healex, 2009), and the available data with respect to chemical assay data as compared to radiometric equivalent assay data and notes that the results of over 260 samples tested for both equivalent (Closed Can) %eU3O8 and chemical %U3O8 showed a slightly higher average grade with respect to chemical assays as compared to equivalent assays.

Core data was available from 12 core holes or approximately 4% of the total drilling. The author reviewed this data and compared the radiometric equivalent data to chemical assay data based on the sum GT of mineralization greater than 0.02 %eU3O8. This comparison showed chemical enrichment on the order of 20%, or a positive disequilibrium factor of 1.2, as shown on Figure 8.1. However, based on the limited data, no adjustment in the equivalent uranium grades is recommended by the author as a conservative measure.

               8-30
March 2023

Figure 8‑1:         Comparison of Radiometric and Chemical Data

8.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

For core samples, sample preparation procedures at the SGS sample preparation laboratory in San Juan, Argentina, and the chemical and Closed Can assays were performed at Energy Labs (Scott Wilson (2008).

8.6.1 Downhole Probe QC

The logging unit used in post-2000 drilling program is portable and was shipped to the manufacturer in the United States for calibration at the standard DOE facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. This calibration provided the dead time and K factor used in the conversion of natural gamma CPS recorded by the instrument to equivalent grade eU3O8.

An onsite drill hole was cased at the surface, such that it could be preserved. This hole was geophysically logged prior to, periodically during, and after each drilling campaign, and compared to previous results to ensure that the instrument remained calibrated.

The pre-2000 drill logs (Anschutz drill data) was in the public record as a requirement of Paraguay. The original logs were scanned and digitized to create a digital database comparable to the post-2000 drill logs and the same conversion procedures were followed. The pre-2000 drill logs included radiometric calibration factors, dead time and K factor.

               8-31
March 2023

8.7 Database

Previous reports (Wilson, 2008) and Healex, 2009) relied on a database consisting of summed interval of mineralization or intercepts develop for both the pre- and post-2000 drill data. Although it was recognized that mineralization occurred in at least two stratigraphic units, mineral resource estimates were generally two-dimensional by total drill hole GT. For the 2011 mineral resource estimate, which was completed by geostatistical methods, the original data in the form of natural gamma measurements downhole by 0.1m increments was converted to uranium equivalent %eU3O8, as previously discussed in Section 7.

The database was developed under the direct supervision of the author and was vetted during the mineral geostatistical resource estimation process. Some discrepancies in hole location were noted, primarily with respect to ground elevation and, where appropriate, collar elevations were corrected to modern digital elevation models.

For this IA, which employs a GT contour method of mineral resource estimation, the 0.1m intervals from each were composited by geologic horizon. Mineral resource estimates were then completed by GT contouring of the Massive Sand Unit and the combined lower Fine-Grained Sand Unit and Wavy Unit.

8.8 QP’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

In the opinion of the QP:

● sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for drill programs are in line with industry-standard methods for similar uranium projects;

● drill programs, including downhole gamma and calibration procedures, are in line with uranium industry-standard operating procedures considering the remoteness of the Project; and

● digital database construction and security are adequate. The physical database is properly organized and secure, although the author notes that the drill cores are not stored in a manner that precludes oxidization, and thus their value for metallurgical testing is limited.

The QP is of the opinion that the quality of the uranium analytical data is sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation without limitations on mineral resource confidence categories.

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

               8-32
March 2023

9.0 DATA VERIFICATION

9.1 Drill Data

As previously discussed, industry-standard methods were utilized at the time of data collection. Geophysical logs for historic drill holes were analyzed and evaluated for completeness and sufficiently quality checked in the process of developing the drill hole database for the resource modeling. Original geophysical logs for pre-2000 drilling were publicly available and were scanned and digitized. Downhole gamma measurements were converted to gamma equivalent values in %eU3O8 using standard methods. Post-2000 geophysical logs and drill data was provided in digital format and converted to gamma equivalent values using the same method as applied to the pre-2000 data.

Spatial locations and elevation of drill holes were available from multiple surveys. This data was reconciled where possible. Some discrepancies existed in elevations and, for these drill holes, the collar elevations were corrected to modern digital elevation models.

9.2 Calibration of Doan-Hole Geophysical Instruments

For the drilling program initiated in 2007, prior to calculating the %eU3O8 content of the mineralized intersections encountered in the recent drilling, CUE calibrated the down-hole probe by frequent testing of an Anschutz hole with known mineralization. Only after repeat results gave reliable values was the probe used to calculate %eU3O8 values for the new holes (Wilson, 2008). Subsequently, during the 2011 drilling program, the on-site calibration procedures were followed, and at the end of the program the geophysical logging equipment was shipped to the US for calibration at the standard calibration facility administered by the DOE in Grand Junction, Colorado. The calibration was supervised by the manufacturer of the equipment, Mt. Sorpis of Delta, Colorado. Only slight variations were observed in the calibration factors (BRS et al, 2011).

9.3 Check Assays

For the 2007 drilling program by CUE, check assays and QA/QC procedures were followed both at the Project site as well as at SGS sample preparation laboratory and Energy Labs. These included the insertion of standards and blanks by Seminsa staff, as well as by SGS staff. In addition, Energy Labs conducts its own internal check program. Details of this work have been previously reported by Scott Wilson, (2008). These results are consistent with a properly functioning laboratory and are deemed acceptable (Healex, 2009).

9.4 Confirmation Drilling

In 2007, CUE completed 13 drill holes close to the Anschutz holes in an area 100 m by 100 m in the Project. The purpose of this initial program was to compare the new drill hole results with the Anschutz data and to determine if they are part of the same statistical population. Results indicate both datasets are similar (Wilson, 2008).

In 2010, the drilling program was not specifically designed to verify historical drilling. However, the drill results were compared to the GT contour mineral resource model developed in 2009 (Healex, 2009), and were found to be comparable with respect to grade and thickness of mineralization.

               9-33
March 2023

9.5 QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy

The historic and more recent exploration data and the overall data adequacy is deemed to be reasonably sufficient by the QP for applying QA/QC techniques and verifying the legitimacy of the data incorporated into this IA.

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

               9-34
March 2023

10.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

10.1 Introduction

Preliminary laboratory scale metallurgical testing programs have been completed for the Project. No definitive bench or pilot study has been completed. Thus, the author recommends the use of 70% metallurgical recovery factor from CIM guidance for sandstone ISR projects. A summary of the testing follows.

Hazen Research, Inc. (Hazen): On April 29, 2008, Hazen reported the results of a limited amount of laboratory work. Hazen tested only four samples out of a total of 29 available and obtained poor results, despite maintaining satisfactory chemistry during the tests. Leaching with sulfuric acid and sodium chlorate at pH 1.0-1.2 and 450-500 mv Eh dissolved only 30-32 percent of the uranium in 72-96 hours. Acid consumption was 80 lb/ton. Alkaline-agitated leaching at pH 7.5-8.5 only dissolved 8-9 percent of the uranium in 96-168 hours. Control of pH was affected with carbon dioxide. Mineralogical characterization of the heads and leached residues disclosed various potentially refractory U-Ti and U-Zr species, with uranium silicates contributing most or all of the readily oxidized and dissolved uranium.

J. E. Litz & Associates (John Litz): On September 29, 2008, John Litz summarized a single test on a composite made up of different samples from those tested by Hazen. This test was a column simulation of ISR with minus 0.375-inch fragments of core. A lixiviant containing sodium chlorate and ferric sulfate with sulfuric acid addition to pH 1.4-2.05 was contacted with the sample for 75 days and a total of 35 bed volumes of solution. Free acid was not monitored and adjusted properly, so pH was allowed to drift above 2.0 during the middle of the series, and kinetics slowed until the deficiency was corrected. Nonetheless, uranium extraction reached 86 percent after 75 days and was still increasing gradually. The acid consumption was 112 lb/ton.

Resource Development Inc. (RDI): During December 2016 through March 2017, RDI conducted a variety of acidic and alkaline leach tests. There were eight agitated leach tests on pulverized (minus 150-mesh) samples with sulfuric acid but without an oxidant and reported uranium extractions that ranged from 47.0 to 64.7 percent in 24 hours. The sample with the lowest extraction was re-run with hydrogen peroxide as the oxidant, and the uranium extraction was 59.4 percent after 24 hours, increasing to 67.0 percent after 96 hours. These samples were composed of rejects from selected archived core intervals.

A master composite intended to be representative of the entire resource was then made up of core rejects. Included in the composite were core fragments from Holes SA 1074 and 1076 that duplicated the intervals tested by Hazen. Bottle roll leaching tests on coarser material with fresh lixiviant were completed at the beginning of each stage. The alkaline test only achieved 30.0 percent uranium extraction after six stages, but the acidic test yielded 92.0 percent uranium extraction. Leach test on minus 60-mesh materials were run under both acidic and alkaline conditions with sodium peroxide as the oxidant and in six 16-hour stages with fresh lixiviant at the beginning of each stage. The alkaline test only achieved 30.0 percent uranium extraction after six stages, but the acidic test yielded 92.0 percent uranium extraction.

               10-35
March 2023

Additional metallurgical testing on representative samples under a variety of leach conditions and parameters is recommended, including but not limited to:

● alkaline leaching in an agitated container;

● alkaline leaching under simulated ISR conditions;

● optimization of agitated acid leaching parameters; and

● column simulation of acidic ISR leaching.

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

               10-36
March 2023

11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

11.1 Introduction

The Project is located approximately 200 km (124 miles) south of Asunción, Paraguay. The Project is located adjacent to Yuty, Paraguay with the central part of the Project located at approximately 26 37’S and 56 20’W. The estimate of mineral resources is for the San Antonio area, where the majority of the exploration has been carried out.

11.2 Mineral Resource Summary

The mineral resource calculations presented herein have been completed in accordance with CIM Standards and NI 43-101 and SK-1300 guidance and definitions. Based on the drilling density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic correlation and modeling of the deposit, the mineralization herein meets CIM criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource. The Indicated Mineral Resource estimate at a 0.02 %eU₃O₈ grade cutoff and variable GT cutoffs of 0.1 and 0.2 %ft GT (0.030 and 0.061 %m GT) is provided in Table 11-1, to illustrate the sensitivity of GT cutoff on the estimate. Although each GT cutoff scenario has reasonable prospects of economic extraction, the 0.1 %ft GT (0.061 %m GT) cutoff for the Indicated Mineral Resource is recommended by the authors, based on reasonable prospects for economic extraction, as subsequently discussed in Section 11.5.

In addition to the above Indicated Mineral Resource, Inferred Mineral Resources may be projected, primarily as extensions of the Indicated Mineral Resource, along the geologic trends of the mineralization. By CIM definition, Inferred Mineral Resources are the part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be calculated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. Based on the drill density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic correlation and modeling of the deposit, the following Mineral Resource calculation meets CIM criteria as an Inferred Mineral Resource. The quantity of Inferred Mineral Resource is projected at a 0.02 %eU3O8 grade cutoff and estimated at 0.1 and 0.2 ft% GT cutoffs using the sensitivity analyses of the indicated portions of the resource. A summary of total Inferred Mineral Resource is provided in Table 11-2. The authors expect that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with additional drilling. However, it is not certain that additional exploration will result in discovery of an economic mineral resource on the Project property and/or demonstrate the continuity of mineralization within the areas of inferred mineral resources necessary for these areas to be classified as indicated mineral resources.

Mineral resources were calculated by stratigraphic horizon referred in this IA as units, based on geologic interpretation and correlation. These resources are reported at various cutoff grades for Indicated Mineral Resources, to illustrate the effect of varying cutoffs on the mineral resource. The preferred cutoff of 0.1 %ft GT is shaded in each table. The Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource quantities for the Project are presented in Table 11-1 and Table 11-2.

Figures 11-1 through 11-4 show the GT and thickness models for the Massive Sand Unit and the Fine-Grained and Wavy Unit, respectively.

               11-37
March 2023

Table 11‑1:         Total Indicated Mineral Resources at Varied GT Cutoffs

Unit	Tons (millions)	Weighted Average Thickness (ft)	Weighted Average Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds U3O8  (millions)
Massive Sand Unit
0.1 ft% GT	7.233	10.2	0.048	6.969
0.2 ft% GT	6.666	13.5	0.048	6.384
Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
0.1 ft% GT	1.842	3.5	0.054	1.994
0.2 ft% GT	1.264	7.4	0.043	1.083
Total Indicated Mineral Resource
0.1 ft% GT	9.074	7.3	0.049	8.962
0.2 ft% GT	7.930	11.9	0.047	7.467
Notes: 1.   SEC S-K definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. 2.   Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound. 3.   Numbers may not add up to the finalized amount due to rounding. 4.   Metallurgical Recovery 70% from CIM guidelines for ISR projects.

Table 11‑2:         Total Inferred Mineral Resources at Varied GT Cutoffs

Unit	Tons (millions)	Weighted Average Thickness (ft)	Weighted Average Grade (%U3O8)	Pounds U3O8  (millions)
Massive Sand Unit
0.1 ft% GT	1.690	14.5	0.045	1.528
0.2 ft% GT	1.549	14.5	0.045	1.400
Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
0.1 ft% GT	1.043	6.8	0.032	0.675
0.2 ft% GT	0.567	6.8	0.032	0.367
Total Inferred Mineral Resource
0.1 ft% GT	2.733	10.1	0.040	2.203
0.2 ft% GT	2.115	11.1	0.042	1.767
Notes: 1.    SEC S-K definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. 2.    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound. 3.    Numbers may not add up to the finalized amount due to rounding. 4.    Metallurgical Recovery 70% from CIM guidelines for ISR projects.

11.3 Resource Estimation Methods

GT estimation is a commonly used mineral resource estimation method in sandstone-hosted uranium deposits in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. It has proven to be reasonably easy to apply and provides acceptable estimates of uranium mineral resources.

The mineral resource estimation was completed using both geologic models and GT contour modeling methods. Both of these methods are outlined in the following subsections.

               11-38
March 2023

11.3.1 Geological Models

Geologic interpretation of the mineralized host sands was used, along with the intercepts that met the minimum cutoff GT, to develop a geologic framework or model within which to quantify the mineral resources at the Project. Each intercept was evaluated based on its geophysical log expression and location relative to adjacent intercepts. When possible, a combination of geophysical logs, geologist drill hole logs and drill hole summary and reports were used to correlate and project intercepts between drill holes. The mineralized envelope was created by using the top and bottom of each intercept that was within the geologic host sands. The intercepts that were used to make this envelope were then used in the resource model via the GT contour method.

Drill spacing within the Project is not uniform. Drill spacing at the Project was completed on approximately 50 to 100 m (164 to 328 ft) centers. Higher density drill spacing averaging 15 m (49 ft) was used in portions of the nose of the roll front. Drilling depths averaged 119 m (390 ft) within the Project. This included an average of 118 m (387 ft) in the Main Zone, 82 m (269 ft) in the Northwest Extension and 138 m (453 ft) in the Southwest Extension.

The current geologic and resource model reflects two major mineralized sand units over the stratigraphic thickness of approximately 50 m (164 ft) of the San Miguel Formation. The San Miguel Formation is sub-divided into three sand units: the Massive Sand Unit; the Fine-Grained Sand Unit; and the Wavy Sand Unit. The Massive Sand Unit is typically interbedded with a marker shale below which prolific mineralization of the Massive Sand Unit is located. Mineralization to a lesser degree also occurs in the Fine-Grained Sand Unit and Wavy Sand Unit, which were combined into a single zone for the purpose of geologic modeling. Mineralization was constrained below the Wavy Sand Unit by the Coronel Oveido Formation or the UPC/LPC contact.

Once the data was separated by zone, an initial radius of influence of 50 m (164 ft) was applied to each drill hole to establish an initial geologic limit to the projection of mineralization. Refinement of the geologic limit and projection of mineralization along trend was then based on specific correlation and interpretation of geophysical logs on a hole-by-hole basis. The 50 m (164 ft) radius was determined by the average drill spacing found in the Main Zone. Mineralization is clearly anisotropic and can be projected greater distances along trend. This is true for both the Northwest and Southwest Extensions, as well as the limbs projecting off of the Main Zone toward both Extensions. For the classification of Indicated Mineral Resource, the projection of mineralization along trend was limited to 120 m (394 ft). For Inferred Mineral Resources, the maximum projection was 600 m (1,969 ft) along trend, unless constrained by additional drill hole data.

11.3.2 GT Contour Method

The mineral resource model was completed using GT Contour Modeling Method for both mineralized zones of the deposit: the Massive Sand Unit and the combined Fine-Grained/Wavy Sand Units. The Contour Modeling Method is also known as the GT method. The technique is most useful in estimating tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies where lateral extent of the mineralized body is much greater than its thickness, as was observed with the data at the Project.

For tabular and roll front-style deposits, the GT method provides a clear illustration of the distribution of the thickness and average grade of uranium mineralization. The GT method is particularly applicable to the Project deposits, as it can be effective in reducing the undue influence of high-grade or thick intercepts, as well as the effects of widely-spaced, irregularly-spaced or clustered drill holes. This method also makes it possible for the geologist to fit the contour pattern to the geologic interpretation of the deposit.

               11-39
March 2023

For each zone, the limits of mineralization were determined by interpretation of the drill data. Within these limits, the GT and T (Grade x Thickness and Thickness) were contoured. Although an automated contouring program was used to produce the model surface itself, three-dimensional (3D) limits were established where appropriate to constrain the model. For example, drill holes with GT values several times the average were limited in their influence by manually constructing sets of breaklines in the model. The volume of the 3D model is then calculated using the AutoCAD Civil 3D program software. A bulk unit weight of 13.2 cubic ft per ton (2.43 g/cm³) is applied to that volume to calculate the pounds of eU₃O₈. The bulk unit weight is based on the average of 80 samples ranging between 2.35 and 2.61 g/cm³ (BRS, 2011). Similarly, the tons of mineralization are calculated using the same methodology by constructing a 3D model of mineral Thickness (T) within the same area. Grade is then calculated by dividing GT model eU₃O₈ pounds by the T model calculated mineralized tons.

The GT contour method is used as common practice for Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource modeling for similar sandstone-hosted uranium projects (“Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves”, adopted by CIM November 23, 2003, p 51). It is the opinion of the author that the GT contour method, when properly constrained by geologic interpretation, provides an accurate estimation of contained lbs of uranium.

The current drill hole database consists of 543 drill holes. These drill holes contained 963 unique intercepts which were categorized in the following manner:

● 454 Massive Sand Unit intercepts, of which 40 were below 0.03 %m (0.1 %ft) GT cutoff;

● 311 Fine-Grained/Wavy Sand Units intercepts, of which 107 were below 0.03 %m GT cutoff;

● 125 intercepts with trace mineralization;

● 60 barren drill holes; and

● 13 drill holes dropped for missing data.

The uranium quantities and grades are reported as eU3O8, as measured by downhole gamma logging with no adjustment for disequilibrium as discussed in Section 8.

11.4 Cutoff Grade and Commodity Price

Uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed since buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC. UEC has not begun any negotiations of any contracts to develop the property, including those associated with uranium sales, which is appropriate for a project at this level of development. The following provides a Long Term Uranium Price Forecasts from TradeTech LLC™ (“TradeTech™”) 2022: Issue 3. The Forward Availability Model (FAM 2) forecasts how future uranium supply enters the market assuming restricted project development because of an unsupportive economic environment. Currently most US producers are in a mode of care and maintenance and numerous facilities globally are also slowing or shutting in production at least on a temporary basis. This condition aligns with the FAM 2 projections.

               11-40
March 2023

Term forecasts beginning 2025 or later and extending into the future are considered the most reasonable for purposes of this report, as they consider the effects of prices on future existing and new production. In addition, larger projects are typically supported by long-term contracts with investment-grade nuclear utilities. Therefore, term prices are most appropriate for purposes of this report.

TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM2 (Nominal US$)

From TradeTech™ 2022

The Term price projections for uranium oxide (USD) from TradeTech™ 2022, for 2023, FAM 2, Term Ref, exceed $75/lb. Projections of uranium price through 2040 increase from these values. The author recommends, as a conservative measure, the use of a long-term uranium price of $65.00 USD per pound uranium oxide for the consideration of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.

Based on the author’s experience, typical operating costs for similar sandstone-hosted mineralization recovery production costs by ISR methods are approximately $25 per pound. At a grade of 0.02 %U₃O₈, a ton of mineralized material contains 0.4 pounds of uranium. At a commodity price of $65 per pound the gross value of 0.4 pounds of uranium is $26 per pound. Thus, a cutoff grade of 0.02 %U₃O₈ is appropriate for projected uranium market conditions.

By their nature, all commodity price assumptions are forward-looking. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

11.5 Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction

The authors, Mr. Beahm and Mr. Yancey, completed an internal conceptual economic analysis of the Project in 2015. This analysis was completed based on a commodity price assumption of $60.00 per pound. While cost have risen since 2015, the forecast price for uranium has also risen. Thus, the authors conclude that the 2015 conceptual economic analysis remains valid and is a suitable means to assess reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The economic analysis included the development of a conceptual wellfield that encompassed approximately 85% of the mineralized area. The conceptual wellfield design was not intended to maximize mineral recovery, but to show a positive return. It is the authors’ opinion that the wellfield design could be expanded, based on forward operating costs, once the initial capital investment has been recovered, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the total stated mineral resource has reasonable prospects for economic recovery.

               11-41
March 2023

11.6 Radiometric Equilibrium

As discussed in Section 8, assay data was available from 12 core samples. The author reviewed this data and compared the radiometric equivalent data to chemical assay data based on the sum GT of mineralization greater than 0.02 %eU3O8. This comparison showed chemical enrichment on the order of 20%, or a positive disequilibrium factor of 1.2, as shown on Figure 8.1.

While the data would support a positive adjustment of the radiometric equivalent data used in the mineral resource estimation, the author recommends no adjustment and the use of a Disequilibrium Factor of 1 as a conservative measure.

11.7 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● variations in commodity price;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted from the currently available drill data; and

● variance in bulk density or other factors from what was interpreted from the currently available drill data.

Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate. Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and extrapolation of limited sample volumes to very large volumes. Application of these tools can result in uncertainty or risk.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Project.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling, but the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The authors expect that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

               11-42
March 2023

11.8 QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate

In the opinion of the authors that the data available for the Project is sufficiently reliable for estimation of mineral resources for the purpose of this IA.

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

               11-43
March 2023

Figure 11-1:         Massive Unit GT Resource Model

               11-44
March 2023

Figure 11-2:         Massive Unit Thickness Model

               11-45
March 2023

Figure 11-3:         Fine-Grained and Wavy Unit GT Resource Model

               11-46
March 2023

Figure 11-4:         Fine-Grained and Wavy Unit Thickness Model

               11-47
March 2023

12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               12-48
March 2023

13.0 MINING METHODS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               13-49
March 2023

14.0 RECOVERY METHODS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               14-50
March 2023

15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               15-51
March 2023

16.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               16-52
March 2023

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

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               17-53
March 2023

18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               18-54
March 2023

19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               19-55
March 2023

20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

There are no adjacent properties not held by UEC that are considered relevant to this IA.

               20-56
March 2023

21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

This section is not relevant to this Report.

               21-57
March 2023

22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

This IA for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the regulations set forth in S-K 1300 (Part 229 of the 1933 Securities Act). Its objective is to disclose the mineral resources at the Project.

22.1 Conclusions

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

Assumptions regarding uranium prices, mining costs and metallurgical recoveries are forward-looking and the actual prices, costs and performance results may be significantly different. The authors are not aware of any relevant factors that would materially affect the mineral resource estimates. Additionally, the authors are not aware of any specific environmental, regulatory, land tenure or political factors that will materially affect the Project from moving forward to mineral resource recovery operations.

22.2 Risks and Opportunities

UEC has not completed a Pre-feasibility nor a Feasibility study to apply detailed capital and operational expenditures to the Project. Since these studies have not been completed for the Project, there has not been a formal demonstration of economic and technical capability.

Technical risks related to the Project exist, because ISR mining methods have not been demonstrated in the area. However, these risks are considered to be moderate, because ISR mining and recovery methods are proven in similar sandstone-hosted environments.

Risks related to permitting and licensing the project exist, because the regulatory process is not mature. However, these risks are considered to be moderate, because a variety of environmental baseline studies have been completed and no specific impediments to the permitting process are known to the authors.

Mineral tenor is based on the Contract issued by Paraguay and is in effect though 2008. There is a political risk that the changes in the concession may affect the mineral tenor.

Other risk factors are typical for similar mining projects, including, without limitation:

● risks associated with mineral resource estimates, including the risk of errors in assumptions or methodologies;

● geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, less than expected recoveries, ground water control and other factors relating to ISR mining methodology;

● risks associated with labor costs, labor disturbances and unavailability of skilled labor;

● risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in the production processes;

               22-58
March 2023

● risks associated with environmental compliance and permitting, including those created by changes in environmental legislation and regulation and delays in obtaining permits and licenses that could impact expected mineral extraction and recovery levels and costs; and

● estimation of costs and uranium price for the purposes of constraining the mineral resource estimate based on reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

Readers are cautioned that any estimate of forward cost or commodity price is, by its nature, forward-looking. It would be unreasonable to rely on any such forward-looking statements and information as creating any legal rights. The statements and information are not guarantees and may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual results are likely to differ (and may differ materially) and objectives and strategies may differ or change from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements or information as a result of various factors. Such risks and uncertainties include risks generally encountered in the exploration, development, operation and closure of mineral properties and processing facilities. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks and uncertainties.

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

               22-59
March 2023

23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The authors recommend:

● Completion of additional metallurgical test work to further demonstrate and refine amenability with respect to in-situ and/or heap leach recovery.

● Completion of further drilling on the San Antonio deposit with the objective of resource expansion and reclassification. A program of 125 holes at 120 m each, for a total of 15,000 m is recommended, with a 90 m offset spacing for 75 step-out holes and < 50m for infill holes. However, as the drilling program proceeds, the results should be compared to the current resource model and the program adjusted as appropriate.

● Completion of a Preliminary Assessment on the conceptual development of a mine at San Antonio.

● Continuation of the regional exploration program to assess the exploration potential for uranium mineralization within its vast mineral lands in southeastern Paraguay. The objective of this work is to discover uranium mineralization similar to known roll front type deposits.

UEC has prepared a preliminary budget for the Project on the order of $3.0 million. The author has reviewed this budget and concludes that it is of sufficient magnitude to recommendations as stated herein.

Table 23-1: Recommended Exploration Program and Budget

Drilling campaign Budget for 15,000 m	Price ($)
Services and supplies
Roto-percussion drilling (cutting)	300,000
Diamond drilling (coring)	1,680,000
Permeability testing	25,000
Column leach testing	500,000
Consultants	100,000
Travel	200,000
Subtotal	2,805,000
Contingencia 10%	280,500
Total	3,085,500
Annual fixed expenses
Annual land payments	293,080
Asunción office	50,000
legal services	80,000
Total	423,080

               23-60
March 2023

24.0 REFERENCES

24.1 Bibliography

Agnerian, H., 2006, Technical Report on the Yuty Uranium Project, Paraguay: Scott Wilson RPA Report for Cue Resources Corp., October 16, 2006.

Agnerian, H., 2008, Technical Report on the Yuty Uranium Project, Paraguay: Scott Wilson RPA Report for Cue Resources Ltd., May 15, 2008.

Agnerian, H. and Roscoe, W.E., 2002, The Contour Method of Estimating Mineral Resources: CIM Bulletin, v. 95, pp. 100-107, July 2002.

Anschutz Corporation, 1981, Annual Summary of Exploration Operations in Paraguay, Volume I: Internal Company Report for Korea Electric Company and Taiwan Power Company (Joint Venture Partners), Asunción, Paraguay, November 1981.

Anschutz Corporation, 1982, Mine/Mill Economic Evaluation, San Antonio Uranium Deposit, Paraguay: Anschutz Internal Report, June 1982.

Benítez, P.E., 2007, Approval of Resolution 382: Ministero de Obras Públicas y Comunicaciones (MOPC): Government of Paraguay, November 17, 2007.

Bordón, A.I., 2007, Approval of Resolution 849 and 870: Ministero de Obras Públicas y Comunicaciones (MOPC): Government of Paraguay, November 15, 2007.

Blair, F.H., 2006a, Uranium Prospects in the Republic of Paraguay, South America, A Review of the Anschutz Corporation, Korea Electric Power Company, Taiwan Power Company Uranium Joint Venture 1976-1983: A Report for Cue Resources, March 15, 2006.

Blair, F.H., 2006b, Annual Exploration Summaries of Exploration Programs Carried out by Anschutz Corporation from 1979 to 1982, Monthly Technical Reports and Miscellaneous Maps: Internal Document as Part of a Compilation Program for Cue Resources Ltd.

Blair, F.H. and Benitez, J.C., 2006, Uranium Exploration Results Obtained from the Upper Permo-Carboniferous Continental Sandstone Units From 1976 Through 1982 During the Yuty Project: Information Assembled During the Review of the Anschutz Corporation Uranium Exploration Files Found in the Archives of the Ministero de Obras Publicas y Comunicaciones, Republic of Paraguay, South America, Asunción, Paraguay, August 15, 2006.

BRS Inc. and ExplorMine Consultants, 2011, Updated Technical Report on the Yuty Uranium Project, Republic of Paraguay, prepared for CUE Resources, August 24, 2011.

Burt, E., 2007, Legal Opinion of Title – Transandes Paraguay S.A.: Correspondence from Peroni Sosa Tellechea Burt & Narvaja Abogados, October 16, 2006.

               25-61
March 2023

Carlson, L.A., 1981, Interpretation and Reporting Procedures: Anschutz Internal Correspondence, March 3, 1981.

Coronel, J., 2007, Approval of Decree 55.820/07: Secretaria del Ambiante (SEAM), Government of Paraguay, May 3, 2007.

Cue Resources Ltd., 2006, Miscellaneous Technical Data.

ExplorMine Consultants, Deiss, A., Northrop, B., Report Detailing the Geostatistical Approach to the Mineral Resource estimate for the Yuty Project, Paraguay.

Figueredo, C., 2006, Application for Registration of Prospecting Permit on Behalf of Transandes Paraguay S.A. to Ministry of Environment (SEAM), May 11, 2006.

Hazen Research, Inc, 2008, Cue Resources Paraguayan Deposit Ore Characterization, April 29, 2008.

Healey, Chris M., 2009, Technical Report on the Yuty Uranium Project, Republic of Paraguay, May 27, 2009.

Honea, R.M., 1981, Confidential Correspondence Mr. John Dunlop Re Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Work on Three Samples of Sandstone From Yuty: Anschutz Internal Document, December 2, 1981.

Honea, R.M., 1982, Mineralogical Study on Two Core Samples: Report for Anschutz Corporation, January 18, 1982.

Hutchinson, R.M., 1981, Petrographical Interpretation of Sedimentary Rocks Intercepted in Drill Holes 372-T60, 392-R4 and YD-87: Internal Company Report by Anschutz Technical Staff, June 1, 1981.

Hutchinson, R.M., Honea, R.M. and Lechner-Weins, H., 1982?, Evaluation of the Ore Horizon Geochemistry and Petrography: Internal Company Report by Anschutz Technical Staff, 1982.

Hydro-Engineering, “Aquifer Properties and Estimated Recovery and Injection Rates for the Yuty Uranium Project”, April, 2011.

Kaiser Engineers International, Inc., 1982, Preliminary Mineral Reserve Estimate and Conceptual Cost Studies, San Antonio, Paraguay Uranium Project: Report Prepared for Korea Electric Power Corporation, Job No. 82046-001, November 12, 1982.

Lasso, A.G., 2005, Application for Registration of Prospecting Permit for North Block and South Block on Behalf of Transandes Paraguay S.A. to Ministry of Public Works (MOPC), August 30, 2005.

               25-62
March 2023

Lechner-Wiens, H., 1980, Observations Concerning Alteration – Characteristics in the Potrero Area: Anschutz Corporation Internal Correspondence to J.S. Pearson, January 30, 1980.

Lechner-Wiens, H., 1982a, Observations on Thin Section Studies of the Columnar Section and the San Miguel Formation: Anschutz Corporation Internal Departmental Correspondence, May 24, 1982.

Lechner-Wiens, H., 1982b, Evaluation of Thin Sections of Drill Hole 371-T160: Anschutz Corporation Internal Report, November 1982.

Litz, J.E., 1982, In-Situ Leaching Study: Internal Report by Hazen Research, Inc. to Mr. A. Mussard of Nuclear Assurance Corporation, Grand Junction, Colorado, December 18, 1981.

Moratal, J.M.I., 2006b, Certificate Regarding Mining Prospection Permit of Transandes Paraguay S.A.: Memorandum by Estudio Juridico Horacio Fialayre & Moratal Asociados to Sebastián Reidl, July 8, 2006.

Pollard, D.M., 2008, Yuty Project Report (Mid November to Mid December) Progress with Regard to Geological Exploration: Buscore Internal Report for Cue Resources Ltd., January 16, 2008.

Rodriguez, G., 2006, Approval of Application for Registration of Prospecting Permit by Transandes Paraguay S.A.: Ministry of Environment (SEAM), July, 18, 2006.

Ruiz, H.R.D., 2006, Resolution No. 382, Approval of Prospecting Permit for North Block and South Block on Behalf of Transandes Paraguay S.A. to Ministry of Public Works (MOPC), Vice Ministry of Mines and Energy, July 7, 2006.

Schmeling, B., 2007, Down Hole Logging and Radiometric Data Interpretation, A Technical Manual, March 2007.

Wilson, Scott, Roscoe, Postle, and Associates, “Technical Report on the Yuty Uranium Project, Paraguay”, May 15, 2008.

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

               25-63
March 2023

25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

Reliance on information provided by UEC is identified in Table 25-1 below.

Table 25-1:         Information Provided by the Registrant

Category of Information	Section of Report	Reason
Macroeconomic trends, data and assumptions	Section 11	The registrant provided data regarding future commodity price estimates. The QP believes that it is reasonable to rely on this information because it was sourced from industry consultants who specialize in uranium price forecasting.
Accommodations or commitments to local individuals or groups	Section 3	The registrant provided data regarding agreements and negotiations with surface owners. The QP believes that it is reasonable to rely on this information because these data were provided by a registered landman with direct knowledge of these negotiations.

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

               25-64
March 2023

26.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

I, Clyde L. Yancey, Texas Professional Geologist, of 1846 Tramway Terrace Loop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, do hereby certify that:

● I am currently employed by Uranium Energy Corporation, 500 N. Shoreline, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, as Vice President of Exploration.

● I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology in May 1975 from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, and received a Master of Science degree in Geology in May 1978 from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota.

● I am a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Texas. My registration number is 129 and I am a member in good standing. I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. My Registration Number is 03580620 and I am in good standing.

● I have worked as a geologist for over 40 years in uranium exploration, production and restoration.

● My direct experience with uranium involves uranium exploration, resource analysis, uranium ISR project development, project feasibility and licensing and project closures. My relevant experience for the purpose of this analysis includes Field Geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Uranium and Thorium Resources; Senior Geologist for Wyoming Minerals Corporation at their Bruni, Texas ISR Mine; Mine Geologist for Caithness Mining Corporation at their McBride ISR Mine in Duval County, Texas; Exploration Geologist for Mobil Oil/Nufuels Uranium Division, South Texas District; Senior Uranium Exploration Geologist for Moore Energy Corporation, South Texas District; Consulting Geologist for the U.S. Department of Energy; Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Title I. Consulting Geologist for UMTRA Title II clients such as Umetco Minerals, Rio Algom Mining, Conoco Minerals and the Hopi Tribe; and Vice President of Exploration for Uranium Energy Corporation with responsibility of their projects in Canada, U.S.A. and South America.

● 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.

Dated this 9^th day of March 9, 2023.

Clyde L. Yancey, P.G.

               26-65
March 2023

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

I, Victor Fermandez-Crosa, do hereby certify that:

● I am currently employed by Uranium Energy Corporation, 500 N. Shoreline, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, as the Paraguayan Manager and Chief Geologist.

● I graduated in 1987 as a Geologist from the National University of Asuncion and completed my formal training at the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Mineral Resources in Hannover, Germany.

● I am authorized to carry out geological and mining activities in Paraguay. My Professional Registration number of the Directorate of Mineral Resources of the Vice Ministry of Mines and Energy is N°16.

● I have worked as a geologist over 35 years in Paraguay.

● My direct experience with uranium involves assistant geologist of the PAR/006 Project for the development of the Geological Map of Paraguay (UNDP); Geologist and Laboratory Coordinator (Paraguayan-German Cooperation MOPC-BGR); Uranium Exploration Supervisor of the Yuty Project (SEMINSA); Head of Uranium Exploration and Chief Geologist of the Yuty Project (Transandes Paraguay SA); Director of Mineral Resources of the (MOPC); and Country Manager and Chief Geologist, Paraguay (Uranium Energy Corporation)

Dated this 9^th day of March 9, 2023.

Victor Fernandez Crosa

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

               26-2
March 2023

I, Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., do hereby certify that:

● I am the Principal Engineer and President of BRS Inc., 1130 Major Avenue, Riverton, Wyoming 82501.

● I am a co-author of the report “YUTY URANIUM PROJECT INITIAL ASSESSMENT”.

● I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in 1974. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Oregon; a licensed Professional Geologist in Wyoming; and a Registered Member of the SME.

● I have worked as an engineer and a geologist for over 48 years. My work experience includes uranium exploration, mine production and mine/mill decommissioning and reclamation. Specifically, I have worked with numerous uranium projects hosted in sandstone environments in Wyoming.

● I was last present at the site on the 16^th of September 2021.

● I am independent of the issuer. I hold no stock, options or have any other form of financial connection to UEC. UEC is but one of many clients for whom I consult.

● I do have prior working experience on the property as stated in the report.

● 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.

Dated this 9^th day of March 9, 2023.

Douglas L. Beahm, PE, PG, SME Registered Member

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

               26-3
March 2023

EX-96.5

Exhibit 96.5

CONTENTS

1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1-1
1.1	Property Description	1-1
1.2	Ownership	1-1
1.3	Geology and Mineralization	1-1
1.4	Exploration Status	1-4
1.5	Recent Development and Operations	1-4
1.5.1	Palangana	1-4
1.5.2	Goliad	1-4
1.5.3	Burke Hollow	1-4
1.6	Mineral Resource Estimates	1-5
1.7	Permitting Requirements	1-5
1.8	QP Conclusion and Recommendations	1-5
2.0	INTRODUCTION	2-1
2.1	Registrant/Issuer of Report	2-1
2.2	Terms of Reference	2-1
2.3	Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations	2-1
2.4	Personal Inspection	2-1
2.4.1	QP Qualifications	2-1
2.5	Previous Technical Report Summaries	2-2
3.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	3-1
3.1	Location, Description, Leases and Mineral Rights	3-1
3.1.1	Hobson CPP	3-6
3.1.2	Burke Hollow	3-7
3.1.3	Goliad	3-7
3.1.4	Palangana	3-7
3.1.5	Salvo	3-8
3.2	Encumbrances	3-8
3.3	Property Risk Factors	3-9
3.4	Royalties (Confidential)	3-11
4.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	4-1
4.1	Physical Setting	4-1
4.2	Accessibility and Local Resources	4-2
4.3	Availability of Infrastructure	4-3
5.0	HISTORY	5-1
6.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT	6-1
6.1	Regional Geology	6-1
6.1.1	South Texas Gulf Coastal Plan	6-1
6.2	Local Geology	6-4
6.2.1	South Texas Local Geology – Goliad Formation Hosted Mineralization	6-4
6.2.2	Goliad Formation Hydrogeology	6-5
6.3	Mineralization and Deposit Type	6-5
7.0	EXPLORATION	7-1
7.1	Drilling Programs	7-1
7.2	Hydrogeologic Information	7-7

i

March 2023

7.3	Geotechnical Information	7-8
8.0	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	8-1
8.1	Typical and Standard Industry Methods	8-1
8.1.1	Burke Hollow	8-1
8.1.2	Goliad	8-2
8.1.3	Palangana	8-3
8.1.4	Salvo	8-4
8.2	QP’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures	8-5
9.0	DATA VERIFICATION	9-1
9.1	Summary	9-1
9.2	Limitations	9-2
9.3	QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy	9-2
10.0	MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	10-1
10.1	Summary of Properties	10-1
10.2	QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy	10-2
11.0	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	11-1
11.1	Mineral Resource Assumptions and Parameters Applied to Each Project Area	11-1
11.1.1	Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction	11-4
11.1.2	Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates	11-5
11.2	Site-by-Site Summaries	11-6
11.3	Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate	11-9
11.4	QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate	11-10
12.0	MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	12-1
13.0	MINING METHODS	13-1
14.0	PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS	14-1
15.0	INFRASTRUCTURE	15-1
16.0	MARKET STUDIES	16-1
17.0	ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	17-1
18.0	CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	18-1
19.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	19-1
20.0	ADJACENT PROPERTIES	20-1
21.0	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	21-1
22.0	INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	22-1
22.1	Conclusions	22-1
22.2	Risks and Opportunities	22-1
23.0	RECOMMENDATIONS	23-1
24.0	REFERENCES	24-1
25.0	RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT	25-1
26.0	DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE	26-1

ii

March 2023

TABLES

Table 1-1:	Texas Hub and Spoke Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary	1-6
Table 1-2:	Texas Hub and Spoke Project Inferred Resource Summary	1-7
Table 1-3:	Texas Hub and Spoke Permits	1-7
Table 2-1:	Previous Technical Report Summaries	2-2
Table 3-1:	Project Area Mineral Lease Summary	3-6
Table 5-1:	Past Operations Summary	5-2
Table 7-1:	Project Area Exploration Drilling Programs Summary	7-2
Table 11‑1:	Palangana Production from 2010 to 2016	11-2
Table 11‑2:	Methods, Parameters and Cutoff Summary by Project Area	11-3
Table 11-3:	UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb. U3O8)	11-4
Table 11-4:	Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area	11-5
Table 11‑5:	Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary	11-7
Table 11‑6:	Project Area Inferred Resources Summary	11-8

FIGURES

Figure 1‑1:	South Texas Assets Project Area Location Map	1-2
Figure 1‑2:	South Texas Uranium Province	1-3
Figure 3‑1:	Burke Hollow Project Area Location Map	3-2
Figure 3‑2:	Goliad Project Area Location Area Map	3-3
Figure 3‑3:	Palangana Project Area Location Map	3-4
Figure 3‑4:	Salvo Project Area Location Map	3-5
Figure 6‑1:	South Texas Uranium Province Stratigraphic Column (modified from Galloway et al., 1979)	6-2
Figure 6‑2:	South Texas Assets Cross-Section	6-3
Figure 7‑1:	Drill Hole Map for the Burke Hollow Project Area	7-3
Figure 7‑2:	Drill Hole Map for the Goliad Project Area	7-4
Figure 7‑3:	Drill Hole Map for the Palangana Project Area	7-5
Figure 7‑4:	Drill Hole Map for the Salvo Project Area	7-6

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

iii

March 2023

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This independent Technical Report Summary (TRS) for the Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project (the Project) has been prepared for Uranium Energy Corporation (UEC), under the supervision of Western Water Consultants, Inc., d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC), 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 from the Initial Assessment to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Project. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Project.

1.1 Property Description

The Project consists of five project areas: Hobson Central Processing Plant (CPP), Burke Hollow, Goliad, Palangana and Salvo and is located in Karnes, Bee, Goliad and Duval Counties, Texas, USA (Figure 1-1). The Hobson CPP will serve as the ‘hub’ of the Project, with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes.’ The Hobson CPP will process all the mineral mined on each of the other project areas. The Project is located in the South Texas Uranium Province (STUP) (Figure 1-2), which is part of the South Texas coastal plain portion of the Gulf of Mexico Basin (GMB).

Mineral rights for the Project are all private (fee) mineral leases. Fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. Section 3 discusses the different mineral leases for each project area. All costs associated with these leases are confidential.

1.2 Ownership

This Project is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners within and outside the various Project boundaries.

1.3 Geology and Mineralization

The Project resides in the GMB. The GMB extends over much of South Texas and includes the Texas coastal plain and 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 Project 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.

Figure 1‑1:      South Texas Assets Project Area Location Map

1-2

March 2023

Figure 1‑2:         South Texas Uranium Province

USGS, 2015

1-3

March 2023

1.4 Exploration Status

To date, UEC holds data from 5,232 drill holes that have been completed by UEC and previous uranium exploration companies on and nearby the five project areas held by UEC. Data from the drilling, including survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts, have been incorporated into UEC’s database.

1.5 Recent Development and Operations

Recent development and operations include all work that has been done to develop and operate the Project properties since the last TRS was written to update the resources and development at each project area. All other development and operations from the past are included in Section 5.0.

Summary capital and operating cost estimates are not included with this TRS, since UEC is reporting the results of an Initial Assessment without economic analysis. No new construction/development has occurred at the Hobson CPP or at Salvo since the 2010-2012 drilling campaign. However, UEC initiated drilling projects on Palangana, Goliad and Burke Hollow in 2010-2015, 2014 and 2019-2021 respectively. UEC also activated several wellfields at Palangana to produce uranium from 2010 to 2016.

1.5.1 Palangana

From 2010 to 2015, UEC drilled 891 drill holes at Palangana. Most of the drilling occurred in 2010 (391 holes), 2011 (281 holes) and 2012 (186 holes) and the remaining holes were drilled from 2013-2015. The majority of these wells were drilled for delineation purposes and the rest were drilled for monitor and production wells. In 2010, UEC activated wellfields in Production Area 1 (PA-1), PA-2 and PA-3 at Palangana. From 2010 to 2016, 563,600 lbs of uranium were produced by in-situ recovery (ISR) methods.

1.5.2 Goliad

In 2014, UEC conducted a drilling program at Goliad 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.

1.5.3 Burke Hollow

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 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. Twenty-four of these holes were also used as monitor wells. This drilling program is ongoing for the purpose of completing more monitor wells.

1-4

March 2023

No historic data was used in the estimate, only data from drilling projects conducted by UEC from 2012 to 2022. 297 new holes were drilled and logged in 2021 and 2022 to complete this estimate.

1.6 Mineral Resource Estimates

Cautionary Statement:

This TRS is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves which may result in economic and technical failure and may adversely impact future profitability.

The in-place resources were estimated separately for each project area. The Project contains a measured resource of 2.78 million lbs and an indicated resource of 6.34 million lbs of U₃O₈ in-place. The Project contains 9.92 million lbs of inferred mineral resources in-place. Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 list the Project resources by the project area.

1.7 Permitting Requirements

The Hobson CPP is fully permitted. Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana are fully permitted to mine. Salvo 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). Table 1-3 lists the permits for each project area and their corresponding regulatory agencies.

1.8 QP Conclusion and Recommendations

Key conclusions and recommendations from WWC, a third-party firm, which employs professionals meeting the definition of “qualified person” (QP) set out in S-K 1300, are as follows:

● The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources at the Project to indicate favorable conditions for future extraction.

● Hobson CPP, Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana are fully permitted.

● UEC should develop a Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Project and continue to maintain mineral leases along with surface use agreements to accommodate future development.

● UEC should advance the baseline studies necessary to obtain regulatory authorizations required to mine at Salvo.

1-5

March 2023

Table 1-1:         Texas Hub and Spoke Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Burke Hollow
Measured	0.30	0.082	70	114,700
Indicated	0.30	0.087	1,337	2,209,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.30	0.086	1,407	2,323,700
Goliad
Measured	0.20	0.053	1,595	2,667,900
Indicated	0.20	0.102	1,504	3,492,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.20	0.085	3,099	6,159,900
Palangana
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	None	0.134	232	643,100
Total Measured and Indicated	None	0.134	232	643,100
Salvo
All mineral resources at Salvo are classified as Inferred.
Project Totals
Measured				2,782,600
Indicated				6,344,100
Total Measured and Indicated				9,126,700

Notes:

1.	Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
2.	Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
3.	All reported resources occur below the static water table.
4.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
5.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
6.	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.

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

1-6

March 2023

Table 1-2:         Texas Hub and Spoke Project Inferred Resource Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Burke Hollow
Inferred	0.30	0.095	2,494	4,859,000
Goliad
Inferred	0.20	0.195	1,548	1,224,800
Palangana
PA-1 and PA-2 Inferred	None	0.100	96	192,500
Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence, Jemison East Inferred	0.10	0.110 - 0.300	206	808,800
Salvo
Inferred	0.30	0.091	1,125	2,839,000
Project Totals
Total Inferred			5,469	9,924,100

Notes:

1.	Pounds reported with 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 for a more detailed explanation.
3.	Inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
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 are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
7.	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.

Table 1-3:         Texas Hub and Spoke Permits

Property	Permits
	RRC (Surface Mining and Reclamation Division) Exploration Permit	TCEQ Class I Waste Disposal Well Permit(s)	TCEQ Underground Injection Control Mine Area Permit	TCEQ Area Permit	TCEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption	TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
Hobson CPP	N/A	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	✔
Burke Hollow	✔	2	✔	✔	✔	✔
Goliad	✔	2	✔	✔	✔	✔
Palangana	✔	2	✔	✔	✔	✔
Salvo	✔	-	-	-	-	-

Note: Some permits are not applicable to the Hobson CPP because no mineral is being mined there.

1-7

March 2023

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Registrant/Issuer of Report

This TRS was prepared for UEC to report the results of an Initial Assessment (IA) and describe the Project, which includes the Hobson CPP and the Burke Hollow, Goliad, Palangana and Salvo project areas. This IA was prepared for UEC, under the supervision of Western Water Consultants, Inc., d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC). The project areas are located in Karnes, Bee, Goliad and Duval Counties, Texas, USA. The Hobson CPP will serve as the ‘hub’ of the Project with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes.’ For the purposes of this TRS, 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.

UEC is incorporated in the State of Nevada, with principal offices located at 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401 and at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3.

2.2 Terms of Reference

The Project is owned and operated by UEC. This TRS has been prepared for UEC to report mineral resources for the Project. The Project includes multiple project areas located in Karnes, Bee, Goliad and Duval Counties, Texas.

2.3 Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations

The information and data presented in this TRS were gathered from various sources listed in Chapters 24.0 and 25.0 of this TRS.

Uranium mineral resource estimates for the Project are based on data from 5,232 drill holes that included survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts.

Units of measurement unless otherwise indicated are feet (ft), miles, acres, pounds (lbs), short tons (2,000 lbs), grams (g), milligram (mg), liter (L) and parts per million (ppm). Uranium production is expressed as pounds U₃O₈, the standard market unit. ISR refers to in-situ recovery, sometimes also termed in-situ leach (ISL). Unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($) refer to United States currency.

2.4 Personal Inspection

WWC professionals most recently visited the Hobson CPP, Palangana and Salvo facilities on November 2, 2021 and the Burke Hollow and Goliad facilities on November 4, 2021.

2.4.1 QP Qualifications

This TRS was completed under the direction and supervision of WWC. WWC is a third-party QP as defined by Regulation S-K 1300. Additionally, WWC has approved the technical disclosure contained in this TRS.

2-1

March 2023

2.5 Previous Technical Report Summaries

UEC previously filed TRSs conforming to Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) for Burke Hollow, Goliad, Palangana and Salvo. The most recent TRSs are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1:         Previous Technical Report Summaries

Property	TRS Title	Report Type	Effective Date
Burke Hollow	Technical Report for UEC's Burke Hollow Uranium Project, 2017 Update, Bee County, Texas, USA	NI 43-101	November 27, 2017
Goliad	Technical Report for Uranium Energy Corp's Goliad Project In-situ Recovery Uranium Property, Goliad County, Texas	NI 43-101	March 7, 2008
Palangana	NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources, Uranium Energy Corp., Palangana ISR Uranium Project, Deposits PA-1, PA-2 and Adjacent Exploration Areas, Duval County, Texas	NI 43-101	January 15, 2010
Salvo	Technical Report for Uranium Energy Corp, Salvo Project In-situ Recovery Uranium Property, Bee County, Texas	NI 43-101	March 31, 2011

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

2-2

March 2023

3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Location, Description, Leases and Mineral Rights

The Project includes the Hobson CPP, Burke Hollow, Goliad, Palangana and Salvo project areas located in Karnes, Bee, Goliad and Duval Counties, Texas, USA. The locations of the project areas are depicted in Figure 1-1, while Figures 3-1 through 3-4 depict the South Texas project areas in more detail. Each project area is described in detail in Chapters 3.1.1 through 3.1.5.

Mineral rights for the Project are private (fee) mineral leases. Fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. Table 3-1 summarizes the mineral leases for each project area and their expiration dates.

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 the Project is 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 at the Project 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 the 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 the QP does not anticipate that maintaining these rights presents a significant risk to UEC’s ability to perform work on the Project.

The QP has not verified the leases within the various project areas or how the leases are mapped or plotted. The QP has relied on information provided by UEC with regards to royalty rates and has not independently verified royalty agreements, rates, or surface use and access agreements.

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

3-1

March 2023

Figure 3‑1:         Burke Hollow Project Area Location Map

3-2

March 2023

Figure 3‑2:         Goliad Project Area Location Area Map

3-3

March 2023

Figure 3‑3:         Palangana Project Area Location Map

3-4

March 2023

Figure 3‑4:         Salvo Project Area Location Map

3-5

March 2023

Table 3-1:         Project Area Mineral Lease Summary

Project Area	Fee Mineral Leases	County	Expires
Hobson CPP
Acreage	7.29	Karnes	Renewable Annually
Leases	1
Burke Hollow
Acreage	19,336	Bee	2/2027 and 12/2022
Leases	2
Goliad
Acreage	636	Goliad	10/2024, 8/2023, 8/2025 and 12/2025
Leases	7
Palangana
Acreage	6,987	Duval	Held by shut-in royalty
Leases	9
Salvo
Acreage	800	Bee	9/2026 and 7/2027
Leases	2

3.1.1 Hobson CPP

The Hobson CPP (Figure 1-1) is located in Karnes County, Texas, northwest of Karnes City, within the GMB and approximately 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 40 miles southeast of San Antonio (Figure 1-1) at latitude 28.9447 and longitude -97.9887 in decimal degrees. This facility represents the ‘hub’ of UEC’s ‘hub-and-spoke’ business model, which comprises a central processing facility supplied with uranium-loaded ion exchange resin from ISR mining at one or more of the project areas. The Hobson CPP was constructed in 1978 when the project area was mined. In 2008, the plant was refurbished. The Hobson CPP has previously processed uranium from the Palangana satellite facility (i.e., the first UEC ‘spoke’) and UEC plans to also process uranium from the Burke Hollow, Goliad and Salvo satellite facilities in the near future.

The CPP consists of a resin transfer circuit for loading/unloading ion exchange resin from tanker trucks, an elution circuit to strip uranium from the ion exchange resin, a circuit to precipitate uranium oxide solids, a yellowcake thickener (if necessary) and a modern, zero-emission vacuum dryer. Other facilities and equipment include an advanced laboratory with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), office building, yellowcake and 11e.(2) 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. The Hobson CPP is permitted for 1 million lbs per year of uranium concentrates (yellowcake or U₃O₈). With an average dryer cycle time of 40 hours and a current dryer loading capacity of 8 to 10 drums, the plant appears capable of yielding up to 1.5 million lbs per year without requiring physical modifications. However, an increase would require a license modification, which UEC is currently pursuing with an amendment to their current license being under review for an increased capacity of up to 4.0 million lbs per year. 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.

3-6

March 2023

3.1.2 Burke Hollow

The Burke Hollow project area is located within the STUP and currently consists of a 19,336-acre lease area. The project area is about 18 miles southeast of the town of Beeville, west of US Highway 77 (Figure 3-1) and northeast of US Highway 181. The approximate center of the Burke Hollow project area is located at latitude 28.2677 and longitude -97.5152, 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.

Virtually all uranium mining in Texas is on private lands with leases negotiated between companies and each individual landowner/mineral owner. Burke Hollow consists of two fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 19,336 acres. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the private lease are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS. Table 3-1 lists the leases as provided to the QP. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Burke Hollow project area boundary.

UEC has completed all the required permitting in order to mine at Burke Hollow.

3.1.3 Goliad

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 (Figure 3-2). The approximate center of the project area is at latitude 28.8686 and longitude -97.3433, in decimal degrees. 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. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the private leases are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS. A list of leases that make up the Goliad project area are shown on Table 3-1. Moore Energy Corporation (Moore Energy) obtained leases for exploration work in the project area in the early 1980s and completed an extensive drilling program resulting in a historical uranium mineral resource estimate in 1985. 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 Goliad.

3.1.4 Palangana

The Palangana project area is located in Duval County, Texas, 25 miles west of the town of Alice along US Highway 359. More specifically, the site lies 5 miles north of the town of Benavides, 15 miles southeast of the town of Freer and 10 miles southwest of the town of San Diego (Figure 3-3). Freer, San Diego and Benavides are small rural agricultural towns. The approximate center of the Palangana project area is located at latitude 27.6732 and longitude -98.3934, in decimal degrees.

3-7

March 2023

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, Palangana produced 563,600 lbs U₃O₈ from 2010 to 2016 and currently has the infrastructure to begin mining immediately.

There are nine fee mineral leases comprised of 6,987 acres at the Palangana project area. Table 3-1 lists the leases as provided to the QP. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana project area boundary. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the private lease are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

UEC has completed all the required permitting in order to mine at Palangana.

3.1.5 Salvo

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 (Figure 3-4), 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 approximate center of the Salvo project area is located at latitude 28.2632 and longitude -97.7889, in decimal degrees.

Salvo 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.

A listing of current individual leases that make up the Salvo project area are shown on Table 3-1. No resources are reported in areas outside of the project area boundary.

No historic uranium mining is known to have occurred on any of the Salvo project 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.

There are two mineral leases comprised of 800 acres at the Salvo project area. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the private lease are up to date as of the current date of this TRS.

3.2 Encumbrances

To the QP’s knowledge, there are no unusual encumbrances to the project areas. However, there are general regulatory and permitting liabilities, depending on the specific project area.

The environmental liability for the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the RRC and TCEQ, which regulates mining operations and the extraction of minerals and provides mine permits and radioactive material licenses. No environmental liabilities are present at the Project.

3-8

March 2023

The Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana project areas are fully permitted with all state and federal agencies. UEC has obtained all the necessary permits and licenses to begin ISR mining operations at Palangana and Goliad. In contrast, the resources in the Salvo project area are not permitted.

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, 2022). 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 (L. Yosko personal communication, 2022).

● 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.

3-9

March 2023

3.3 Property Risk Factors

A variety of property risk factors exist but are not unique to the specific project areas. Many uranium deposits occur in relatively compact special areas. Large horizontal well pads or wind turbine pads sited on top of mineralization could limit the ability to access resources. Oil and gas development or wind turbines are common in South Texas. Property risk factors are included in the following list, with descriptions of the risk:

● Drill Hole Reclamation

o The drilling, reclamation and abandonment of uranium exploration holes on any of the leases is permitted by the RRC. Potential future environmental liability as a result of the mining must be addressed by the permit holder jointly with the permit granting agency. Permits have bonding requirements for ensuring that the restoration of groundwater, the land surface and any ancillary facility structures or equipment is properly completed. It is the opinion of the QP that uranium exploration holes present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

● Oil and gas horizontal pads and development

o Aquifer dewatering due to shallow water supply wells used in oil and gas operations could impact target aquifers and limit the ability to conduct ISR. Large horizontal well pads could limit surface accessibility, placement of wellfields and the ability to recover resources through ISR. It is the opinion of the QP that oil and gas development present a low risk of impacting development of the uranium resources.

● Industrial wells impacting aquifers

o Industrial wells could impact available water in target aquifers but will not impact the resources. It is the opinion of the QP that industrial wells present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

● Commercial oilfield waste disposal facilities (COWDFs) and/or lined ponds

o COWDFs or other lined ponds may limit surface access and could impact optimal placement of wellfields. It is the opinion of the QP that COWDFs and other lined ponds present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

● Commercial wind power

o Commercial wind power could limit surface accessibility and impact optimal placement of wellfields. Some of the project areas have wind turbines constructed on the property. However, UEC already has an agreement in place with the operators and landowners to prevent any further wind development on top of ore bodies. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low risk that commercial wind power could limit development of uranium resources.

3-10

March 2023

3.4 Royalties (Confidential)

Due to the confidentiality of royalties in private agreements, these data are not included in the TRS. Royalties may be provided upon request.

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

3-11

March 2023

4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Physical Setting

The Hobson CPP, Palangana, Salvo, Burke Hollow and Goliad project areas are located in Karnes, Duval, Bee and Goliad Counties in South Texas. The physiographic settings for each of the project areas are similar and located in the coastal plain/prairies and interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), 1987). Nearly flat strata in the coastal plain/prairies at Burke Hollow transitions to strata tilted towards the Gulf of Mexico at the Palangana, Salvo and Goliad project areas. Surface stratigraphy includes deltaic sands and muds near the coast transitioning to unconsolidated sands and muds in the interior (BEG, 1987).

The Gulf Coastal Plain is part of a passive continental margin along the Gulf of Mexico. The tectonic setting yields low-relief and a relatively flat landscape along the coast from Mexico and Texas to Mississippi. Thick formations of Quaternary and Tertiary fluvial clastic sediments were deposited on the continental shelf from the Mississippi Embayment (USGS, 2022 and Galloway et al., 1979).

The surface is characterized by rolling hills with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. Changes in relief typically range from 10 to 100 ft near the coast to upwards of 200 ft of relief further inland. Ground surface elevations at the project areas range from a low of 92 ft above mean sea level (msl) at Burke Hollow to a high of 500 ft above msl at Palangana.

Livestock grazing and open pastures with woodlands are common in the region and is typical for this type of habitat in the Southern Great Plains Eco-region. Vegetation consists primarily of mesquite and post oak woods, forests and grassland mosaic vegetation/cover types (BEG, 2000). Native and introduced grasses and woody species such as honey mesquite, blackjack oak, eastern redcedar, black hickory, live oak, sandjack oak and cedar elm are common for this cover type.

Shrub species in the region include hackberry, yaupon, poison oak, American beautyberry, hawthorn, supplejack, trumpet creeper, dewberry, coral-berry, little bluestem, silver bluestem, sand lovegrass, beaked panicum, three-awn, spranglegrass and tickclover. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the drainages, are grasslands and meadow grasslands with some seeded grasslands and improved pastures for agriculture (Texas Parks & Recreation, 2022).

The region's subtropical climate temperatures in the summer range from about 75° to 95°F, although highs above 100°F are common; winter temperatures range from about 45° to 65°F (U.S. Climate Data, 2022). Humidity is generally over 85 percent (%) year-round and commonly exceeds 90% during the summer months. Average annual rainfall ranges from about 26 to 30 inches. The climate is characterized by a warm desert-like to subtropical climate. Periods of freezing temperatures are generally very brief and infrequent. Tropical weather systems from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the Project with large rainstorms and wind.

4-1

March 2023

4.2 Accessibility and Local Resources

The combined Project includes multiple assets in four Texas counties with various accessibility and resource options for the five project areas. Corpus Christi is about 65 miles east of Palangana (Duval County). The project area can be accessed off Texas Highway 44 toward Freer. Halfway between San Diego and Freer is a turn-off to the south called Ranch Road 3196 that runs through the project area. The road continues south, after passing Palangana, for about 6 miles to the town of Benavides. Access is excellent with major two-lane paved roads connecting the three surrounding towns and dirt secondary roads connecting to Palangana. For water supply, shallow wells in the Goliad Formation in Duval County generally yield mineralized water, whereas deeper wells yield water of comparatively low mineral content and are used for water supply (USGS, 1937). Corpus Christi, with a population of 317,773 and Alice, with a population of 17,761 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021), are the largest nearby cities that should provide an ample workforce and any necessary supplies for the Project.

Salvo and Burke Hollow are located in Bee County. The Salvo project area can be accessed from several routes including I-37, Texas Route 359 and Farm to Market (FM)-79a, which runs northwest to southwest through the project area. The southern portion of the project area can also be accessed from US Highway 181 and FM-797. Salvo and Burke Hollow have several other secondary gravel roads that provide access to the project areas. The nearest population centers are Skidmore (about 3 miles east with a population of 863), Tynan (about 4 miles south with a population of 254) and Beeville (about 10 miles north with a population of 13,641) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). While Skidmore and Tynan are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Beeville is a much larger city and provides a well-developed infrastructure, resulting from regional oil and gas exploration and production. The Salvo project area has very good accessibility for light to heavy equipment.

The Burke Hollow project area is located about 10 miles east of the Salvo project area. The nearest population centers are Skidmore, approximately 11 miles west, Refugio, about 15 miles east and Beeville, approximately 18 miles northwest. Refugio is a relatively small town but offers basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. The Burke Hollow project area has good accessibility for light to heavy equipment. There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region. The topography is comprised of dominantly sandy, well-drained soils, which provide satisfactory construction conditions for building gravel access site roads.

The Salvo and Burke Hollow projects areas located in Bee County are rural, but have excellent county, state and federal highways that serve the region and good construction conditions. Water supply in the project areas is from private water wells, mostly tapping sands of the Goliad Formation (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017 and Myer and Dale, 1966). Water supply for potential future mine development would be from the same sources. The Salvo and Burke Hollow project areas are about 30 to 35 miles north of Corpus Christi, the closest metropolitan district to the Bee County project areas.

4-2

March 2023

The Goliad project area is in Goliad County. The project area is accessed using route US 77A / 183 that runs north-south to the west of the project area. FM-1961 intersects with 77A-183 at the crossroad town of Weser. FM-1961 to the east of the intersection trends along the south side of the project area. Access onto the project area is via vehicular traffic on private gravel roads. The project area is in a rural setting at the north end of Goliad County. The nearest population centers are Goliad (14 miles south), Cuero (16 miles north) and Victoria (about 30 miles east). While Goliad and Cuero are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Victoria is a larger city, provides excellent infrastructure and serves as a regional support center for oil and gas exploration and production. The Goliad project area has very good accessibility for light to heavy equipment. There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region and the moderate topography with dominantly sandy, well-drained soils provides good construction conditions for building gravel roads necessary for site access. Groundwater from the Goliad Formation is used for water supply over much of the northern portion of Goliad County (Carothers, 2007). Water quality in the Goliad Formation is variable and wells typically can yield small to moderate amounts of water according to Dale et al. (1957). The Project is about 60 miles from San Antonio (population of 1,451,853), the closest metropolitan district to the project area.

The Hobson CPP is about 40 miles west of the Goliad project area, about 55 miles northwest of the Burke Hollow project area, about 50 miles north northwest of the Salvo project area and about 90 miles north of the Palangana project area.

North-south rail lines (Union Pacific) and east-west rail lines (Kansas City Southern Railway) are located approximately 10 air miles from the Palangana project area and about 10 to 20 air miles from the Salvo, Burke Hollow and Goliad project areas (Texas Department of Transportation, 2021).

4.3 Availability of Infrastructure

Equipment, supplies and personnel needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Specialized equipment for the wellfields is often available in Texas but may need to be acquired from outside of the state. The local economy for all five project areas is geared toward oil and gas exploration, energy production and ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily (Carothers, 2007). As a result of energy development since the early 1900s, all the project areas have existing or nearby electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

Generally, the local and regional infrastructure is in place for all five project areas including roads, power and maintenance facilities. The exceptions include local access roads, wellfield development, local power and well control facilities that must be constructed. Specific information for available infrastructure for each project area is described below.

The Palangana project area has a history of past use and existing access roads (SRK Consulting, 2010). Power for operating the Palangana wellfield is already established. Existing buildings and ancillary facilities include a maintenance facility and office in the project area. Manpower requirements targeting field technicians, welders, electricians, drillers and pipefitters exist within a 12-mile radius in the local communities. The technical workforce for facility operations has largely disappeared from the area, although ample qualified resources can be found in the South Texas area from the petrochemical industry (SRK Consulting, 2010). The necessary rights for constructing surface processing facilities at the Palangana project area are in place with the uranium leaseholders. Most of the current leases have conveyed the surface rights under certain conditions of remuneration. These conditions require payments for surface area taken out of usage.

4-3

March 2023

For the Salvo and Burke Hollow project areas, good access roads exist and sufficient electrical power is available in the area within a reasonable distance from the sites (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017 and Carothers, 2011). New power lines may be needed to bring additional service to the project areas. Within a 7-mile radius of the Salvo there is sufficient population to supply the necessary mining personnel including technicians, welders, electricians, drillers and pipefitters. For the Burke Hollow project area, there is sufficient population available within a 20-mile radius to provide the required workforce. The technical workforce for both facility operations can be found in the South Texas area from the petrochemical industry. The necessary rights for constructing the needed surface processing facilities are in-place on selected lease agreements for both project areas.

The Goliad project area is similar to the Burke Hollow and Salvo project areas. Sufficient access roads exist and electrical power is available in the area within a reasonable distance of several miles (Carothers, 2007). New power lines may be needed to bring additional service to the project area. However, the area is further from populated areas compared to the other project areas and there is a sufficient population to supply the required workforce within a 30-mile radius. The necessary rights for constructing surface processing facilities are in-place on selected lease agreements.

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

4-4

March 2023

5.0 HISTORY

Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Adams and Smith, 1981). The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey (Bunker and MacKallor, 1973). 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 (Larson, 1978). Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISL 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 (Eargle and Kleiner, 2022).

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 (Carothers, 2011). 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 Goliad Formation deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line (Carothers, 2011).

Ownership, control and operation of the project areas has varied greatly since the 1950s. Table 5-1 summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. Table 5-1 also summarizes historic drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period. Cited references and supporting literature can be found following Table 5-1 and in Section 24.0.

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

5-1

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Hobson CPP
1979-1988	Everest Minerals Corporation (later Everest Exploration, Inc. (EEI))	Hobson CPP facility constructed	N/A	N/A
2005	Standard Uranium	N/A	N/A	N/A
2006	Energy Metals Corporation	~ Standard Uranium and Energy Metals Corporation 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
Burke Hollow– Primary source: Kurrus and Yancey (2017)
1982 - 1993	Mobil Corporation subsidiary Nufuels Corporation (Nufuels)	Original controller of the 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 ~1,100 ft below ground surface (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 were insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
1993 – 2011	Total Minerals Corp. (Total)	Exploration program	~ 12 exploration holes on or near the Thomson-Barrow Lease	Total conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. Total 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 were insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
2011-2017	UEC	Burke Hollow project area acquired by UEC from Total Mineral Corp.	~ 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 Yancey, 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 open ended Lower B1 and B2 trends (Carothers et al., 2013). The results of historic and contemporary borehole gamma-ray, spontaneous potential and resistance logs, as well as prompt fission neutron (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 utilized these data to develop a resource estimate for the combined Graben and Eastern Lower B trends.
2019-2022	UEC	Exploration program	~ In 2019, 129 delineation holes were drilled ~ From 2021-2022, 168 delineation and exploration holes	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. Twenty-four of these holes were also used as monitor wells. This drilling program is ongoing for the purpose of completing more monitor wells.

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.

5-2

March 2023

]Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Goliad – Primary Source: Carothers (2007)
1979 -1980	Coastal Uranium, Inc.	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. 8 of these holes were drilled at or near the Goliad project area. Addition information on the exploration is described below.
1980 - 1984	Moore Energy	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 Goliad project area. From March 1983 through August 1984, Moore Energy 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 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 developed a historical resource estimate with an average grade of 0.05% equivalent U3O8 (eU3O8) and an average disequilibrium factor of 1.494 (Moore, 1986).
1984 - 2006	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2006-2008	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. 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 historical estimate. The author concluded that significant uranium resources from the work in 1983-85 described by Moore Energy appears to be backed and supported by the more recent UEC exploration data.
2014	UEC	Exploration and water well program	~ 33 exploration holes and 2 water wells drilled	In 2014, UEC conducted a drilling program at Goliad 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.
Palangana – Primary Source: SRK Consulting Engineers and Scientists (2010)
1952-1958	Columbia Southern Inc. (CSI), a subsidiary of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Corp.	Original controller of 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 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 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.
1958-1981	Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)	UCC acquired 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 project 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 lbs 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 Corporation (Chevron)	Chevron acquired the UCC leases and conducted their own resource evaluation.	N/A	Chevron completed a historical estimate on the entire site within unclassified material containing 0.125% eU3O8.
Unknown to late 1990’s	General Atomics	General Atomics acquired 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990s.
Late 1990s to 2005	N/A	Project area returned to surface rights landowners.	N/A	N/A
2005 - 2009	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) completed a historical estimate 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.
2009-2016	UEC	Palangana project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	UEC acquires Palangana. SRK Consulting, Inc. (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 TRS. In 2010, UEC resumed production at Palangana. Approximately 563,600 lbs were produced from 2010 to 2016 in PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3.

5-3

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Salvo – Primary Source: Carothers (2011)
Unknown to 1983	Mobil Corporation subsidiary Nufuels	Original controller of 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 – 1993	Uranium Resources Inc. (URI) joint venture with Saaberg Interplan Uran Gmbh (SIPU) (URI/SIPU)	URI formed a joint venture exploration program with SIPU, a German utility. The joint venture 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 nearby Seger Project	URI/SIPU completed a historical estimate 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).
1993 - 2005	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2005 - 2010	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	Salvo project area 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 remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

5-4

March 2023

6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT

6.1 Regional Geology

6.1.1 South Texas Gulf Coastal Plan

The Project is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB (Figure 1-2). 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 megacontinent, 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 (Nicot et al., 2010).

Three main structural zones are present in the STUP: the Balcones Fault Zone, the San Marcos Arch and the Rio Grande Embayment (Figure 1-2). The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Project 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 ft, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Project 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 (Nicot et. al., 2010).

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). A STUP stratigraphic column is shown in Figure 6-1 and a cross-section of the Project can be viewed on Figure 6-2.

All mineralization at the Project 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 (Baskin and Hulbert, 2008). 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 ft to 500 ft. 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.

6-1

March 2023

Figure 6‑1:         South Texas Uranium Province Stratigraphic Column (modified from Galloway et al., 1979)

Note: The Goliad Sand is the target for the Project and is highlighted in green

6-2

March 2023

Figure 6‑2:         South Texas Assets Cross-Section

6-3

March 2023

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.

6.2 Local Geology

6.2.1 South Texas Local Geology – Goliad Formation Hosted Mineralization

Burke Hollow

The uranium-bearing sands of the Goliad Formation at Burke Hollow occur beneath a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation gravels, sands, silts and clays, which overlie much of the 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.

There are two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow project area that are likely related to the formation of the 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.

Goliad

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 grays. 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 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 ft.

6-4

March 2023

Palangana

The local geology at Palangana is characterized by the occurrence of a Gulf Coast piercement salt dome. This dome is approximately 2 miles in diameter and is overlain by Pliocene sediments of the Goliad Formation. The Palangana dome is marked at the surface by a shallow circular basin surrounded by low hills rising above the basin floor. The Palangana dome has an almost perfectly circular salt core with a remarkably flat top that is approximately 10,000 ft across and occurs from 800 to 850 ft 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.

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 stratigraphy is horizontal to sub-horizontal, with a 2º to 3º southeasterly dip at most.

Salvo

The Salvo project area is situated in the major northeast-southwest trending Goliad Formation of fluvial origin. The Geologic Map of Texas (BEG, 1992) 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 ft in depth on the eastern side of the project area. 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 ft.

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.

6.2.2 Goliad Formation Hydrogeology

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 Project target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.

6.3 Mineralization and Deposit Type

Uranium mineralization at the project areas 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 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 (Davis, 1969 & Rackley, 1972).

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

6-5

March 2023

7.0 EXPLORATION

7.1 Drilling Programs

Drilling was conducted by conventional rotary methods using a variety of bit diameters and configurations. Drilling programs generally followed industry standards where cuttings are collected at regular intervals and examined by an on-site geologist to record lithology and geochemical alteration (redox state). Holes are then typically logged using gamma ray, spontaneous potential, single point resistance, PFN (if necessary), or other logging methods to aid in grade estimation and lithologic correlation. Cores were also collected from a limited number of holes throughout the project areas. Cores were collected at the drill rig by a geologist, boxed and labeled as appropriate and transported to a secure facility. Cores were then logged and scanned with radiation detection devices and samples were identified and marked. Core samples were then sent to laboratories for testing for disequilibrium, metallurgy and hydrogeological parameters. It is the opinion of the QP that the drilling and core sampling methods were consistent with standard industry practices at the time the programs were conducted.

UEC has performed limited exploration at Salvo since the last NI 43-101 report was published and has relied entirely on legacy data for the updated mineral resource estimates and Project planning at Salvo. Historical and more recent drilling programs were also conducted at Palangana, Goliad and Burke Hollow in 2010-2015, 2014 and from 2019 to 2021 respectively. In addition, UEC has also produced a new estimate for Goliad and Burke Hollow. Table 7-1 summarizes the historical and recent exploration programs that have been conducted at the project areas. Figures 7-1 through 7-4 depict the drill holes at each project area.

Palangana Drilling Program

From 2010 to 2015, UEC drilled 891 drill holes at Palangana. Most of the drilling occurred in 2010 (391 holes), 2011 (281 holes) and 2012 (186 holes) and the remaining holes were drilled from 2013-2015. The majority of these wells were drilled for delineation purposes and the rest were drilled for monitor and production wells. In 2010, UEC activated wellfields in Production Area 1 (PA-1), PA-2 and PA-3 at Palangana. From 2010 to 2016, 563,600 lbs of uranium were produced by in-situ recovery (ISR) methods.

Goliad Drilling Program

In 2014, UEC conducted a drilling program at Goliad 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. No exploration has occurred at Goliad since this drilling program ended.

Burke Hollow Drilling Program

From 2019 to present, UEC has conducted two drilling programs at Burke Hollow. The first drilling program began in 2019 when UEC completed 129 drill holes, mostly focusing on in-fill delineation of the Lower B1 and Lower B2 sands in the proposed PA-1. Additionally, UEC began installing perimeter monitor wells in PA-1 at the same time. In total, 57 holes were drilled solely for delineation and exploration purposes and 72 holes were drilled for monitoring purposes.

7-1

March 2023

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 PA-1 and install monitor wells. As of March 7, 2022, 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled, with 24 of these holes also being used as monitor wells. This program is ongoing for the purpose of completing additional monitor wells. No historic data was used in the Burke Hollow mineral estimate, only data from drilling conducted by UEC from 2012 to 2022. In total, 297 new holes were drilled and logged between 2019 and March 7, 2022 to complete this estimate.

The QP reviewed logs for Burke Hollow since a new estimate was completed in 2022. Approximately 10% of the logs used in this analysis were reviewed for quality assurance purposes.

Table 7-1:         Project Area Exploration Drilling Programs Summary

Project Area	Number of Drill Holes	Number of Core Holes	Company	Exploration Year Range	Probe/Testing
Burke Hollow	18	-	Nufuels	1982	-
	12	-	Total	1993	-
	707	2	UEC	2012 - 2017	Gamma, PFN
	129 (72 Monitor Wells)	-	UEC	2019	Gamma, PFN
	168 (24 Monitor Wells)	-	UEC	2021-2022	Gamma, PFN
Goliad	8	-	Coastal Uranium	1980	Gamma
	479	-	Moore Energy	1983-1984	Gamma, PGT
	599	20	UEC	2006-2008	Gamma, PFN
	35	-	UEC	2014	Gamma, PFN
Palangana	4,000	296	UCC	1958-1981	Gamma
	163	-	Chevron	1981-1990s	Gamma, PGT
	200	8	STMV (Everest Exploration and Energy Metals)	2005-2008	Gamma, PFN
	236		Uranium One	2008-2009	Gamma, PFN
Salvo	111	-	Mobil	1982	-
	314	3	URI, SIPU	1984	Gamma, PGT
	105	-	UEC	2010-2011	Gamma, PFN

Notes:         

1. Core holes included in drill hole count.

2. The total drill footage is not available.

Considering the number of drill holes and associated data, the QP did not review all of the drilling information for the project areas. Rather, the QP reviewed data from each of the project areas and evaluated the quality and nature of the work done by previous owners. In the opinion of the QP, previous work was conducted using industry standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted.

7-2

March 2023

Figure 7‑1:         Drill Hole Map for the Burke Hollow Project Area

7-3

March 2023

Figure 7‑2:         Drill Hole Map for the Goliad Project Area

7-4

March 2023

Figure 7‑3:         Drill Hole Map for the Palangana Project Area

7-5

March 2023

Figure 7‑4:         Drill Hole Map for the Salvo Project Area

7-6

March 2023

7.2 Hydrogeologic Information

Groundwater investigations have been conducted at the Project as part of general site investigations and to satisfy regulatory requirements for baseline site characterization. The dominant method for determining hydraulic properties of the aquifers in the project areas is in-situ testing using aquifer pump tests. The observations from the pump tests are analyzed using a regression analysis to estimate parameters such as the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer. Aquifer pump test results allow in-situ characterization of the production zone aquifer to demonstrate sufficient geologic confinement and transmissivity for ISR operations. Aquifer pump testing has historically been and is currently the industry standard for characterizing groundwater flow parameters. In some cases, lab physical testing of core samples for permeability and porosity was also conducted.

Aquifer testing has been performed on all the project areas except for Salvo. The specific hydrogeologic characteristics of the water-bearing Goliad Formation sands at Salvo have not yet been determined. Should UEC proceed to development, required hydrogeologic tests will determine the hydraulic character of the sands and the confining beds separating the individual sand zones.

A pump test was conducted at the Burke Hollow Graben area by an independent hydrologist from February 2 to February 5, 2015, with the objective of determining drawdown and confinement of the Lower A proposed production zone. No drawdown was observed in the overlying Goliad Formation Upper A sands, which were monitored in three nearby ranch wells (Grant, Philip R., Terra Dynamics, 2015).

The Burke Hollow and Salvo project areas both lie within Bee County, Texas. Information regarding the water-bearing characteristics of the Goliad Formation sands in Bee County can be derived from aquifer tests performed by the cities of Beeville and Refugio (Dale et al., 1957). These wells reported an average coefficient of permeability of about 100 gallons per day per square foot. This would be the equivalent coefficient of transmissivity of approximately 2,500 gallons per day per foot for a 25-foot-thick sand (Carothers et al., 2013).

At Goliad, a pump test was conducted to comply with TCEQ requirements to obtain a PAA for ISR. The pump test occurred in PA-1 on July 8 through July 15, 2008 and included wells that were completed in Sand B. Over the 18-hour monitor period for this test, the maximum change in water levels was approximately 0.6 inches. These data from the well tests were analyzed using Aqtesolv (version 4.5), a widely used and successfully applied analysis program that has been used for decades. The test results show that the Sand B aquifer has a transmissivity ranging from approximately 377 to 1,521 ft²/day and storativity ranging from 0.00001 to 0.001. No communication was found between Sand A and Sand B (Larkin, 2008).

Several hydrologic tests and analyses have been conducted at Palangana since the 1970s. Hydrologic data was available for pump tests conducted in PA-2 and PA-4 in 2008 and 2013 respectively. In 2008, Petrotek Engineering conducted an analysis on pump testing for PA-2 for the purpose of permitting PA-2. This test was conducted in the E Sand and has an average transmissivity of 141 ft²/day based on an average sand thickness of 27 ft in PA-2. The average hydraulic conductivity is 5.3 ft/day with a permeability of 2,125 millidarcies. Storativity ranges from 3.6 E^-05 to 2.2 E^-04 (Lawrence, 2008).

7-7

March 2023

A second pump test was conducted at Palangana in 2013 by Terra Dynamics Inc. This pump test was conducted to better determine the hydraulic properties of PA-4 in the production zone sands (C/D/E Sands). In PA-4, average transmissivity is 123 ft²/day, average storativity is 6.4 E^-05 and average hydraulic conductivity is 6.7 ft/day (Grant, 2013). ISR mining has occurred at Palangana as recently as 2016 and has successfully demonstrated that ISR processes are viable within the Palangana host aquifers.

The QP was unable to review all of the data associated with hydrogeologic investigations at the project areas due to the quantity of data. In addition, some of these data were not available for review. It is the opinion of the QP that previous hydrogeologic studies were generally conducted using industry standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted. Historic mining in areas not previously evaluated for hydrogeologic conditions would suggest that physical characteristics of the Goliad Formation are conducive to ISR.

The level of hydrogeologic investigation conducted for the individual project areas generally correlates to the overall progress of the Project, as it relates to regulatory permitting and approval. Extensive hydrogeologic testing is required to obtain state and federal permits for ISR operations. UEC’s project areas included in this TRS are in varying stages of development. For additional details on the hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the project areas, please refer to the applicable permit documents for each project area available from the TCEQ and EPA.

7.3 Geotechnical Information

Soil sampling has been performed on all properties, other than Salvo, as part of the environmental baseline studies completed as required by the permitting process. In addition, satellite IX or remote IX plants will require geotechnical drilling and analysis for the slab designs. No geotechnical data or analysis was provided for this TRS.

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

7-8

March 2023

8.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

8.1 Typical and Standard Industry Methods

This TRS was prepared using a variety of sources, including data collected directly by UEC, data collected by previous property owners and information presented in prior reports for which not all underlying data is available. UEC has Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) procedures to guide drilling, logging, sampling, analytical testing, sample handling and storage. Details of sample preparation, analyses and security are presented separately for each project area.

Although UEC does conduct core sampling on some projects, its primary method for evaluating eU₃O₈ is through geophysical logging. Geophysical logs typically included gamma ray, resistance, spontaneous potential and drill hole deviation. PFN logs are conducted in drill holes with significant gamma ray log responses. Resistance and spontaneous potential curves are primarily used to identify lithological boundaries and to correlate sand units and mineralized zones between drill holes. Gamma ray and PFN logs provide indirect (gamma ray) and direct (PFN) measurements of eU₃O₈.

Because geophysical logging measures in-place sediments, rather than collected samples, it minimizes the effects of variations in drill hole diameter and thin bed stratigraphy. Since no samples are collected with this method, sample security is not a consideration. Documentation of probe calibration, observation of logging runs and secure data management practices are comparable measures.

Gamma ray logs provide an indirect measurement of uranium content by logging gamma radiation in counts per second (CPS) at one-tenth foot intervals, CPS are then converted to eU₃O₈. The conversion requires an algorithm and several correction factors that are applied to the CPS value. Comparing gamma logs to PFN logs also provide a way to measure the radiometric DEF, which indicates whether uranium is dispersed or depleted and can be used to help pattern uranium roll fronts.

PFN uranium assay logs provide a direct measurement of actual uranium grade in U₃O₈. PFN logging is considered superior to laboratory assay/analysis of core samples, as it provides a larger sample and is less expensive (Penney, et al., 2012). In some cases, UEC compares PFN logs to core sample assays to validate grade findings.

8.1.1 Burke Hollow

Sampling has been carried out by UEC (2012-present), Total (1993) and Nufuels (1982). UEC acquired a database of existing Total and Nufuels data for the Project in 2011. These data were used for geologic modeling but were not included in the resource estimate (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017). All data used to prepare the resource estimate was collected by UEC from 707 drill holes completed from 2012 to 2017 (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017) and 297 additional drill holes completed from 2019 to March 7, 2022.

8-1

Match 2023

Drill Hole Locations

UEC exploration drill hole locations are planned in advance using GIS software. Locations are exported from GIS files into a Trimble Geo XH 6000 using Trimble®, TerraSync™ software. At the project site, planned locations are navigated to, staked and the exact position is then recorded by the GPS. Accuracy of the drill hole locations is correctly adjusted through post-processing of the collected field data via Trimble®, TerraSync™ and GPS Pathfinder® Software. Once post-processing is completed, the corrected data are then exported into a data base file. The corrected coordinates are then used for drill hole collar information and are reported in all UEC and state documents (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017).

Coring

UEC collected 24 0.5-foot samples from two core holes in 2012 and one two-foot sample from a core hole in 2015. Each of these samples was assayed and analyzed by National Environmental Laboratories Accreditation Program (NELAP)-accredited Energy Laboratories Inc. in Casper, Wyoming (Energy Labs). The 2012 samples were analyzed for uranium and uranium as U₃O₈, both in ppm (Carothers et al., 2013). The 2015 sample was assayed for percent as U₃O₈ and bottle roll tested for percent recovery by tails (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017). No further details on the sample preparation, analyses and security are available.

Geophysical Logging

UEC completed 707 drill holes at Burke Hollow from 2012 to 2017. Geophysical logging was conducted in every drill hole and included gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and drill hole deviation. PFN logs were run in drill holes with significant gamma ray log responses. Most of this logging was performed by UEC using company-owned logging units designed and produced by GeoInstruments of Nacogdoches, Texas (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017).

In 2012, UEC conducted PFN logging in 112 drill holes and independent contract logging company Geoscience Associates of Australia (GAA) conducted PFN logging in 21 drill holes. In addition, 11 drill holes were logged by both UEC and GAA to directly compare the readings from their PFN equipment. The PFN logs for the 11 drill holes showed excellent correlation, with overall average DEF values of 2.08 (UEC) and 2.07 (GAA) (Carothers et al., 2013).

UEC’s gamma ray and PFN probes are calibrated against known standards at the US Department of Energy (DOE) test pit at George West, Texas. Calibration is performed every one to two months and test pit results are maintained by the operator (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017).

Previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that “all drilling, sample collection and logging practices, including probe calibration, was performed in a manner consistent with industry standards” (Kurrus and Yancey, 2017). No additional information on these practices was available for review.

8.1.2 Goliad

Sampling has been carried out by Coastal Uranium (1979-1980), Moore Energy (1983-1984) and UEC (2006-2008). UEC acquired a database of existing Coastal Uranium and Moore Energy data for the project area. Moore Energy and UEC data were used to prepare the resource estimate (Carothers, 2008).

Drill Hole Locations

Information on how the Moore Energy drill holes were located is not available. However, previous NI 43-101 reports considered the well locations accurate enough to use in preparing resource estimates (Carothers, 2008). UEC drill holes were located based on the drill hole collar (Carothers, 2008).

8-2

March 2023

Coring

From 2006 to 2008, UEC collected 58 three-inch core samples from eight core holes. Samples were bagged, labeled and placed in core boxes for transport to the laboratories. The remaining core was locked in a storage shed at the project site. Each of the samples was assayed and analyzed by Energy Labs. The laboratory analysis included moisture content, uranium, molybdenum, chemical U₃O₈ (cU₃O₈) for disequilibrium evaluations, leachability tests and X-ray diffraction for mineral identification. Density analyses were performed by Professional Service Industries in Austin, Texas (Carothers, 2007).

In 2007, UEC collected 205 one-foot samples from three core holes with the intent of obtaining representative samples from each mineralized sand zone for DEF analysis. Core extrusions were measured, scanned with a scintillometer and the lithologic descriptions of the core were documented. The core was then cut into one-foot sections and bagged in a clear polyethylene core sleeve. The bags were sealed with fiberglass strapping tape and labelled. The samples were placed in core boxes and stored in UEC’s secure field trailer. The trailer was locked when it was not in use. The core boxes were shipped under proper chain of custody to NELAP-accredited Energy Labs for analysis. The laboratory analysis determined the cU₃O₈ value, which was used in combination with gamma log data to calculate DEF (Carothers, 2008). Energy Labs also conducted leach amenability tests on four core samples and x-ray diffraction on representative samples from three core holes (Carothers, 2008).

Geophysical Logging

Moore Energy completed 479 drill holes on the project area in 1983 and 1984. These drill holes were logged with gamma ray, spontaneous potential and resistance. 32 drill holes were logged with PGT (Carothers, 2007 and 2008).

UEC conducted additional drilling from 2006 to 2008 and completed 599 drill holes. Geophysical logs were conducted in every UEC exploration drill hole at Goliad. These logs typically included gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and drill hole deviation. UEC did not conduct PFN logs at Goliad because PGT logging had already been performed by Moore Energy; UEC’s core sampling program validated the Moore Energy PGT data (Carothers, 2008).

Moore Energy and UEC used contract logging companies for gamma ray and PGT logging. These companies maintained scheduled calibration of their probes against known standards at the US DOE test pit at George West, Texas. Calibration records were kept by the logging companies and were not available for review (Carothers, 2008). UEC began using its own logging equipment at Goliad in mid-2007. UEC’s probe was calibrated at the US DOE test pit at George West, Texas prior to being put into service (Carothers, 2008).

Previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that UEC’s drilling files were “in excellent condition with mostly original geophysical logs and the procedures and organization indicated these data obtained from field data gathering and geophysical logging was properly conducted” (Carothers, 2008).

8.1.3 Palangana

Sampling has been carried out by UCC (1958-1981), Chevron (1981-1990s) and Energy Metals/STMV (2005-2009). UEC acquired Palangana data from STMV in 2009. Most of these data used to prepare the resource estimate was collected by STMV from 2005 to 2009 (SRK Consulting, 2010).

8-3

March 2023

Drill Hole Locations

Drill hole collar locations were surveyed and recorded (SRK Consulting, 2010).

Coring

UCC completed 296 cores on Palangana. Assays for these cores were conducted by UCC’s in-house laboratories in Grand Junction or Rifle, Colorado and at Core Laboratories Inc., in Corpus Christi, Texas. Samples were assayed for cU₃O₈ and closed can or radio assay. Most samples were also analyzed for metals and Core Laboratories Inc. analyzed select samples for permeability, porosity and density. UCC examined thirty-three core holes in detail, but no records exist of QA/QC procedures. There was reportedly regular loss of core recovery in the mineralized interval (SRK Consulting, 2010).

SMTV completed eight core holes on the project area. Cores were sampled at one-foot intervals in the mineralized sand. Core samples were boxed, split, logged and scanned with a scintillometer. One-half of the core was bagged for assay and the other half was stored; however, none of the core samples are available today. Core samples were frozen immediately after they were collected. Core samples were analyzed by Energy Labs for cU₃O₈ (SRK Consulting, 2010).

Previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that “sampling and analysis methods employed by [STMV] and previous operators meet or exceed industry standards” (SRK Consulting, 2010).

Geophysical Logging

Palangana drill holes were logged with gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and continuous drift (SRK Consulting, 2010).

UCC completed 1,117 drill holes on the project area. These drill holes are unevenly distributed, with few in the PA-1 and PA-2 project areas and although geophysical logging was apparently performed, additional details are not available (SRK Consulting, 2010).

Chevron completed 163 drill holes on the project area and geophysical logging was conducted by Century Geophysical Corp. In addition to standard geophysical logs, PGT logs were conducted in all Chevron drill holes (SRK Consulting, 2010).

STMV and its predecessors completed over 2,500 drill holes on Palangana. In addition to standard geophysical logs, PFN logs were conducted in all Palangana drill holes except for in the Dome trend. There was an issue with lack of initial calibration of PFN probes (due to unavailability of calibration pits). Adjustments were made to correct for PFN probe calibration drift. PFN values were additionally reduced based on core assay data. Previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that these adjustments “partially compensated for [the lack of probe calibration]” and that “adjustment of the DEF values to account for the PFN drift is acceptable” (SRK Consulting, 2010).

Previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that, for STMV work, “proper methods for sampling and logging were being conducted and geophysical logging methods were at or above the industry standard” (SRK Consulting, 2010).

8.1.4 Salvo

Sampling has been carried out by Mobil (1982), URI (1984) and UEC (2010-2011). UEC acquired the Mobil and URI data in 2010. Data collected by Mobil, URI and UEC was used to prepare the resource estimate (Carothers, 2011).

8-4

March 2023

Drill Hole Locations

Information on how the Mobil and URI drill holes were located is not available; however, location maps were included in the data acquired by UEC. Each UEC drill hole was located using calibrated GPS surveying equipment (Carothers, 2011).

Coring

URI collected core samples from four core holes on Salvo in 1984. Each of these samples was analyzed by Core Labs in Corpus Christi, Texas for uranium, molybdenum, disequilibrium, leachability, density and x-ray diffraction mineral identification. QA/QC procedures were not available, but previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that the core sampling and analysis “are believed to have been carried out to proper industry standards for 1984” and are “pertinent to [the] report” (Carothers, 2011).

Geophysical Logging

Mobil completed 111 drill holes on Salvo in 1982 and URI completed 314 drill holes on Salvo in 1984. Geophysical logging conducted in these drill holes included gamma ray, spontaneous potential and resistance. Down-hole deviation logging was also conducted in most drill holes. Logging was performed by Century Geophysical of Tulsa, Oklahoma or by GeoScience Associates of Boulder, Colorado (Carothers, 2011).

Eight URI drill holes were logged with PGT. Additional details are not available.

UEC completed 105 drill holes on the Project in 2010 and 2011. Geophysical logging conducted in these drill holes included gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and vertical deviation. PFN logs were run in drill holes with significant gamma ray log responses. Logging was performed by UEC using company-owned logging units.

UEC’s gamma ray and PFN probes are calibrated against known standards at the US DOE test pit at George West, Texas. Calibration is scheduled and calibration records are maintained by UEC but were not available for review (Carothers, 2011).

Previous NI 43-101 reporting assessed that, “the standard geophysical logs, the historic PGT logs and the current UEC PFN uranium assay tool logs are proper and in order” (Carothers, 2011).

8.2 QP’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

In the opinion of the QP:

● Available records and previous reporting indicate that sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for drill programs are in line with industry-standard methods for roll-front uranium deposits at the time they were conducted;

● Coring programs varied but were in line with uranium industry standard methods at the time they were conducted. Laboratory-reported uranium grades are considered to have adequate quality control;

● Geophysical logging programs for Burke Hollow and Goliad included gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and PGT/PFN logs. Gamma and PGT/PFN probes were calibrated at the test pits in George West. Laboratory analysis/assay of core samples was also conducted. Uranium grades (eU₃O₈) based on the combination of gamma ray, PGT/PFN and core sample assays are considered to have excellent quality control and meet or exceed uranium industry standard operating procedures;

8-5

March 2023

● The geophysical logging program for Salvo included gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and PGT/PFN logs. Gamma and PGT/PFN probes were calibrated at the test pits in George West. Laboratory data from core sampling and QA/QC details are limited. Uranium grades (eU₃O₈) based on the combination of gamma ray and limited PGT/PFN and core sample assays are considered to have adequate quality control and meet uranium industry standard operating procedures;

● The geophysical logging program for Palangana included gamma ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and PGT/PFN logs. The only issue identified was the lack of calibration of the PFN probes that was later mitigated by relogging a core hole and adjusting the DEF readings by the probe specific calibration drift. The presumption has been made that this drift in accuracy occurred uniformly throughout the program. Without initial calibration information at the start of the PFN logging program, there is no conclusive answer in this regard. Since both probes read higher than the chemical in the core hole, the PFN values in all instances have been reduced to account for a reduction in the DEF value ultimately used for disequilibrium adjustment. Core sampling in the PA-1 and PA-2 project areas was very limited and QA/QC records are not available. In-situ uranium mining has been conducted at Palangana. Uranium grades (eU₃O₈) based on gamma ray, with very limited PGT/PFN and core sample assays are considered to have adequate quality control and meet minimum uranium industry standard operating procedures;

● Digital database construction and security are adequate;

● Data are subject to validation and numerous checks that are appropriate and consistent with industry standards.

● The QP did not review all procedures conducted for sample preparation, analysis and security for each sample due to the quantity of the associated data and the limited availability of historic data. In the opinion of the QP, previous operators/owners used industry standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted. The QP is of the opinion that the quality of the uranium analytical data is sufficiently reliable to support Mineral Resource estimation without limitations on mineral resource confidence categories.

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

8-6

March 2023

9.0 DATA VERIFICATION

9.1 Summary

The following is a summary of all data verification efforts for the project areas discussed in this TRS.

Burke Hollow

● The resource estimate is based on data from 707 UEC drill holes completed from 2012 to 2017 and supplemented with data from subsequent infill drill holes completed from 2020 to present. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, spontaneous potential and resistance. PFN logging was conducted in approximately 150 drill holes. QA/QC documentation indicates these data were collected in accordance with current industry standard methods (Karrus and Yancey, 2017).

● In 2012, duplicate PFN logs were run by an independent contractor in 11 drill holes to provide confirmation of UEC logs. Records indicate that the confirmation logging found a difference in DEFs of less than 0.5% (Carothers et al., 2013).

● QP reviewed approximately 10% of the logs used to prepare the resource estimate and confirmed that the log data was presented correctly and interpreted in accordance with industry standards.

● QP reviewed UEC roll front mapping and confirmed that this work was supported by the underlying data and prepared in accordance with industry standards.

● QP reviewed the methodology used in UEC’s resource estimates and confirmed that it is valid and consistent with industry standards.

Goliad

● The resource estimate is based on data from 599 UEC drill holes completed from 2006 to 2008. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, spontaneous potential and resistance. QA/QC documentation indicates these data were collected in accordance with current industry standard methods (Carothers, 2008).

● UEC drill hole data was supplemented with data from 479 historic drill holes completed in 1983 and 1984. These drill holes were logged with gamma ray, spontaneous potential and resistance. 32 drill holes were logged with PFN (Carothers, 2007 and 2008).

● To verify disequilibrium conditions, PFN and gamma-ray data from recent and historic logs was correlated with chemical assays of 263 core samples collected from 2006 to 2008. QA/QC documentation indicates these samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with industry standard methods (Carothers, 2008).

Palangana

● The resource estimate is for PA-1 and PA-2 and is based on 757 drill holes. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, spontaneous potential, resistance and PFN. QA/QC documentation indicates there were some issues with PFN probe calibration, but that core assay data was used to correct for PFN drift and the resulting data were acceptable (SRK Consulting, 2010).

9-1

March 2023

● To verify disequilibrium conditions, PFN and gamma-ray logs were correlated with chemical assays from eight core holes collected from 2006 to 2008. QA/QC documentation indicates these samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with industry standard methods (SRK Consulting, 2010).

● The resource estimate is included in an approved NI 43-101 technical report (SRK Consulting, 2010). The QP reviewed the methodology used this report and confirmed that it is consistent with industry standards.

● ISR Uranium mining was successfully conducted in a different area of the Palangana project area in the 1970s and produced approximately 340,000 lbs of U₃O₈ with a recovery rate of 32% to 34%. This was achieved using outdated and inefficient mining techniques (SRK Consulting, 2010).

● UEC successfully conducted ISR mining in previous Palangana production areas from 2010 to 2016 and recovered 563,600 lbs of U₃O₈.

Salvo

● The resource estimate is based on 105 drill holes completed in 2010 and 2011. These drill holes were logged with gamma-ray, spontaneous potential and resistance. Drill holes with significant gamma-ray response were also logged with PFN. QA/QC documentation indicates these data were collected in accordance with current industry standard methods (Carothers, 2011).

● To verify disequilibrium conditions, PFN and gamma-ray logs were correlated with historical chemical assays from the 1970s and 1980s. This work is believed to have been performed in accordance with industry standards for 1984 (Carothers, 2011).

● The resource estimate is included in an approved NI 43-101 technical report (Carothers, 2011). The QP reviewed the methodology used this report and confirmed that it is consistent with industry standards.

9.2 Limitations

As noted in previous Chapters, some of these data used for the mineral resource estimates is from historic drill holes and core samples that were collected by previous owners of the properties. In some instances, these data are not in the possession of UEC and therefore were not available for review and verification by the QP. In addition, due to the sheer quantity of data associated with the project areas, the QP was unable to review all of these data. The QP visited all of the project areas.

9.3 QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy

The QP finds the historic and more recent exploration data and the overall data adequacy to be reasonably sufficient for applying QA/QC techniques and verifying the legitimacy of these data incorporated into this TRS. The QP has reviewed past technical resource reports and studies.

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

9-2

March 2023

10.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

10.1 Summary of Properties

UEC plans to use an ISR mineral extraction process to recover uranium from the host sandstone formations in the project areas. UEC will employ a leaching solution (lixiviant), composed of native groundwater supplemented with an oxidant and complexing agent, to recover the uranium through a series of injection and recovery wells.

The proposed mineral processing for the Project is the same as is currently being used or proposed at other ISR operations in Texas, Nebraska and Wyoming. The processes for ISR are typically the following:

● Wellfields for injection of the lixiviant solution and recovery of the uranium, which is pumped to the surface through recovery wells and then to a satellite plant;

● Processing in a satellite plant, which recovers dissolved uranium through an IX circuit onto IX resin and transportation of the loaded resin to a CPP; and

● Further processing in the CPP includes the following:

o elution circuit to remove the uranium from the IX resins and produce a rich eluate;

o yellowcake circuit to precipitate the uranium as yellowcake from the rich eluate; and

o yellowcake dewatering, drying and packaging circuit.

UEC has only performed metallurgical testing at Goliad. A summary of the historical mineral processing and metallurgical testing on each property is as follows:

Burke Hollow

UEC submitted selected core samples from core hole # BHC 224.6-343 to Energy Labs. This hole was drilled at Burke Hollow Eastern Lower B trend area and was submitted for assay and leach testing. A two-foot interval was assayed and analyzed which produced an average grade (%) of 0.22 U₃O₈. The Bottle Roll Test results were 99.1% recovery by tails.

Goliad

UEC submitted selected core samples from UEC core hole # 30892-111C to Energy Labs in January 2007. These samples were sent to the laboratory for leach amenability studies intended to demonstrate that uranium mineralization at Goliad was capable of being leached using conventional ISL chemistry. The tests provide an indication of a sample’s reaction rate and the potential chemical recovery.

Four core samples were subjected to the leach amenability tests and were determined to contain from 0.04% to 0.08% cU₃O₈ before testing. Leach tests conducted on the core samples from the A Zone indicate leach efficiencies of 60% to 80% U₃O₈ extraction, while the tails analyses indicate efficiencies of 87% to 89%. Based on post leach solids analysis, the core intervals were leachable to a very favorable 86% to 89%. After tests, the tails were reanalyzed for uranium concentration to determine the recovery, which, for the various samples and methods, ranged from 60% to 89%.

10-1

March 2023

Laboratory amenability testing of the core samples indicated the uranium (dissolved elemental U) recoveries ranged from 86.4% to 88.9% in the four tests. These results show that the mineralized intervals at Goliad are amenable to ISR mining even when exposed to only one-half of the oxidant concentration normally used in the leach amenability test.

Palangana

In 1970, UCC conducted their own pilot plant leach study using ammonia and hydrogen peroxide as oxidants. These tests concluded that Palangana ores were very easy to leach with carbonate solutions at ambient temperature. Some permeability reduction occurred as a result of montmorillonite swelling.

Energy Metals submitted selected core samples to Energy Labs in April 2008. These core samples from Palangana were sent to the laboratory for leach amenability studies intended to demonstrate that uranium mineralization at Palangana was capable of being leached using conventional ISL chemistry. The tests do not approximate other in-situ variables (permeability, porosity and pressure) but provide an indication of a sample’s reaction rate and the potential chemical recovery.

From 2010 to 2016, uranium was mined at Palangana through ISR methods. Mineral was processed through an IX circuit onto IX resin. The enriched resin was then transported to the Hobson CPP for further processing.

Salvo

UEC has not conducted any mineral processing or metallurgical testing on samples from Salvo at this time. However, URI conducted a column leach test on a portion of whole core taken from Salvo exploration hole 119-72C, which was drilled in December 1984. URI submitted 1.5 ft of the cored interval for chemical analysis, yielding the following assay data: 534.5 – 535 ft: 0.330% U₃O₈; and 537.0 – 538 ft: 0.280% U₃O₈. Although this leach test is not verified and is historic in nature, it represents typical results of leaching noted in most of the ISR operations that have mined Goliad Formation sands. It also indicates the strong amenability of these uranium-bearing sands to the ISR mining method.

In 1984, URI also tested core by X-Ray Diffraction in order to assess the uranium mineralogy. No determination of specific uranium mineral species were found. Other reported information from core tests by URI included a determination of bulk density of 16.18 ft³ per ton and core permeabilities ranging from six to eight darcies.

10.2 QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy

The QP considers the metallurgical and physical test work and results to date to be adequate to support general process design and selection at all the project areas other than Salvo. Equilibrium lab testing was not performed since disequilibrium could be calculated by comparing PFN log data with gamma log data. Laboratory leach testing demonstrates that the uranium can be solubilized using a carbonate and oxygen-based lixiviant. In addition, ISR mining has been successfully performed at Palangana, which indicates amenability to ISR mining in the future.

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

10-2

March 2023

11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

11.1 Mineral Resource Assumptions and Parameters Applied to Each Project Area

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones; and

● resources are located below the water table.

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the project areas include the GT contour, GT outline, block model using VULCAN software and Delaunay Triangulation method using RockWorks software. Each method is briefly discussed below.

The GT contour and outline methods are some of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of these methods is the GT values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours or a GT outline are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and logs data trends. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour/outline boundaries considering the disequilibrium factor and the ore zone density. The GT outline method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Burke Hollow (2022 estimate) and Salvo project areas and portions of the Palangana project area (Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence, Jemison East).

In 2022, mineral resources at Goliad were estimated using computerized geologic and volumetric modeling methods. The estimation method was a Two-dimensional (2D) Delaunay Triangulation implemented in RockWorks, a comprehensive software program for creating 2D and three-dimensional (3D) maps and is an industry standard in the environmental, geotechnical, petroleum and mining industries. The Delaunay Triangulation method connects data points (drill holes) via a triangular network with one data point at each triangle vertex and constructs the triangles as close to equilateral as possible. Once the network was determined, the slope of each triangular plate was computed using the three vertex point values. Next, a 25 ft x 25 ft grid was superimposed over the triangular network and each grid node (grid center) was assigned a Z-value, based on the intercept of the node and the sloping triangular plate. Only grid nodes falling within the boundary of the triangular network (convex hull) were estimated. The distance of the grid node from a drill hole location was computed and whether the node was located within UEC's property boundary. Triangulations and grids for both grade and thickness were constructed. Next, the thickness and grade grids were multiplied to obtain a GT grid. Finally, the mineral resource classification criteria was applied to the GT grid to obtain a classified mineral resource. Resource lbs were determined by taking the average GT in each GT contour interval and multiplying it by the area and a conversion factor, then dividing that value by the tonnage factor.

11-1

March 2023

Block models were constructed for the resource estimates at Palangana. SRK developed its resource estimates within distinct sand and roll-front zones utilizing detailed computer block modeling of grade and GT modeling. For PA-1 and PA-2, the targeted mineralized sands were differentiated and evaluated at each trend. The block model was derived from the stratigraphic grid models using an automated process in the computer program VULCAN. This procedure sets the x and y block dimensions at 10 ft x 10 ft, which allows each block height to match the thickness of the stratigraphic model. Thus, each subzone is one block thick. The model extents were defined by the limits of the overall resource. After the block model is generated, GT data and other attributes are assigned to each block, which allows for resources to be evaluated in each block.

For the Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East trends at Palangana, GT contouring was conducted, which became the basis for the block models for each of the trends. Using the top and bottom elevations for each of the zone composite intercepts, digital terrain models for the top and bottom of the surfaces were created and loaded into the block models to create a thickness representation for each zone of each trend. The horizontal extent of the zones was limited by the respective zone outlines/contours. After the blocks were generated, GT data and other attributes were assigned to each block. This method is described in more detail in the 2010 NI 43-101 TRS for Palangana (SRK, 2010).

UEC resumed ISR production at Palangana in 2010. In addition to PA-1 and PA-2, UEC permitted PA-3 in the CC Brine Trend. Between these three PAs, 563,600 lbs U₃O₈ were produced from 2010 to 2016. A list of production in each PA can be seen in Table 11-1. For the current estimate, production from 2010-2016 was subtracted from the 2010 estimate prepared by SRK.

Table 11‑1:         Palangana Production from 2010 to 2016

Production Area	Pounds (lbs)
PA-1	345,600
PA-2	67,800
PA-3 (CC Brine Trend)	150,200
Total Pounds Produced (2010-2016)	563,600

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the project areas are summarized in Table 11-2.

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

11-2

March 2023

Table 11‑2:         Methods, Parameters and Cutoff Summary by Project Area

Project Area		Mineral Resource Estimation Method	DEF	Bulk Density (ft3/Ton)	Cutoff Parameters
					Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Burke Hollow		GT Outline Method	2.07 (not used in 2022 estimate)	17.00	0.02	2.0	0.30
Goliad		2-D Delaunay Triangulation using RockWorks Software	A Sand = 1.722 B Sand = 1.409 C Sand = 1.393 D Sand = 1.729	16.90 (A, B and C Zones) and 15.2 (D Zone)	0.02	0.5	0.20
Palangana	PA-1 and PA-2	Block Models (VULCAN) Method	1.453 - 2.4241	17.00	0.00	None2	None
	Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, OC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East	GT Contouring in Conjunction with 3D Block Models	None	17.00	0.02	None2	0.10
Salvo		GT Outline Method	1.100 - 2.0001	16.18	0.02	None2	0.30

Notes:

1. A range of disequilibrium data is presented because each production area/trend was divided into multiple zones that were each assigned a separate DEF. For more data on Palangana, please see NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources, Uranium Energy Corp., Palangana ISR Uranium Project, Deposits PA-1, PA-2 and Adjacent Exploration Areas, Duval County, Texas.

2. Minimum thickness was not reported for several of the project areas. However, minimum thickness is inherent in minimum GT, which is reported in every estimate other than PA-1 and PA-2 for Palangana.

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

11-3

March 2023

11.1.1 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Project can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each project area with the unique aspects of each project area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb. as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: 1) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb. from Cameco’s combination of Ux Consulting (UxC) and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022); 2) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb.); 3) UxC’s price forecast; and 4) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. Table 11-3 below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.

Table 11-3:         UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb. U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the QP, $40/lb. is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● First, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb.

● Second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (Sprott, 2021) and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd. (Yue Li, 2021), which effectively remove uranium supply from the market.

● Third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors (Murtaugh & Chia, 2021) will increase demand for uranium.

● Finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb. in the second half of 2021 due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the QP also believes that a $40/lb. price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

11-4

March 2023

11.1.2 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Project are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model. Table 11-4 details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the project areas.

Table 11-4:         Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area

Project Area		Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
		Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Burke Hollow		< 50	50 – 250	250 – 500
Goliad		< 50	50 - 250	250 - 350
Palangana	PA-1 and PA-2	< 50	50 – 100	> 100
	Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, OC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East	-	-	≤ 400
Salvo		-	-	≤ 5001

Note: All mineral at the Salvo Project is classified as Inferred.

There are several reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the project areas:

● First, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed.

● Second, the sub-surface geology within each project area is very well characterized, with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across each project area.

● Third, mineralization in the Goliad Formation occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends.

● Finally, historic production has occurred commercially at the Palangana project area from 1977 to 1979 and again from 2010 to 2016 (UEC). Approximately 340,000 lbs of U₃O₈ were produced during historic operations and 563,600 lbs U₃O₈ were produced from 2010-2016.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit models, successful production and the variety of data collected lead the QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

11-5

March 2023

11.2 Site-by-Site Summaries

Cautionary Statement:

This TRS is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves which may result in economic and technical failure and may adversely impact future profitability.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the project areas. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in Table 11-5 and estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in Table 11-6.

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

11-6

March 2023

Table 11‑5:         Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Burke Hollow
Measured	0.30	0.082	70	114,700
Indicated	0.30	0.087	1,337	2,209,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.30	0.086	1,407	2,323,700
Goliad
Measured	0.20	0.053	1,595	2,667,900
Indicated	0.20	0.102	1,504	3,492,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.20	0.085	3,099	6,159,900
Palangana
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	None	0.134	232	643,100
Total Measured and Indicated	None	0.134	232	643,100
Salvo
All mineral resources at Salvo are classified as Inferred.
Project Totals
Measured				2,782,600
Indicated				6,344,100
Total Measured and Indicated				9,126,700

Notes:

1. Pounds reported with DEF applied.

2. Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

3. All reported resources occur below the static water table.

4. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.

5. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

6. 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.

7. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

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

11-7

March 2023

Table 11‑6:         Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade (% eU3O8)	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Burke Hollow
Inferred	0.30	0.095	2,494	4,859,000
Goliad
Inferred	0.20	0.195	333	1,224,800
Palangana
PA-1 and PA-2 Inferred	None	0.100	96	192,500
Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East	0.10	0.110 - 0.300	206	808,800
Salvo
Inferred	0.30	0.091	1,125	2,839,000
Project Totals
Total Inferred			4,254	9,924,100

Notes:

1. Pounds reported with 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 for a more detailed explanation.

3. Inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

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 are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. 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.

9. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

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

11-8

March 2023

11.3 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● changes to future commodity demand;

● variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● host formation density assignments; and

● changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Project.

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any three-dimensional location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined.

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present.

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The QP and coworkers supervised by the QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Project that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Project.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Project.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The QP expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

11-9

March 2023

11.4 QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate

In the opinion of the QP, it is difficult to fully resolve all issues relating to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. However, the work undertaken on the Project to date, both through historical in-situ and recent laboratory testing demonstrates that uranium can be extracted using common industry methods and standard leaching technology. Further, through work conducted in support of receiving regulatory authorization, UEC has demonstrated that the host sandstones have the hydraulic properties required for in-situ extraction with adequate confinement by overlying and underlying intervals. Finally, the host sandstones of the Goliad Formation have been mined in South Texas since the 1970s using ISR technology with significant production under similar conditions to those of the project areas.

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

11-10

March 2023

12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

12-1

March 2023

13.0 MINING METHODS

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

13-1

March 20023

14.0 PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

14-1

March 2023

15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

15-1

March 2023

16.0 MARKET STUDIES

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

16-1

March 2023

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

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

17-1

March 2023

18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

18-1

March 2023

19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

This Chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

19-1

March 2023

20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The Burke Hollow, Goliad, Palangana and Salvo project areas are located in the STUP and target the uranium ore bodies within the Goliad Formation. Commercial ISR uranium mining from the Goliad Formation within the STUP started in the 1970s (Gallegos et al., 2022).

UEC successfully conducted ISR mining at Palangana from 2010 to 2016 and recovered 563,600 lbs of U₃O₈. enCore Energy Corporation’s (enCore Energy) Rosita ISR uranium mine is located approximately 10 miles north of the Palangana project area and produced approximately 2.65 million lbs of U₃O₈ from 1990 to 2009 (Gallegos et al., 2022).

EEI’s Mt. Lucas ISR uranium mine was located approximately eight miles southwest of the Salvo project area and 25 miles west of the Burke Hollow project area. The Mt. Lucas mine produced over 2 million lbs of U₃O₈ from 1983-1987 (Gallegos et al., 2022).

Other ISR uranium production from the Goliad Formation has been at Energy Fuels’ Alta Mesa mine, located in Brooks County, approximately 50 miles south of the Palangana project area. The Alta Mesa mine produced 4.9 million lbs of U₃O₈ from 2005 to 2015 (BRS, 2016). enCore Energy’s Kingsville Dome mine in Kleberg County produced 4.24 million lbs of U₃O₈ from 1988 to 2009 (Gallegos et al., 2022). The Kingsville Dome mine is located approximately 45 miles east-southeast of the Palangana project area.

The QP has not verified the information from the adjacent properties. In addition, this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineral resources for the project areas. These data presented above have been sourced from public information obtained from company, state and federal websites.

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

20-1

March 2023

21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

To the QP’s knowledge, there is no additional information or explanation necessary to make this TRS understandable and not misleading.

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

21-1

March 2023

22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

This independent TRS for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth in S-K 1300. Its objective is to disclose the mineral resources at the Project.

22.1 Conclusions

Based on the density of drilling, continuity of geology and mineralization, testing and data verification, the mineral resource estimates meet the criteria for measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources as shown in Tables 11-5 and 11-6.

Assumptions regarding uranium prices, mining costs and metallurgical recoveries are forward-looking and the actual prices, costs and performance results may be significantly different. The QP is not aware of any relevant factors that would materially affect the mineral resource estimates. Additionally, the QP is not aware of any environmental, regulatory, land tenure or political factors that will materially affect the Project from moving forward to mineral resource recovery operations.

The QP has weighed the potential benefits and risks presented in this TRS and has found the Project to be potentially viable and meriting further evaluation and development.

22.2 Risks and Opportunities

This TRS is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QP can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. The most significant potential risks to recovering the resources presented in this TRS will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands. The amount of uranium ultimately recovered from the Project is subject to in-situ wellfield recovery processes that can be impacted by variable geochemical conditions.

UEC has not completed a Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) nor a Feasibility Study (FS) to apply detailed capital and operational expenditures to the Project. Since these studies have not been completed for the Project, there has not been a formal demonstration of economic and technical capability. Therefore, since mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic value, there is uncertainty in the Project achieving acceptable levels of mineral resource production with a positive economic outcome. However, it is the QP’s opinion that the Project risks are low, since UEC has fully permitted three of the five properties on the Project to the point at which construction and operations can commence within specific project areas.

In addition, the Project is located in a state where ISR projects have been operated successfully. The ISR mining method has been proven effective in the geologic formations at the Project as described herein.

The Project is located in Karnes, Bee, Goliad and Duval Counties in the South Texas Coastal Plain, USA. Electrical power and major transportation corridors (Interstate 37, TX-359, US-181 and US-183) are located within or near the project areas. Thus, the basic infrastructure necessary to support an ISR mining operation – power, water and transportation – are located within reasonable proximity of the project areas.

22-1

March 2023

There are some inherent risks to the Project similar in nature to mining projects in general and more specifically to uranium mining projects. These risks are:

● Market and Contracts – Unlike other commodities, uranium does not trade on an open market. Contracts are negotiated privately by buyers and sellers. Changes in the price of uranium can have a significant impact on the outcome of the Project.

● Uranium Recovery and Processing – This TRS is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QP can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. The most significant potential risks to recovering the resources presented in this TRS will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands.

● Wellfield Operations – Reduced hydraulic conductivity in the formation due to chemical precipitation during production, lower natural hydraulic conductivities than estimated, high flare and/or recovery of significant amounts of groundwater, the need for additional injection wells to increase uranium recovery rates, variability in the uranium concentration in the host sands and discontinuity of the mineralized zone confining layers are all potential issues that could occur. The risks associated with these potential issues have been minimized to the extent possible by delineation and hydraulic studies of the sites. These conditions could limit recovery of the mineral resources delineated across the Project.

● Social and Political - As with any uranium project in the USA, there will undoubtedly be some social/political/environmental opposition to development of the Project. The Project sites are relatively remote. As such, there are very few people that could be directly impacted by the Project. Texas is known to be friendly to mining and has a well-established, robust regulatory framework. While ever present with permitting Projects, social, political, or environmental opposition to the Project is not likely to be a major risk, especially since all the mineral leases are on private (fee) lands.

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

22-2

March 2023

23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources determined by this TRS to indicate favorable conditions for future extraction from the Project.

The QP recommends that the mineral resources in this TRS be used for development of a Preliminary Feasibility Study. Estimated cost based on UEC hiring a third-party engineering firm is $120,000. Additionally, UEC should advance the baseline studies necessary to effectuate regulatory authorizations required to mine at Salvo. Estimated costs based on UEC hiring a third-party engineering firm is $350,000. Finally, the QP recommends continuing to maintain private mineral leases along with surface use agreements.

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

23-1

March 2023

24.0 REFERENCES

Adams, S.S. and Smith, R.B., 1981, Geology and Recognition Criteria for Sandstone Uranium Deposits in Mixed Fluvial-Shallow Marine Sedimentary Sequences, South Texas, National Uranium Resource Evaluation, p146.

Baskin, J.A. and Hulbert, R.C. Jr., 2008, Revised Biostratigraphy of the middle Miocene to earliest Pliocene Goliad Formation of South Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 58, p. 93-101.

BEG, 1992, Geology of Texas, State Map SM 2, map scale 1 inch = 100 miles.

BEG, 1996, Physiographic map of Texas, Univ. of Texas.

BEG, 2000, Vegetation/cover types of Texas, map, Univ. of Texas.

Blackstone, R., 2005, Technical report on the Palangana and Hobson uranium in-situ leach project, Duval and Karnes Counties, Texas.

BRS, Inc. (BRS), 2016, Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Alta Mesa and Mestena Grande Mineral Resources and Exploration Target, Technical Report NI 43-101; July 19, 2016, Published report for Energy Fuels Inc.

Bunker, C.M. and MacKallor, J.A., 1973, Geology of the Oxidized Uranium Ore Deposits of the Tordilla Hill-Deweesville Area, Karnes County, Texas; A study of a District before Mining. USGS Professional Paper 765.

Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin (BEG), 1987, Geologic atlas of Texas.

Cameco, 2022, Uranium Price, 28 Feb 2022. Available on the internet as of March 2022: https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price

Carothers, A., Davis, B. and Sim, R., 2013, Technical Report for the Burke Hollow Uranium Project, Bee County, Texas. NI 43-101 Technical Report.

Carothers, T.A., 2007, Technical Report for Uranium Energy Corp’s Goliad Project In-Situ Recovery Uranium Property, Goliad County, Texas. NI 43-101 Technical Report.

Carothers, T.A., 2008, Technical Report for Uranium Energy Corp’s Goliad Project In-Situ Recovery Uranium Property, Goliad County, Texas. NI 43-101 Technical Report.

Carothers, T.A., 2011, Technical Report for Uranium Energy Corp’s Salvo Project In-Situ Recovery Uranium Property, Bee County, Texas. NI 43-101 Technical Report.

Dale, O.C., Moulder, E.A. and Arnow, T., 1957, Ground-Water resources of Goliad County, Texas, Texas Board of Water Engineers Bulletin 5711, p. 93.

Davis, J.F., 1969, Uranium Deposits of the Powder River Basin; Contributions to Geology, Wyoming Uranium Issue, Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. Vol. 8, No. 2.1. pp. 131–142.

Eargle, D.H. and Kleiner, D.J., 2022, Uranium Mining, Handbook of Texas Online, accessed May 01, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/uranium-mining.

Gallegos, T.J., Scott, A.M., Stengel, V.G., Teeple, A.P., 2022, A Methodology to Assess the Historical Environmental Footprint of In-Situ Recovery (ISR) of Uranium: A Demonstration of the Goliad Sand in the Texas Coastal Plain, U.S.A. Minerals.

24-1

March 2023

Galloway, W. E., Finley, R. J. and Henry, C. D., 1979, South Texas Uranium Province: Geologic Perspective: The University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook 18, p. 81.

Grant, P.R., 2013, Production Area Authorization Application, Exhibit A, Miner permit No. UR 03070 (PA-4), May 10, 2013. Terra Dynamics Inc. and South Texas Mining Venture.

Grant, P.R., 2015, Burke Hollow Project Preliminary Hydrologic Testing Report, North Hunting Camp Area, Bee County, Texas. Terra Dynamics Inc., Project No. 15-103, February, 2015, Austin Texas. Technical Report, p. 31.

Kurrus, A. and Yancey, C., 2017, Technical Report for UEC’s Burke Hollow Uranium Project, 2017 Update. Uranium Energy Corporation. NI 43-101 Technical Report.

Larkin, R., 2008, Hydrologic Test Report. Texas Commission on Environmental Equality.

Larson, W.C., 1978, Uranium in situ leach mining in the United States; U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bur. of Mines Information Circular IC8777, p. b68.

Lawrence, E.P., 2008, La Palangana Uranium Project Hydrologic Testing Report Production Area 2 Ducal County, Texas. Hydro Solutions.

Moore Energy Corporation, 1986, Reserve Statement, Unpublished Weesatche Project.

Murtaugh, D. and Chia, K., 2021, China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout. Bloomberg News; 2 Nov 2021. Available on the internet as of December 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s.

Myers, B. N. and Dale, O. C., 1966, Ground-Water Resources of Bee County, Texas, Texas Water Development Board Report 17, p. 101.

Nicot, J. P., et al., 2010, Geological and Geographical Attributes of the South Texas Uranium Province: Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, publication for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, p. 170.

Penney, R., et al. "Determining uranium concentration in boreholes using wireline logging techniques: comparison of gamma logging with prompt fission neutron technology (PFN)." Applied Earth Science 121.2 (2012): 89-95. Rackley, R.I., 1972. Environment of Wyoming Tertiary Uranium Deposits. AAPG Bulletin Vol. 56, No. 4.

Rackley, R.I., 1972, Environment of Wyoming Tertiary Uranium Deposits. AAPG Bulletin Vol. 56, No. 4.

Smith, R. B. and Associates, 2005, A Review and Interpretation of URI, Inc. Data Pertaining to the Salvo Project, Bee County, Texas; unpublished report, p. 10.

Sprott, 2021, Sprott Physical Uranium Trust, Available on the internet as of December 2021: https://sprott.com/investment-strategies/physical-commodity-funds/uranium/#

SRK Consulting, 2010, NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources, Uranium Energy Corp., Palangana ISR Uranium Project, Deposits PA-1, PA-2 and Adjacent Exploration Areas, Duval County, Texas.

Texas Department of Transportation, 2021, Statewide Railroad Map, Prepared in cooperation with Texas M&M Transportation Institute and US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Department, February 4.

24-2

March 2023

Texas Parks & Recreation, 2022, The Vegetation Types of Texas, https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_bn_w7000_0120/physiognomic_regions/, accessed April 25.

Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), 2022, Uranium Exploration,
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/surface-mining/programs/uranium-exploration/.

URI, Inc., 1984, SIPU/URI Joint Venture – South Texas Uranium, unpublished company report, p. 11.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2021, Population Estimates, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/dashboard/US/PST045221.

U.S. Climate Data, 2022, Climate for Beeville, Duval and Goliad Counties Texas. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/texas/united-states/3213, Accessed April 25.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1937, Geology and Ground-water Resources of Duval County, Texas, Water-Supply Paper 776, p. 1-3.

USGS, 2015, Assessment, Domestic Uranium. "Assessment of Undiscovered Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Resources in the Texas Coastal Plain, 2015."

USGS, 2022, Pocket Texas Geology. https://txpub.usgs.gov/txgeology/, Online version accessed April 25.

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

24-3

March 2023

25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

For this TRS, the QP has relied on information provided by UEC regarding property ownership, title and mineral rights in light of: (a) reviews by mineral title specialists retained by UEC; (b) regulatory status and environmental information including liabilities on the Project; and (c) estimated commodity sales prices. Additionally, this TRS was prepared by the QP with reliance on reports and information from others as cited throughout this TRS and as referenced in Chapter 11.0 and Chapter 24.0.

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

25-1

March 2023

26.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

Western Water Consultants, Inc., d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC), of 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, USA do hereby certify that:

● WWC is an independent, third-party engineering firm comprised of mining experts, such as professional geologists, professional mining engineers and certified environmental scientists.

● WWC read the definition of “qualified person” set out in S-K 1300 and certify that by reason of education, professional registration and relevant work experience, WWC professionals fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300.

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

(“Signed and Sealed”) Western Water Consultants, Inc.

March 9, 2023

26-1

March 2023

EX-96.6

Exhibit 96.6

CONTENTS

1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1-1
1.1	Property Description	1-1
1.2	Ownership	1-2
1.3	Geology and Mineralization	1-2
1.4	Exploration Status	1-2
1.5	Development and Operations	1-3
1.6	Mineral Resource Estimates	1-3
1.7	Permitting Requirements	1-3
1.8	QP Conclusion and Recommendations	1-3
2.0	INTRODUCTION	2-1
2.1	Registrant/Issuer of Report	2-1
2.2	Terms of Reference	2-1
2.3	Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations	2-1
2.4	Personal Inspection	2-1
2.4.1	QP Qualifications	2-1
2.5	Previous Technical Report Summaries	2-2
3.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	3-1
3.1	Location, Description, Leases and Mineral Rights	3-1
3.1.1	Allemand-Ross	3-7
3.1.2	Barge	3-8
3.1.3	Charlie	3-8
3.1.4	Christensen Ranch	3-8
3.1.5	Clarkson Hill	3-9
3.1.6	Irigaray	3-10
3.1.7	Jab/West Jab	3-10
3.1.8	Ludeman	3-10
3.1.9	Moore Ranch	3-10
3.1.10	Nine Mile	3-10
3.1.11	Red Rim	3-11
3.1.12	Reno Creek	3-11
3.2	Encumbrances	3-12
3.3	Property Risk Factors	3-13
3.4	Royalties (Confidential)	3-15
4.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	4-1
4.1	Physical Setting	4-1
4.1.1	Powder River Basin	4-1
4.1.2	Greater Green River Basin	4-1
4.1.3	Wind River Basin	4-2
4.2	Accessibility and Local Resources	4-3
4.3	Availability of Infrastructure	4-4
5.0	HISTORY	5-1
6.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT	6-1
6.1	Regional Geology	6-1
6.1.1	Powder River Basin	6-1
6.1.2	Greater Green River Basin	6-8

i

March 2023

6.1.3	Wind River Basin	6-9
6.2	Local Geology	6-18
6.2.1	Powder River Basin	6-18
6.2.2	Greater Green River Basin	6-20
6.2.3	Wind River Basin	6-21
6.3	Mineralization and Deposit Type	6-21
7.0	EXPLORATION	7-1
7.1	Drilling Programs	7-1
7.2	Hydrogeologic Information	7-8
7.3	Geotechnical Information	7-11
7.4	Exploration Target	7-11
7.4.1	Charlie Project Area	7-11
7.4.2	Jab/West Jab	7-12
8.0	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	8-1
8.1	Typical and Standard Industry Methods	8-1
8.2	QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures	8-3
9.0	DATA VERIFICATION	9-1
9.1	Summary	9-1
9.2	Limitations	9-4
9.3	QP Opinion on Data Adequacy	9-5
10.0	MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	10-1
10.1	Summary of Properties	10-1
10.2	QP Opinion on Data Adequacy	10-3
11.0	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	11-1
11.1	Mineral Resource Assumptions and Parameters Applied to Each Project Area	11-1
11.1.1	Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction	11-1
11.1.2	Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates	11-3
11.2	Site-by-Site Summaries	11-4
11.3	Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate	11-8
11.4	QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate	11-9
12.0	MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	12-1
13.0	MINING METHODS	13-1
14.0	PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS	14-1
15.0	INFRASTRUCTURE	15-1
16.0	MARKET STUDIES	16-1
17.0	ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	17-1
18.0	CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	18-1
19.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	19-1
20.0	ADJACENT PROPERTIES	20-1
21.0	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	21-1
22.0	INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	22-1

ii

March 2023

22.1	Conclusions	22-1
22.2	Risks and Opportunities	22-1
23.0	RECOMMENDATIONS	23-1
24.0	REFERENCES	24-1
25.0	RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT	25-1
26.0	DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE	26-1

TABLES

Table 1-1:	Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project Areas	1-1
Table 3-1:	Property Description Summary	3-5
Table 3-2:	Project Area Permitting Status	3-12
Table 5-1:	Past Operations Summary	5-2
Table 7-1:	Project Area Drilling Programs Summary	7-2
Table 7-2:	Extent of Project Area Hydrogeologic Investigations	7-9
Table 7-3:	Project Exploration Target	7-12
Table 10-1:	Project Area Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Summary	10-1
Table 11‑1:	Methods, Parameters and Cutoffs by Project Area	11-2
Table 11-2:	UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)	11-3
Table 11-3:	Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area	11-4
Table 11‑4:	Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary	11-5
Table 11‑5:	Project Area Inferred Resources Summary	11-7
Table 20-1:	Significant Uranium Projects in the Powder River, Wind River and Greater Green River Basins	20-1

FIGURES

Figure 3‑1.	General Location Map	3-2
Figure 3‑2:	Powder River Basin and Wind River Basin Projects Location Map	3-3
Figure 3‑3:	Greater Green River Basin Projects Location Map	3-4
Figure 6‑1:	Upper PRB Stratigraphic Column	6-3
Figure 6-2:	Nine Mile Project Area Stratigraphic Column and Cross Section A-A’	6-4
Figure 6‑3:	PRB Projects Cross-Section Location Map	6-5
Figure 6‑3a:	PRB Projects Cross-Sections B-B’ and C-C’	6-6
Figure 6‑3b:	PRB Projects Cross-Sections C-C’ and D-D’	6-7
Figure 6‑4:	GGRB Stratigraphy and Sedimentary Relationships	6-10
Figure 6‑5:	Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section Location Map	6-11
Figure 6‑5a:	Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section	6-12
Figure 6‑6:	Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section Location Map	6-13
Figure 6‑6a:	Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section	6-14
Figure 6‑7:	Wind River Basin Stratigraphic Column	6-15
Figure 6‑8:	Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section Location Map	6-16
Figure 6‑8a:	Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section	6-17

iii

March 2023

Figure 7-1:	Drill Hole Map for the Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Project Areas	7-3
Figure 7‑2:	Drill Hole Map for the Allemand-Ross, Barge and Ludeman Project Areas	7-4
Figure 7‑3:	Drill Hole Map for the Clarkson Hill and Nine Mile Project Areas	7-5
Figure 7‑4:	Drill Hole Map for the Jab/West Jab Project Area	7-6
Figure 7-5:	Drill Hole Map for the Red Rim Project Area	7-7

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

iv

March 2023

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This independent Technical Report Summary (TRS) for the Wyoming In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Hub and Spoke Project (the Project) has been prepared for Uranium Energy Corporation (UEC) under the supervision of Western Water Consultants, Inc., d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC), 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 Project. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Project.

1.1 Property Description

The Project consists of 12 project areas as shown in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1:         Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project Areas

Project Area	County	Structural Basin	Site Visit Date
Allemand-Ross	Converse	Powder River	3/27/2019
Barge	Converse	Powder River	Inaccessible
Charlie	Johnson	Powder River	6/28/2022
Christensen Ranch	Johnson/Campbell	Powder River	2/16/2022
Clarkson Hill	Natrona	Wind River	7/15/2022
Irigaray	Johnson	Powder River	2/16/2022
Jab/West Jab	Sweetwater/Fremont	Greater Green River	1/28/2022
Ludeman	Converse	Powder River	10/18/2018
Moore Ranch	Campbell	Powder River	12/27/2021
Nine Mile	Natrona	Powder River	5/23/2022
Red Rim	Carbon	Greater Green River	6/29/2022
Reno Creek	Campbell	Powder River	12/27/2021

Mineral rights for the Project are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. Chapter 3 summarizes the different mineral leases and claims for each project area, and the annual maintenance cost.

1-1

Match 2023

1.2 Ownership

This Project is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed fee mineral leases with landowners who hold mineral ownership within and outside the various project boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the various project areas.

1.3 Geology and Mineralization

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 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.

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

Uranium mineralization at the Project is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-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.

1.4 Exploration Status

To date, UEC holds data from approximately 51,780 drill holes and core holes that have been drilled by previous uranium exploration companies on and nearby the 12 project areas held by UEC. Data from the drilling, including survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts, have been incorporated into UEC’s database.

1-2

March 2023

1.5 Development and Operations

Summary capital and operating cost estimates are not included with this TRS, because UEC is reporting the results of an IA without economic analysis. No construction has taken place on the Project during UEC’s ownership.

1.6 Mineral Resource Estimates

Cautionary Statement:

This TRS is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves, which may result in economic and technical failure and may adversely impact future profitability.

The in-place resources were estimated separately for each area in the Project. The Project contains a measured resource of 23.90 million lbs and an indicated resource of 42.30 million lbs of U₃O₈ in-place. The Project contains 15.05 million lbs of inferred mineral resources in-place.

1.7 Permitting Requirements

The Irigaray Central Processing Plant (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 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.

1.8 QP Conclusion and Recommendations

Key conclusions and recommendations from WWC, a third-party firm, which employs professionals meeting the definition of “qualified person” (QP) set out in S-K 1300, are as follows:

● The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources at the Project to indicate favorable conditions for future extraction.

● UEC should develop a Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Project; obtain required regulatory authorizations required to mine at the Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas and the Allemand-Ross, Barge, Clarkson Hill, Charlie, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas; and continue to maintain mining claims and mineral leases along with surface use agreements to accommodate future oil and gas drilling and Project development.

● UEC should advance the baseline studies necessary to obtain regulatory authorizations required to mine at the Allemand-Ross, Barge, Clarkson Hill, Charlie, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile, Red Rim and portions of the Reno Creek project areas as the resources become necessary to provide material to the Irigaray CPP.

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

1-3

March 2023

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Registrant/Issuer of Report

This TRS was prepared for UEC to report the results of an IA and describe the Project. The Project includes the 12 project areas shown in Table 1-1.

The Irigaray CPP, located at the Irigaray project area, will serve as the “hub” of the Project, with the other project areas serving as satellite ISR mining facilities, or the “spokes.” For the purposes of this TRS, the satellite facilities are considered material to the Irigaray CPP.

UEC is incorporated in the State of Nevada, with principal offices located at 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401, and at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2Y3.

2.2 Terms of Reference

The Project includes the 12 project areas shown in Table 1-1. The Project is owned and operated by UEC. This TRS has been prepared for UEC to report mineral resources for the Project.

2.3 Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations

The information and data presented in this TRS were gathered from various sources listed in Chapters 24 and 25 of this TRS.

Data sources for the estimation of uranium mineral resources for the Project include 51,780 drill holes and core holes, including survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts.

Units of measurement unless otherwise indicated are feet (ft), miles, acres, pounds (lbs), short tons (2,000 lbs), grams (g), milligrams (mg), liters (L), parts per million (ppm) and gallons per minute (gpm). Uranium production is expressed as pounds U₃O₈, the standard market unit. ISR refers to in-situ recovery, sometimes also termed in-situ leach (ISL). Unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($) refer to United States currency.

2.4 Personal Inspection

WWC professionals most recently visited the project areas on the dates shown in Table 1-1. Additionally, a professional employed by WWC worked at the facilities for over four years in the late 1990s when Christensen Ranch was operated by COGEMA Resources, Inc. (COGEMA). WWC professionals were unable to inspect the Barge project area due to surface access limitations.

2.4.1 QP Qualifications

Completion of this TRS was under the direction and supervision of WWC. WWC is a third-party QP as defined by Regulation S-K 1300. Additionally, WWC has approved the technical disclosure contained in this TRS.

2-1

March 2023

2.5 Previous Technical Report Summaries

UEC previously filed a TRS for the Reno Creek Project titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project, Campbell County, WY USA,” which was current on December 31, 2021.

On March 31, 2022, UEC filed a TRS for the Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA,” which was current on December 31, 2021. This report represents an update to the March 31, 2022 TRS, adding the Charlie, Clarkson Hill, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas to the Project.

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

2-2

March 2023

3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Location, Description, Leases and Mineral Rights

The Project is located in Wyoming, USA, and includes the 12 project areas shown in Table 1-1. The Irigaray CPP will serve as the “hub” of the Project, with the other project areas serving as satellite ISR mining facilities, or the “spokes.” The project area locations are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3. Each project area is described in detail in Chapters 3.1.1 through 3.1.12.

Mineral rights for the Project are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. State surface and mineral leases can be extended in perpetuity, provided that annual payments and/or production royalty payments are current. If the terms of the lease are not fulfilled and/or the lease is not renewed, the State of Wyoming may revoke or terminate the lease. Table 3-1 summarizes the different mineral leases or claims for each project area, expiration dates, if applicable, and the annual maintenance costs.

State mineral leases have a 5% gross royalty attached. No royalties are due to the federal government from mining on lode claims. The claims will remain under UEC’s ownership and control, provided that UEC adheres to required BLM annual filing and payment requirements. Legal surveys of unpatented claims are not required and to the QP’s knowledge have not been completed. 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 the Project is variable, based upon the selling price of U₃O₈.

Surface ownership at the Project consists of predominantly agricultural fee lands, lands owned by the State of Wyoming and federally owned lands administered by the BLM. As part of the Wyoming mine permitting process, the company must have obtained surface access to conduct baseline data acquisition and must demonstrate surface owner consent to the mine and reclamation plans. On the project areas that are currently permitted, UEC has surface use agreements in place with the private landowners and, as necessary, the state and federal authorities have approved of the mine and reclamation plans. UEC has or will obtain surface use agreements with landowners and, as necessary, will obtain state and federal approval of the mine and reclamation plans before a mine permit is issued. Obtaining surface access rights is a standard process in mine permitting, and the QP does not anticipate that obtaining these rights presents a significant risk to UEC’s ability to perform work on the Project as a whole. Chapters 3.2 and 3.3 discuss specific project areas in detail.

The QP has not verified the claims within the various project areas or how the claims are mapped or plotted. The QP has relied on information provided by UEC with regard to royalty rates and has not independently verified royalty agreements, rates or surface use and access agreements.

3-1

March 2023

Figure 3‑1:         General Location Map

3-2

March 2023

Figure 3‑2:         Powder River Basin and Wind River Basin Projects Location Map

3-3

March 2023

Figure 3‑3:         Greater Green River Basin Projects Location Map

3-4

March 2023

Table 3-1:         Property Description Summary

Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Expiration Date	Fee Mineral Leases	Expiration Date	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Expiration Date	Total
Allemand-Ross
Acreage	318	Annual	2,773.9	March 2025 through Jan. 2029 (Variable)	8,518.2	Annual	11,610.1
Leases/Claims	2		7		452		461
Total Annual Cost	$683		Confidential		$74,580		$75,263
Barge
Acreage	640	Annual	0	N/A	6,374.2	Annual	7,014.2
Leases/Claims	1		0		342		343
Total Annual Cost	$1,920		$0		$56,430		$58,350
Charlie
Acreage	720	6/1/2026	0	N/A	0	N/A	720
Leases/Claims	1		0		0		1
Total Annual Cost	$2,880		$0		$0		$2,880
Christensen Ranch
Acreage	1,280	Annual	720	Annual	5,140	Annual	7,140
Leases/Claims	1		1		257		259
Total Annual Cost	$5,120		Confidential		$42,405		$47,525
Clarkson Hill
Acreage	0	N/A	0	N/A	500	Annual	500
Leases/Claims	0		0		25		25
Total Annual Cost	$0		$0		$4,125		$4,125
Irigaray
Acreage	480	Annual	0	N/A	1,640	Annual	2,120
Leases/Claims	2		0		82		84
Total Annual Cost	$1,600		$0		$13,530		$15,130
Jab/West Jab
Acreage	960	Annual	0	N/A	4,483.4	Annual	5,443.4
Leases/Claims	3		0		217		220
Total Annual Cost	$2,880		$0		$35,805		$38,685
Ludeman
Acreage	1,440	Annual	1,741.9	Sept. 2026 and Jan. 2029	17,586.1	Annual	20,768
Leases/Claims	4	Annual	2		746	Annual	752
Total Annual Cost	$4,320		Confidential		$123,090		$127,410

3-5

March 2023

Table 3-1:         Property Description Summary (Continued)
Project Area	State of Wyoming Leases	Expiration Date	Fee Mineral Leases	Expiration Date	Federal Lode Mining Claims	Expiration Date	Total
Moore Ranch
Acreage	1,200	Annual	1,740	Aug. 2025 through Feb. 2029 (Variable)	1,754.1	Annual	4,694.1
Leases/Claims	2		5		86		93
Total Annual Cost	$3,600		Confidential		$14,190		$17,790
Nine Mile
Acreage	1,280	2024 & 2025	1,258.6	Oct. 2025 and Aug. 2026	3,800	Annual	6,339
Leases/Claims	2		2		190		194
Total Annual Cost	$2,560		Confidential		$31,350		$33,910
Red Rim
Acreage	0	N/A	0	N/A	1,000	Annual	1,000
Leases/Claims	0		0		49		49
Total Annual Cost	$0		$0		$8,085		$8,085
Reno Creek
Acreage	3,200	Annual	4,583	Annual	10,980	Annual	18,763
Leases/Claims	4		36		549		589
Total Annual Cost	$9,600		Confidential		$90,585		$100,185
Project Totals	State of Wyoming Leases		Fee Mineral Leases		Federal Lode Mining Claims		Total
Acreage	11,518		12,817		61,776		86,111
Leases/Claims	22		53		2,995		3,070
Annual Cost	35,163		Confidential		494,175		529,338

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

3-6

March 2023

3.1.1 Allemand-Ross

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 UEC’s Allemand-Ross project area.

The Allemand-Ross project area is in the PRB in Converse County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.3101 and longitude -105.7787 in decimal degrees. The Allemand-Ross project area covers all or portions of 21 sections in four townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T39N R75W – All of Section 24 and portions of Sections 12, 13 and 25

● T39N R74W – All of Sections 7, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31 and 32 and portions of Sections 17, 20 and 33

● T38N R75W – Portions of Section 12

● T38N R74W – All of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 and portions of Sections 6 and 7

The Allemand-Ross project area is located approximately 40 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) or state managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (318 acres), 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (8,518.2 acres) and seven fee (private) mineral leases (2,773.9 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 11,610.1 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.2 Barge

The Barge project area is in the PRB in Converse County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.2729 and longitude -105.5905 in decimal degrees. The Barge project area covers all or portions of 18 sections in three townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T38N R72W – All of Sections 16, 17 and 18 and portions of Sections 7 and 19

● T38N R73W – All of Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and portions of Sections 22, 23 and 24

● T39N R73W – All of Sections 35 and 36

The Barge project area is located approximately 50 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) or state managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Barge project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (640 acres) and 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (6,374.2 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 7,014.2 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the lease and all claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3-7

March 2023

3.1.3 Charlie

The Charlie project area is in the PRB in Johnson County (Figure 3-2) 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 all or portions of two sections in one township with legal description as follows:

● T45N R77W – All of Section 36 and portions of Section 25

The Charlie project area is located approximately 70 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is on private surface land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Charlie project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (720 acres). Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the lease are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.4 Christensen Ranch

The Christensen Ranch project area is in the PRB in Johnson and Campbell counties (Figure 3‑2) at latitude 43.7982 and longitude -106.0235 in decimal degrees. The Christensen Ranch project area is adjacent to the Irigaray project area and surrounds the Charlie project area. The Christensen Ranch project area covers all or portions of 30 sections in 4 townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T45N R77W – Portions of Sections 24, 25, 24, 35 and 36

● T45N R76W – All of Sections 30 and 31 and portions of Sections 19, 32 and 33

● T44N R77W – All of Sections 1, 2 and 3 and portions of Sections 10, 11 and 12

● T44N R76W – All of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and portions of Sections 3 and 10

The Christensen Ranch project area is approximately 70 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Christensen Ranch project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (1,280 acres), 257 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (5,140 acres) and one fee (private) mineral lease (720 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 7,140 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.5 Clarkson Hill

The Clarkson Hill project area is in the WRB in Natrona County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 42.6593 and longitude -106.7006 in decimal degrees. The Clarkson Hill project area covers portions of three sections in one township with legal description as follows:

● T31N R82W – Portions of Sections 7, 17 and 18

The Clarkson Hill project area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, and is on private surface land and federal (BLM) managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Clarkson Hill project area include 25 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (500 acres). Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3-8

March 2023

3.1.6 Irigaray

The Irigaray project area is in the PRB in Johnson County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.8683 and longitude ‑106.1186 in decimal degrees. The Irigaray CPP, located at the Irigaray project area, will serve as the Project hub. The Irigaray project area covers portions of 12 sections in two townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T46N R77W – Portions of Section 29 and 32

● T45N R77W – Portions of Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 21, 27, 28, 33 and 34

The Irigaray project area is located approximately 70 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land and federal (BLM) managed land, with a portion located on one section of state managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Irigaray project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (480 acres) and 82 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,640 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 2,120 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.7 Jab/West Jab

The Jab/West Jab project area is in the GGRB in Sweetwater and Fremont counties (Figure 3‑3). The Jab/West Jab project area consists of two separate areas separated by less than two miles. Jab is located entirely in Sweetwater County at latitude 42.2209 and longitude -108.0439 in decimal degrees and covers all or portions of 11 sections in one township as follows:

● T26N R94W – All of Sections 16 and 21 and portions of Sections 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20 and 22

West Jab is located in both Sweetwater and Fremont counties at latitude 42.2611 and longitude -108.1225 in decimal degrees and covers all or portions of 11 sections in four townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T27N R95W – All of Section 36 and portions of Sections 25, 26 and 35

● T27N R94W – Portions of Sections 30 and 31

● T26N R95W – Portions of Sections 1, 2, 11 and 12

● T26N R94W – Portions of Section 6

The Jab/West Jab project area is located approximately 55 air miles northwest of Rawlins, Wyoming, and is on federal (BLM) and state managed land.

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 (4,483.4 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 5,443.4 acres. Annual holding costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3-9

March 2023

3.1.8 Ludeman

The Ludeman project area is in the PRB in Converse County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 42.9119 and longitude ‑105.6277 in decimal degrees. The Ludeman project area covers all or portions of 39 sections in four townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T34N R74W – All of Sections 12, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and portions of Section 22

● T34N R73W – All of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35 and portions of Sections 2, 6, 11, 24, 25, 28 and 36

● T34N R72W – Portions of Sections 19 and 30

● T33N R73W – Portions of Sections 1, 2 and 3

The Ludeman project area is located approximately 30 air miles east of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) or state managed land.

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 (17,586.1 acres) and two fee (private) mineral leases (1,741.9 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 20,768 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.9 Moore Ranch

The Moore Ranch project area is in the PRB in Campbell County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.5652 and longitude ‑105.8480 in decimal degrees. The Moore Ranch project area covers all or portions of 16 sections in three townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T42N R75W – All of Sections 26, 27, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and portions of Sections 25 and 28

● T42N R74W – Portions of Sections 30 and 31

● T41N R75W – All of Sections 2, 3 and 4 and portions of Sections 1, 9 and 10

The Moore Ranch project area is located approximately 55 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of state managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings within the Moore Ranch project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,200 acres), 86 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,754.1 acres) and five fee (private) mineral leases (1,740 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 4,694.1 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.10 Nine Mile

The Nine Mile project area is in the PRB in Natrona County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 42.9807 and longitude ‑106.3278 in decimal degrees. The Nine Mile project area covers all or portions of 22 sections in three townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T36N R80W – All of Section 36

● T35N R79W – Portions of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 and 34

● T34N R79W – All of Section 3 and portions of Sections 4 and 10

3-10

March 2023

The Nine Mile project area is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is on private surface land and state managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Nine Mile project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,280 acres), 190 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (3,800 acres) and two fee (private) mineral leases (1,258.6 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 6,339 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.11 Red Rim

The Red Rim project area is in the GGRB in Carbon County (Figure 3-3) at latitude 41.6502 and longitude ‑107.5755 in decimal degrees. The Red Rim project area covers all or portions of four sections in two townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T19N R90W – Portions of Sections 6, 8 and 18

● T19N R91W - Portions of Section 12

The Red Rim project area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of Rawlins, Wyoming, and is on federal (BLM) managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim project area include 49 unpatented federal mining lode claims (1,000 acres). Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.1.12 Reno Creek

The Reno Creek project area includes the Bing, Moore, North Reno Creek, Pine Tree and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas. The North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas are contiguous, consolidated and fully permitted for mining by ISR methods. The Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas are within about five miles of the permitted areas and have not been permitted.

The Reno Creek project area is in the PRB in Campbell County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.6796 and longitude -105.7226 in decimal degrees. The Reno Creek project area covers all or portions of 45 sections in six townships with legal descriptions as follows:

● T44N R75W – All of Section 36

● T44N R74W – Portions of Sections 26, 34 and 35

● T43N R74W – All of Sections 3, 9, 16, 17 and 36 and portions of Sections 2, 4, 7, 10, 18, 20, 26, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35

● T43N R73W – All of Sections 27, 28, 31 and 34 and portions of Sections 21, 22, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 35

● T42N R74W – All of Sections 1, 12 and 16 and portions of Sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 17 and 20

● T42N R73W – All of Sections 6 and 16 and portions of Sections 7 and 10

The Reno Creek project area is located approximately 10 air miles southwest of the town of Wright and is primarily on private surface land and state managed land. UEC owns approximately 40 acres of surface land in the Reno Creek project area for a future satellite facility.

3-11

March 2023

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). These mineral holdings comprise 18,763 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

3.2 Encumbrances

To the QP’s knowledge, there are no unusual encumbrances to the project areas. However, there are general regulatory and permitting requirements, depending on the specific project area. The permitting status of each project area is shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2:         Project Area Permitting Status

Project Area	Permitted	Not Permitted	Notes
Allemand-Ross		✔
Barge		✔
Charlie		✔	May be able to be incorporated into Christensen Ranch with a permit modification. Active surface mining permit (acquired by Cotter Corporation (Cotter) in 1979). Cotter sought conversion to ISR in 2014, but the process has not been completed.
Christensen Ranch	✔
Clarkson Hill		✔
Irigaray	Irigaray CPP	✔	Permitting for the majority of the ISR areas is still required.
Jab/West Jab		✔	Permit application submitted in 2008 but withdrawn.
Ludeman	✔
Moore Ranch	✔
Nine Mile		✔	Near existing residential development. Land surface includes residential subdivision and is a risk factor for project permitting.
Red Rim		✔
Reno Creek	North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas	Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas

3-12

March 2023

The environmental liability for the Project falls under jurisdiction of the WDEQ/LQD, which regulates the Permit to Mine and the Source and Byproduct Materials License. Portions of the Project that are located on federal surfaces would require an approved Plan of Operations from the BLM; this would include wildlife considerations such as greater sage-grouse, which could limit development of resources in some areas.

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

● Source and Byproduct Materials License (WDEQ/Uranium Recovery Program [under LQD]);

● Wetland delineation and mitigation as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in applicable locations;

● Aquifer exemption (40 CFR 144, 146) for Class III Underground Injection Control (UIC) to be issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

● Air quality permits from WDEQ/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) for applicable facility construction activities;

● Groundwater reclassification, if necessary, would be approved by WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WDEQ/WQD) (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11) as part of the aquifer exemption process;

● EPA Subpart W pond construction permits would be required to construct holding ponds;

● If water management will utilize deep disposal, a Class I UIC Permit (deep disposal well) must be approved by WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

● A Class III UIC Permit to Mine and Class III UIC Permit would be approved by WDEQ/WQD as the primary Permit to Mine to allow injection, recovery and processing of fluids (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

● Class V UIC permits may be required for any site septic systems (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

● Construction stormwater NPDES permits must be obtained annually for projected construction activities (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

● Industrial stormwater NPDES permits would be required in CPP and satellite areas (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11); and

● Groundwater appropriations would be obtained from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office prior to the installation of water supply wells and ISR wellfields.

3.3 Property Risk Factors

A variety of property risk factors exist but are not unique to the specific project areas. Many uranium deposits occur in relatively compact special areas. Large horizontal well pads or wind turbine pads sited on top of mineralization could limit the ability to access resources. Oil and gas development or wind turbines are common in Wyoming. Examples of property risk factors are included in the following list, with descriptions of each risk:

● Commercial oilfield waste disposal facilities (COWDFs) and/or lined ponds

o COWDFs or other lined ponds may limit surface access and could impact optimal placement of wellfields. It is the opinion of the QP that COWDFs and other lined ponds present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

3-13

March 2023

● Commercial wind power

o Commercial wind power could limit surface accessibility and impact optimal placement of wellfields. There are project areas where the average annual wind speed at 80 meters is suitable for commercial wind development. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low to moderate risk that commercial wind power could limit development of resources.

● Industrial wells impacting aquifers

o Industrial wells could impact available water in target aquifers but will not impact the resources. It is the opinion of the QP that industrial wells present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

● Oil and gas horizontal pads and development

o Aquifer dewatering due to shallow water supply wells to produce water used in oil and gas operations could impact target aquifers. Large horizontal wellpads could limit surface accessibility and placement of wellfields. A site-specific discussion is provided below:

■ Allemand–Ross – This project area is spaced for horizontal development with some historical production. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

■ Barge – This project area is spaced for horizontal development with some active drilling and minor horizontal production. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access. The QP was unable to complete a site visit due to surface access limitations. Since the QP was unable to observe the project area and confirm unobstructed access to mineral trends, additional risk to resource access could be present due to oil and gas development.

■ Charlie – The project area is not spaced for horizontal development, although minor historical conventional production from the Shannon and Parkman formations has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low to moderate risk of impact to resource access.

■ Christensen Ranch – The project area is not spaced for horizontal development, although minor historical conventional production from the Shannon Formation has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low to moderate risk of impact to resource access.

■ Clarkson Hill – This project area is not spaced for horizontal development and no historical production or exploration has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low risk of impact to resource access.

■ Irigaray – A portion of the project area is spaced for horizontal development and some historical development has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low to moderate risk of impact to the resource access due to the federally controlled surface land in the southern portion of the mineralized resource area.

■ Jab/West Jab – This project area is not spaced for horizontal pads. There has been little exploration and no production. Hydrocarbons are likely present in the Lewis, Mesaverde and Ericson formations. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low risk of impacts to resource access.

3-14

March 2023

■ Ludeman – The project area is spaced for horizontal development; however, little production has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

■ Moore Ranch – This project area is spaced for horizontal development with some historical production. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

■ Nine Mile – This project area is not spaced for horizontal development and no historical production or exploration has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low risk of impact to resource access.

■ Red Rim - This project area is not spaced for horizontal development and no historical production or exploration has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low risk of impact to resource access.

■ Reno Creek – This project area has historical production as well as additional oil and gas wells that are permitted or waiting on permits. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

● Surface Development

o Where surface ownership of a project area is held by a large number of private entities, there may be challenges to obtaining sufficient surface use agreements (SUAs) for a project, or there may be opposition to a project where it could impact surface use such as residential use.

■ Nine Mile – There are currently multiple landowners, including agricultural operators, land development companies and residential property owners. Surface ownership has been subdivided for residential development in T35N R79W Sections 9, 10, 14, 22, 26, 27 and 34. The multiple property owners and residential land use creates potential risk of not being able to obtain sufficient SUAs for the project and for opposition to a Wyoming Permit to Mine.

3.4 Royalties (Confidential)

Due to the confidentiality of royalties in private agreements, these data are not included in the TRS. Royalties will be provided upon request.

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

3-15

March 2023

4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Physical Setting

4.1.1 Powder River Basin

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas are located in the PRB in the counties shown in Table 1‑1. These project areas are in the southern portion of the PRB and generally lie near the synclinal axis of the basin. The exception is the Nine Mile project area, which is near the Casper Arch. The Casper Arch marks the southwestern boundary of the PRB.

The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (U.S. EPA, 2013), a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. The project areas are characterized as rolling prairie and dissected river breaks. Regional structural features include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. At the northernmost project areas in the PRB, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

Topography in the area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams that dissect the area. Elevations range from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

Vegetation within the project areas consists primarily of grassland with areas of sagebrush. Some of the project areas lie within the mixed grass ecoregion of the Northwestern Great Plains. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grasslands and meadow grasslands and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).

The project areas in the PRB are located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25 °F in the winter to 100 °F in the summer. Typically, the “last freeze” occurs during late May, and the “first freeze” occurs in mid- to late September (Curtis and Grimes, 2004).

Yearly precipitation averages about 13 inches. The region is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year) but provides much less moisture than rain events (Curtis and Grimes, 2004).

4.1.2 Greater Green River Basin

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the GGRB in the counties shown in Table 1-1. The project areas are in the northeast portion of the GGRB. The GGRB is a structural basin that encompasses nearly 21,000 square miles in southwest Wyoming and northwest Colorado. Regional structural features include the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south.

4-1

March 2023

The topography at the Jab/West Jab project area ranges from flat plains to gentle slopes that are dissected by southerly-flowing ephemeral washes. Elevations in the area range from approximately 6,900 to 7,400 ft above mean sea level. Topography at the Red Rim project area includes the Red Rim, a prominent low-lying ridge with a southwest/northeast orientation, and Separation Creek, which generally forms the southern boundary of the project area. Elevations range from approximately 6,000 to slightly over 7,000 ft above mean sea level.

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion (U.S. EPA, 2013) and are characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe. This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands. Vegetation on the Jab/West Jab project area mostly consists of sagebrush, but includes some native perennial grasses, cushion plants, cacti, perennial forbs and lichens. The Red Rim project area is rangeland with vegetation consisting primarily of sagebrush and grasses.

Yearly precipitation in the area is approximately 8 to 12 inches (Curtis and Grimes, 2004). Precipitation is predominantly in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100 °F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.

4.1.3 Wind River Basin

The Clarkson Hill project area is in the WRB in Natrona County, Wyoming. Clarkson Hill is located near the southern and eastern margin of the WRB just west of the Casper Arch, which separates the PRB and WRB. The Clarkson Hill project area is located in a broad synclinal valley northeast of the North Granite Mountain Fault. The project area extends from the base to the top of a small mesa known as Clarkson Hill.

Clarkson Hill is located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion (U.S. EPA, 2013), which is characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe. This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands.

The top of the mesa is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 6,200 ft above mean sea level. The mesa has approximately 200 ft of vertical relief with some relatively steep slopes, in excess of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The currently defined area of mineralization is at the base and along the slope of the mesa.

The most common native vegetation is sagebrush and prairie grasses and, to a lesser extent, rabbitbrush. No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area. Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north-facing slopes. Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt. The North Platte River, some four to five miles south of the project area, is perennial and is one of the major river systems in Wyoming.

The climate at the Clarkson Hill project area is continental semi-arid, with annual precipitation of 8-12 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100 ºF, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.

4-2

March 2023

4.2 Accessibility and Local Resources

Since the Project includes multiple assets in seven Wyoming counties, there are multiple accessibility and resource options for the various project areas. All of the project areas are accessible and capable of operating year-round given appropriate maintenance of project roads.

Workforce personnel will commute daily from nearby small communities or the larger population centers noted for each property below. The communities included in the Project area have a long history of oil and gas development and uranium and coal mining. The major population centers have adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Project. The major population centers of Gillette, Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs have adequate oilfield and mining service companies, heavy equipment sales and rentals, drilling and pump contractors, construction contractors and industrial supply companies to serve the Project.

The PRB project areas in Johnson and Campbell counties include Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek. The nearest community is Wright, which is approximately 9 to 32 miles from the project areas. Wright is a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59. Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport. Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the project areas via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, approximately 20 to 30 miles southwest of the project areas on Wyoming Highway 387. A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway (BNSF), used primarily for transporting coal, is located between 11 and 34 miles east of the project areas and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

The PRB project areas in Converse County include Allemand-Ross, Barge and Ludeman. These project areas are near the communities of Glenrock and Douglas. They can be accessed from Interstate 25 via Wyoming Highway 95 from Glenrock, Wyoming Highway 93 from Douglas, or Wyoming Highway 59 from Douglas. The Converse County project areas are approximately 8 to 30 miles from Glenrock. Glenrock is an incorporated town with a population of 2,420 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) adjacent to Interstate 25. Douglas is an incorporated town with a population of 6,386 also along Interstate 25. Casper is a major population center with a population of 59,038 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) and a regional airport. Casper is southwest or west of these project areas and can be accessed by state highways to Interstate 25. The same north-south BNSF rail line that runs parallel to Wyoming Highway 59 is eight miles east of the Barge project area and 20 miles east of the Allemand-Ross project area. An east-west railway owned by BNSF is in close proximity to the Ludeman project area, to the south near Interstate 25.

The PRB Nine Mile project area is located in Natrona County near Casper. The Nine Mile 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 located 1.5 miles south of the Nine Mile project area. The east-west railway owned by BNSF is approximately five miles south of the project area.

4-3

March 2023

The GGRB Jab/West Jab project area is located in Sweetwater and Fremont counties. The Jab/West Jab project area can be accessed from State Highway 287 via Bairoil Road (County Road 22) from Bairoil. The project area is approximately 22 miles west of Bairoil, a small, incorporated town with a population of 68 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). The project area is approximately 50 air miles northwest of Rawlins, an incorporated community with a population of 8,221 on Interstate 80. Casper can be accessed from state highways via Bairoil. A major east-west railway (the Union Pacific) lies approximately 40 air miles south of the Jab/West Jab project area in Wamsutter, near Interstate 80.

The GGRB Red Rim project area is located in Carbon County and can be accessed from Interstate 80 via Daley and Hadsell roads, or from Rawlins via Carbon County Road 605. The Red Rim project area is approximately 18 miles southwest of Rawlins. Rock Springs, an incorporated city with a population of 23,526 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020), is located on Interstate 80 approximately 100 miles from the project area. The Union Pacific railway lies approximately seven miles north of the project area, near Interstate 80.

The WRB Clarkson Hill project area is located in Natrona County, approximately 19 miles southwest of Casper. The 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 project area.

4.3 Availability of Infrastructure

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as Gillette, Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs. Specialized equipment for the wellfields or the Irigaray CPP will likely need to be acquired from outside the state.

The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all of the project areas with the exception of Red Rim have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

At the Allemand-Ross project area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the project area. The Allemand-Ross project area is adjacent to all-weather roadways, which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. Electrical power lines extend into and across the project area.

Near the Barge project area, historical uranium operations in the late 1970s and early 1980s brought access and electrical power to the area, which remain. Water supply needs to be reestablished in the Barge project area. The Barge project area is adjacent to all-weather roadways, which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product.

Development of the Charlie project area will require power and water supply. Infrastructure in the immediate vicinity includes an electrical substation and coal-bed methane gas plant. Water may be provided by wells. There is also a 14.4 kVa electrical supply operated by the Sheridan-Johnson Rural Electrical Association, approximately two miles from the project. Since the Charlie project area is surrounded by the Christensen Ranch project area, the two project areas may share infrastructure.

4-4

March 2023

The Christensen Ranch project area is equipped with a satellite ion exchange (IX) plant with 6,500 gpm installed capacity, a groundwater restoration plant with 1,000 gpm capacity, two wastewater disposal wells and four lined evaporation ponds.

No infrastructure has been developed at the Clarkson Hill project area. ISR development will require power and water supply. A utility corridor exists along the Oregon Trail Road, including power and gas transmission lines. The principal access roads to the project area are maintained and year-round access is possible. Water supply could be obtained from locally permitted and constructed wells or from surface water sources including the Platte River, which is located approximately three miles east of the project area.

The Irigaray CPP is a fully operational and licensed ISR processing plant for resin elution, precipitation, filtration and drying and packaging of U₃O₈. The Irigaray CPP has a capacity of 1.3 million lbs U₃O₈ per year, which is expandable to 2.5 million lbs U₃O₈ per year. A second elution system is also at the Irigaray CPP for toll processing. The Irigaray CPP is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal. Loaded resin from each of the “spoke” project areas described in Chapter 3.1 would be transported to the Irigaray CPP “hub” for final concentrate production.

Limited infrastructure is available within the Jab/West Jab project area. A water supply well was permitted and installed during development drilling. The project area is within 6 to 10 miles of a county road, electrical power and natural gas transmission lines. Nearby infrastructure will be beneficial to future development. The county roads will facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and products.

The Ludeman project area has been used historically for livestock grazing. Nearby uranium operations have occurred historically. Non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the project area. The proximity of the Ludeman project area to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. High voltage transmission lines from the Dave Johnston Power Plant pass within the project area.

At the Moore Ranch project area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the project area. The Moore Ranch project area is adjacent to paved, public roadways, which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. Electrical power lines extend into and across the project area.

Infrastructure is present within and/or proximate to the Nine Mile project area. ISR development will require power and water supply. Infrastructure, including power lines and water wells, was established for past pilot ISR mining operations and currently exists for nearby residents in the Homa Hills area. Water supply may be provided by locally permitted and constructed wells.

Aside from existing access roads, no infrastructure has been developed at the Red Rim project area. ISR development will require better access roads, power and a water supply. The Red Rim project area previously had single phase line power and a water supply developed for exploration. Water may be developed from locally permitted and constructed wells.

UEC owns approximately 40 acres of surface land in the Reno Creek project area, near the intersection of Wyoming Highway 387 and Clarkelen County Road, for a future satellite facility. This land is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal. A well will be drilled to provide potable water for the Reno Creek project area.

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

4-5

March 2023

5.0 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.

Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GGRB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposits in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were discovered using radiometric surveys. The U.S. Geological Survey (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 consisted primarily of drilling.

Uranium exploration of the WRB began in 1953 with scintillation counter surveys of the Eocene Wind River Formation in the Gas Hills area (Gregory, 2019). In the mid-1950s, USGS, on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), studied uranium occurrence and potential in the Clarkson Hill area (Rich, 1962). Near surface uranium mineralization in the Wind River Formation was explored in the 1950s with shallow excavations. Later drilling defined deeper mineralization within the Fort Union Formation near the contact with the Lance Formation.

Ownership, control and operation of the project areas has varied greatly since the 1960s. Table 5-1 summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. Table 5-1 also summarizes historical drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period.

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

5-1

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Allemand-Ross
1967-1970	Kerr-McGee Nuclear (Kerr-McGee), Homestake Mining Corp (Homestake), Teton Exploration (Teton)	Early uranium exploration completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross project area. Exploration was typically for shallower mineralization (<1,000 ft).	~100	Exploration of shallow mineralization (<1,000 ft)
1971-1984	Conoco	Conoco staked lode mining claims in 1969. In 1970, Conoco entered an agreement with National Resources Corporation (National Resources) to earn in on the Allemand-Ranch land holdings. National Resources’ interests were acquired by Pioneer Nuclear in 1972 and the joint venture partnership was maintained until 1975. In 1979, Conoco formed an association with Power Reactor & Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC). Conoco continued to operate the drilling program. Conoco closed its mineral department in 1984.	~1,180	Delineation of a significant amount of the mineralization within the Allemand-Ross project area
1984-1988	PNC	PNC assumed control of the Allemand-Ross project area and continued exploration.	~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	High Plains Uranium (HPU) and Energy Metals Corporation (EMC)	Claims and leases were acquired during the uranium market upswing. HPU held most claims and leases, with EMC holding the remainder of the Allemand-Ross project area.	N/A	Mineral rights acquired
2007	EMC	EMC acquired HPU. The properties were consolidated.	N/A	Properties consolidated
Late 2007-2021	Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Uranium One)	Uranium One acquired EMC. Uranium One proceeded to conduct verification and resource enhancement drilling. Most drilling was completed between 2008 and 2010.	~300	Additional exploration completed within project areas with average depths ranging from 1,118 to 1,546 ft
2021	UEC	Allemand-Ross project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-2

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Barge
1969	Mono Power Company (Mono) and Rocky Mountain Energy Company (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 conducted from 1977 until 1982. Mining claims were dropped after 1982.	~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
2007-2021	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Barge project area.	N/A	No exploration completed; right to mine secured
2021	UEC	Barge project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership

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

5-3

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Charlie
1966	Preston Oil Co. (Preston)	Awarded the state lease for 720 acres.	None	Right to mine secured
1966-1974	Inexco Oil (Inexco)	Inexco assigned lease from Preston in 1966 and conducted exploration drilling program in 1969 and 1970.	215	Delineation of mineralized areas
1974	Uranerz USA (Uranerz)	Inexco formed a joint venture with Uranerz who became the operator. Over the next 2 years, Uranerz expanded the drilling program including core drilling.	715	Delineation of mineralized areas
Not specified	Cotter	Cotter acquired the property and evaluated both conventional open-pit and ISR mining methods. Cotter obtained a surface mining permit in 1979. A 200 ft deep test pit was excavated in 1981 in a small mineralization area. The pit was subsequently reclaimed, but the state surface mining permit remains active.	Not specified	Falling uranium prices in the 1980s halted further development
1994	Cotter and Power Resources Incorporated (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 project did not proceed, and the joint venture agreement expired
2014-2018	Cotter	In 2014, Cotter sought to convert the permit to ISR mining; however, that process has not been completed.	None	Unknown
2018-2021	Anfield Energy Inc. (Anfield)	Anfield acquired the project from Cotter.	None	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources
2021	UEC	UEC acquired the project from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-4

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Christensen Ranch
1967-1979	Independent Operators	Assembled as a large land package by independent operators.	~4,860	Right to mine secured; preliminary delineation of mineralized areas
1979-1981	Arizona Public Services (APS), parent company of Malapai Resource Company (Malapai)	APS became a 50% partner in 1979.	~2,220	Delineation of mineralized areas
1981-1990	Malapai	Malapai assumed sole ownership by acquiring the interests of Wold and Western Nuclear Corporation (WNC). Malapai purchased the Irigaray property from Westinghouse Electric Corp. in 1987, and Christensen Ranch was licensed for operations under the Irigaray NRC and WDEQ license/permit in 1988. Uranium production by ISR was started by Malapai in 1989 but was placed on standby in 1990.	~1,460	Delineation of mineralized areas; began ISR production
1990-1993	Total Minerals Corporation (TOMIN) and Électricité de France (EDF)	EDF acquired Irigaray and Christensen Ranch from Malapai in 1990. TOMIN acted as project operator for EDF under the Joint Participation Agreement. TOMIN restarted ISR operations in 1991.	~2,270	Delineation of mineralized areas; restarted ISR production
1993-2010	COGEMA and EDF	In 1993, COGEMA (French nuclear company, now Orono) acquired the assets of TOMIN and changed the name of the operating entity to COGEMA Mining, Inc. EDF was still owner of 29%, COGEMA Mining, as operator, owned 71% of the Joint Participation.	~3,690	3.70 million lbs of U3O8 produced from 1989 through 2000
2000-2010	COGEMA and EDF	Groundwater restoration of Mine Units 2 through 6 completed. Project on standby 2006 through 2010, at which time COGEMA and EDF sold the project to Uranium One.	Not specified	188,000 lbs of U3O8 produced during restoration
2010-2021	Uranium One/Uranium One USA, Inc.	Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 installed and operated. Ramp up in 2011, ramp down in 2013 (all wellfield development ceased), low production mode 2014 through 2018, production ends 2018 and is placed on care and maintenance.	Not specified	2.6 million lbs of U3O8 produced
2021	UEC	Christensen Ranch project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-5

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Clarkson Hill
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 property through the mid-1980s, when they dropped the claims due to declining uranium prices.	250	Delineation of mineralized areas; falling uranium prices in the 1980s halted further development
2005-2008	EMC	EMC performed initial staking of 14 claims and compiled relevant data for the property. EMC optioned the project to Artha Resources Corporation (Artha), who conducted limited verification drilling during 2008. The project reverted from Artha to EMC.	5	Unknown
2008-2016	Uranium One, Inc.	EMC was acquired by Uranium One, Inc. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One, Inc. became Uranium One.	None	Ownership transition
2016-2021	Anfield	Anfield purchased Clarkson Hill project from Uranium One.	None	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources
2021	UEC	UEC acquire the project from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition

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

5-6

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Irigaray
1969-1975	Homestake	Original controller of project area.	~1,340	Right to mine secured; preliminary delineation of mineralized areas
1975-1987	Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse)	Acquired property from Homestake. The project was licensed for ISR production in 1978 and was operated by Wyoming Mineral Corporation (WMC), a subsidiary of Westinghouse. Operations ceased in 1982 due to market trends.	~470	Delineation of mineralized areas; began ISR production
1987-1990	Malapai	Acquired property from Westinghouse.	None	Ownership transition
1990-1993	TOMIN and EDF	Acquired property from Malapai. TOMIN acted as project operator.	None	Ownership transition
1993-2010	COGEMA/ Areva	Replaced TOMIN as project operator in partnership with EDF. COGEMA acquired interests from TOMIN.	~20	0.74 million lbs of U3O8 produced from 1978 through 2000
2010-2021	Uranium One	Dried many millions of pounds from Christensen and through toll milling.	N/A	Decommissioned Irigaray wellfields
2021	UEC	Irigaray project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition

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

5-7

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Jab
Unspecified	Silverbell Industries	Originator of the Jab project area.	Not specified	Project area initially developed
1972-1985	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.	~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	Project area held but not substantially developed
West Jab
Unspecified	AMAX Petroleum Company	Originator of the West Jab project area.	Not specified	Project area initially developed
1975-1983	WNC	WNC drilled the West Jab project area until 1983, when uranium markets had dropped. WNC terminated claim. AMAX Petroleum Company regained control until the claims were dropped.	~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
2007-2021	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Jab/West Jab project area.	20	Confirmation drilling; right to mine secured
2021	UEC	Jab/West Jab project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-8

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Ludeman
1960s-1970s	Cordero Mining	Numerous companies including Teton, PRI, Uranium Resources, Inc. and Malapai (a subsidiary of APS) explored in the project area.	~5,420	Explored for uranium roll-front mineralization and delineated deposits in the project area
1980	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	Uranium Resources, Inc.	Constructed and operated the North Platte ISR Project on a portion of the Ludeman project area. The pilot test facility produced for 5 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 it 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 the project area
Early to Mid- 2000s	HPU and EMC	HPU held most claims and leases in the Ludeman project area. EMC held the remaining claims in the project area.	N/A	Claims and leases increased in the project area
2007	EMC	EMC acquired HPU.	N/A	Consolidation through acquisition
Late 2007-2021	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC in late 2007 and continued exploration of the 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.	~2,180	Continued exploration of project area; additional holes included boreholes, core holes and monitor wells
2021	UEC	Ludeman project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-9

MArch 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Moore Ranch
1971-1983	Conoco and Kerr-McGee	Conoco and Kerr-McGee operated as a joint venture. Of the joint venture, Conoco controlled 50% and served as the operator.	~2,700 rotary drill holes ~130 core holes	Discovery and delineation of mineralized areas; permitting and licensing of a proposed uranium processing facility known as Sand Rock Mill completed through the WDEQ/LQD and the NRC
1983-1989	Wold Nuclear Company (Wold) and Kerr-McGee	Conoco sold interests to Wold in 1983. Kerr-McGee retained the rights with Wold. Assessment drilling was conducted.	None	Retained mining claims; Mining claim assessment drilling
1989-1992	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.	21 rotary drill holes	Retained mining claims; mining claim assessment drilling
1992-2002	Rio Algom	Claim maintenance paid directly to the BLM. No further drilling conducted.	None	Mining claims retained through payment
2002-2003	PRI	Rio Algom acquired by PRI.	None	Ownership transition
2004-2007	EMC	EMC acquired most of the mining claims and state leases.	N/A	Secured right to mine
2007-2021	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 was fully permitted by WDEQ/LQD in 2011 and the NRC in 2013.	~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

5-10

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Nine Mile
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 ft 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” (Nigbor et al., 1982). RME controlled the project until the late 1980s, when the mineral interests were dropped due to declining uranium prices.	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.	45	Secured right to mine
2008	Uranium One	EMC was acquired by Uranium One, Inc. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One, Inc. became Uranium One.	None	Ownership transition
2016	Anfield	Anfield purchased Nine Mile project from Uranium One.	None	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources
2021	UEC	UEC acquired the project from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-11

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Red Rim
1970-1973	Kerr McGee and UCC	Both companies located claims in the vicinity and conducted exploration and drilling programs. The claims were dropped by 1973.	Not specified	Exploration 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 its 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 138 drill holes on the current project area, 42 are barren or contain trace mineralization and the remaining 96 are mineralized
2004-2007	EMC	Located 49 unpatented mining lode claims that comprise the current project area.	None	Secured federal mining claims
2007-2016	Uranium One	Uranium One, Inc. acquired EMC. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One, Inc. became Uranium One.	59	Conducted exploration drilling in 2009-2010
2016-2021	Anfield	Anfield purchased the Red Rim project from Uranium One.	None	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources
2021	UEC	UEC acquired the project from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition

5-12

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Reno Creek – North Reno Creek
Late 1960s	RME	Drilled exploration holes within and around North Reno Creek resource area.	~5,800	Delineated ~10 miles of roll-front deposits
Mid 1970s	RME, Mono and Halliburton Services	Partnership formed to develop North Reno Creek resource area using ISR methods.	N/A	Acquisition of 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.	>300	Acquisition of project area
2001	Rio Algom	Rio Algom acquired International Uranium Corporation's property.	N/A	Acquisition of project area
2001-2003	PRI	PRI acquired North Reno Creek resource area and dropped claims in 2003.	N/A	Acquisition of project area and mining claims dropped
2004	Strathmore Minerals Corporation and American Uranium Corporation	Re-staked and filed new mining claims on approximately 16,000 acres.	N/A	Refiled mining claims and secured right to mine
2007	AUC, LLC	Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. AUC drilled in the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas between 2010 and 2012.	176	Acquisition of 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
	American Nuclear Corporation and Tennessee Valley Authority JV	Controlled Southwest Reno Creek resource area and drilled exploration holes.	~700	Delineation of mineralized areas
2007	AUC, LLC	Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. AUC drilled in the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas between 2010 and 2012.	770	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 project resources

5-13

March 2023

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Reno Creek – Bing, Moore and Pine Tree
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 became Pathfinder Mines, Inc. and continued exploration on Moore and Pine Tree resource areas.	>1,560	Delineation of mineralized areas
1980s	RME	Obtained ownership of Moore resource area, continued exploration drilling until the 1990s.	>400	Acquired project area; delineation of mineralized areas
1960s	Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company	Exploration of Bing resource area, drilled exploration holes and conducted limited hydrologic testing in the 1970s.	177	Delineation of mineralized areas through drilling and hydrologic testing
2007	AUC, LLC	Consolidated the resource areas under one owner.	98	Consolidated ownership; conducted exploration drilling at Moore resource area
2017	UEC	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.	N/A	Auditing of Project resources

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

5-16

March 2023

6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT

6.1 Regional Geology

6.1.1 Powder River Basin

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas reside in the PRB. 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 project areas. 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.

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek project areas target mineralization in formations depicted in Figure 6-1, a generalized upper stratigraphic column of the PRB. The Nine Mile project area mineralization is deeper, and a stratigraphic column and cross section for that project area is shown in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-3 shows locations of cross sections for the remaining project areas in the PRB, and Figure 6-3a and 6-3b contain the associated cross sections (McKeel et al., 1973; Flores et al., 2010).

Cretaceous bedrock is exposed at the surface around the margins of the PRB. In the southwestern portion of the PRB, the surficial Cretaceous formations in order of decreasing age are the Cody Shale, Mesa Verde Formation, Fox Hills Sandstone and Lewis Shale and the Lance Formation (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). A summary description of the Cretaceous geology is provided in Love and Christiansen (1985). The Cody Shale is a dull gray shale, gray siltstone and fine-grained gray sandstone. The Mesa Verde is light colored massive to thin-bedded sandstone, gray sandy shale and coal beds. In the southwestern portion of the PRB, reduction-oxidation roll-front uranium deposits occur in the Teapot Sandstone member of the Mesa Verde Formation. Mineralization in the Teapot Sandstone occurs in vanadium-rich roll-fronts in marginal marine sandstone, as heavy mineral accumulations in beach sands (“black sands”), in conglomeratic zones with carbonaceous debris and lignitic shale, and associated with limonite-stained zones of arkosic sandstone (Gregory et al., 2010). The Fox Hills Sandstone is light colored sandstone and gray sandy shale containing marine fossils. The Lewis Shale is gray marine shale containing many gray and brown lenticular concretion-rich sandstone beds. The late Cretaceous Lance Formation is brown and gray sandstone and shale with thin coal and carbonaceous shale beds.

Within the PRB, Tertiary geology includes the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, which conformably overlies the Lance Formation and is a fluvial-sedimentary stratigraphic unit that consists of fine to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone 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 (2004) divides the Fort Union into three members: the Tullock, Lebo and Tongue River members (oldest to youngest). 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. 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 (Flores, 2004). The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft (Conoco, 1981; Sharp and Gibbons, 1964).

6-1

March 2023

Fort Union Formation uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands. These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones. The zones of mineralization formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964).

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 (Flores and Bader, 1999). However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson coals in other parts of the PRB. This contact is approximated on the PRB cross sections, which can be viewed on Figures 6-3a and 6-3b (Denson et al., 1978; Flores et al., 2010). The locations of these cross sections are shown on Figure 6-3.

The Wasatch Formation occurs at the surface across much of the PRB. The Wasatch is 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 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 ft and dips northwestward from 1 to 2.5 degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB (Conoco, 1980; Sharp and Gibbons, 1964).

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 (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964), which may be the primary source rock for uranium in the southern part of the PRB as a whole (Conoco, 1980; Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys. Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.

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

6-2

March 2023

Figure 6‑1:         Upper PRB Stratigraphic Column

6-3

March 2023

6-4

March 2023

Figure 6‑3:         PRB Projects Cross-Section Location Map

6-5

March 2023

Figure 6‑3a:         PRB Projects Cross-Sections B-B’ and C-C’

6-6

March 2023

Figure 6‑3b:         PRB Projects Cross-Sections C-C’ and D-D’

6-7

March 2023

6.1.2 Greater Green River Basin

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the GGRB. The Jab/West Jab project area is in the Great Divide Basin (GDB) portion of the GGRB, and the Red Rim project area is in the Washakie Basin (WB) portion of the GGRB. Together the GDB and WB compromise the eastern portion of the GGRB. These basins contain up to 25,000 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks. Figure 6-4 is a generalized stratigraphic column of the GGRB. Figure 6-5 shows a cross section location map for the Jab/West Jab project area, and the cross section is shown on Figure 6-5a. Figure 6-6 shows a cross section location map for the Red Rim project area, and Figure 6-6a shows the cross section.

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 GGRB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. To the southwest, the GGRB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation. These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GGRB (Dribus and Nanna, 1982). The Paleocene Fort Union Formation underlies the Wasatch or Battle Springs Formation depending on position within the basin. Uranium deposits in the GDB/WB predominantly occur in roll-front redox deposits but also desert evaporite (Gregory et al., 2010). Roll-front deposits occur in the Battle Spring, Wasatch and Fort Union formations.

The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of a 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 is exposed at the surface around the boundary of the GDB. The Fort Union Formation is described as an interbedded sequence of white, gray, tan, buff and brown sandstone, gray to black shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, local conglomerate beds and (usually) thin coal beds (Gregory et al., 2010). It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. The Fort Union 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 (Gregory et al., 2010). 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 (Lynds and Carroll, 2015).

6-8

March 2023

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 (Wallis, 2005).

6.1.3 Wind River Basin

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. 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. Figure 6-7 is a generalized stratigraphic column of the WRB. Figure 6-8 shows a cross section location map for the Clarkson Hill project area, and the cross section is shown on Figure 6-8a.

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 that 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 WRB and PRB, 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.

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

6-9

March 2023

Figure 6‑4:         GGRB Stratigraphy and Sedimentary Relationships

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

6-10

March 2023

Figure 6‑5:         Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

6-11

March 2023

Figure 6‑5a:         Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section

6-12

March 2023

Figure 6‑6:         Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

6-13

March 2023

Figure 6‑6a:         Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section

6-14

March 2023

Figure 6‑7:         Wind River Basin Stratigraphic Column

Source: Rich, 1962

6-15

March 2023

Figure 6‑8:         Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

6-16

March 2023

Figure 6‑8a:         Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section

6-17

March 2023

6.2 Local Geology

6.2.1 Powder River Basin

The Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek project areas target mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation. Mineralization at the Allemand-Ross and Ludeman project areas occurs in the Paleocene Fort Union Formation. The Barge project area mineralization is in both the Wasatch Formation and the Fort Union Formation. Mineralization at the Nine Mile project area occurs in the Cretaceous Mesa Verde Formation.

Wasatch Formation-hosted Mineralization

Mineralization in the project areas 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 (Utah International, 1971).

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).

At the Barge project area, the “A sand” unit in the Wasatch Formation is the shallowest of four mineralized sand units. The remaining mineralized sand units are in the Fort Union Formation and are discussed below. The A sand mineralized trend is located in the northern portion of the Barge project area and is approximately 4,500 ft long.

At the Charlie Project, the Wasatch Formation sand units have been subdivided into eight separate sub-roll-fronts within the overall mineralized horizon (PRI, 1995). 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 ft. 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.

Mineral resources at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas are within the fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. The sands have been designated K1 through K4 in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 to 100 ft within the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas. They coalesce within portions of the project areas and form massive sequences of roughly 250 ft in thickness. The K1 through K4 sands host uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.

These sands 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 to 20 ft thick. Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body ranging in thickness from less than 75 ft to over 200 ft. The Felix Coal seams and the Badger Coal seam are largely laterally continuous and provide important correlation points across the project. Mineralization at the Bing, Moore, North Reno Creek and South Reno Creek resource areas occurs below the Felix Coal seams. At the Pine Tree resource area, the Felix Coal seams are not present and mineralization is also present in shallower deposits.

6-18

March 2023

Geology at Moore Ranch is similar to the geology at the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and includes the Felix and Badger coals. The “70 Sand” mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 ft below the Felix Coal at an average depth of 180 ft below ground surface and is 40 to 120 ft thick.

Fort Union Formation-hosted Mineralization

The host rocks for the uranium ore deposits in the project areas are the arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation. These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers (Lemmers and Smith, 1981).

The arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation are gray to red, clay-rich, cross-bedded, cherty and poorly sorted, with grain sizes in individual beds ranging from fine to very coarse with coarse being the average. Minor to very abundant pyrite and carbonaceous material are present in most of the unaltered (unoxidized) channel deposits. The finer grained rocks range from medium gray siltstones to dark gray carbonaceous claystones. Structure contours indicate a gentle dip to the northeast at an average of one degree (Lemmers and Smith, 1981).

At the Allemand-Ross project area, the Fort Union Formation is divided into three members, with mineralized sands in the Lebo Member. However, in certain areas at the edge of the PRB, the contacts between members become uncertain and the Fort Union is broken up into two members, the Upper and Lower Fort Union Formation (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). Mineralization at the Allemand-Ross project area is in five sandstone units, designated as the 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 sands in ascending order. The thicknesses of the individual sand units range from less than 10 ft to over 150 ft.

In the Barge project area, three units of the Fort Union Formation host mineralization. These units have been designated the U, M and L sands in descending order. The thickness of these units varies from 55 to 75 ft. The 10 trends in the U, M and L sands at the Barge project area range in length from 2,400 to over 10,000 ft.

Mineralization at the Ludeman project area occurs in the Lower Member of the Fort Union Formation, which correlates to Lebo Member mineralization at the Allemand-Ross project area (WWC, 2019b; WWC 2019c). The primary hosts for mineralization are, in ascending order, the 70, 80 and 90 sands. These sands vary in thickness across the Ludeman project area and can be over 150 ft thick. The underlying 40 and 50 sands contain lesser amounts of resources and have not been as fully explored.

Mesa Verde Formation-hosted Mineralization

At the Nine Mile project area, uranium mineralization occurs within the upper portions of the Mesa Verde Formation, which is overlain by the Lewis Shale and underlain by the Cody Shale. Locally the Mesa Verde Formation is subdivided into the Teapot Sandstone and Nine Mile Facies (Atherley et al., 1981). The Teapot Sandstone is sub-arkosic, medium to fine-grained, angular to sub-angular and moderate to well sorted (Nigbor et al., 1982).

6-19

March 2023

Mineralization at the Nine Mile project area occurs in both the Upper and Lower sands of the Teapot Sandstone. The combined thickness of the Upper Teapot and Lower Teapot ranges from 50 to 100 ft. Both sand units are laterally extensive across the project area. Uranium mineralization is of the roll-front type with an average thickness of nine ft. The principal uranium mineral is uraninite (UO₂) with minor amounts of coffinite a uranium silicate. The principal reductant appears to be carbonaceous material and lignites interspersed in zones of mineralization (Nigbor et al., 1982).

6.2.2 Greater Green River Basin

Mineralization at the Jab/West Jab project area occurs in the Battle Spring Formation, and mineralization at the Red Rim project area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.

Battle Spring Formation-hosted Mineralization

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 trend that is approximately 10,000 ft long and 100 to over 1,000 ft wide. Mineralization is 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.

Fort Union Formation-hosted Mineralization

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.

6-20

March 2023

6.2.3 Wind River Basin

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.

Fort Union Formation-hosted Mineralization

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 project area, the Fort Union Formation is approximately 75 to 150 ft thick.

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

6.3 Mineralization and Deposit Type

Uranium mineralization at all of the project areas 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 within large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flow. 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 (Davis, 1969; Rackley, 1972).

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

6-21

March 2023

7.0 EXPLORATION

7.1 Drilling Programs

Drilling was conducted by conventional rotary methods using a variety of bit diameters and configurations. Drilling programs generally followed industry standards where cuttings are collected at regular intervals and examined by an on-site geologist to record lithology and geochemical alteration (redox state). Holes are then probed using gamma ray, spontaneous potential and single point resistance or other logging methods to aid in grade estimation and lithologic correlation.

Cores were also collected from a limited number of holes throughout the project areas. Cores were collected at the drill by a geologist, boxed and labeled as appropriate and transported to a secure facility. Cores were then logged and scanned with radiation detection devices, and samples were identified and marked. Core samples were then sent to laboratories for testing for disequilibrium, metallurgy and hydrogeological parameters.

Since acquiring the properties, UEC has performed no exploration and has relied entirely on legacy data for the updated mineral resource estimates and project planning. Table 7-1 summarizes the historical exploration programs that have been conducted at the project areas. Figures 7-1 through 7-5 depict the drill holes at each project area.

Considering the number of drill holes and associated data, the QP did not review all of the drilling information for the project areas. Rather, the QP reviewed select logs from each of the project areas and evaluated the quality and nature of the work done by previous owners. In the opinion of the QP, previous exploration work by multiple operators/owners was conducted using industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted.

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

7-1

March 2023

Table 7-1:         Project Area Drilling Programs Summary

Project Area	Number of Drill holes	Number of Core Holes	Year Range	Total Drill Footage
				(ft)
Allemand-Ross	1,642	35	1967 – 2010	2,183,387
Barge	6,875	(1)	1969 – 1985	N/A(2)
Charlie	1,319	16	1972 - 1994	N/A(2)
Christensen Ranch	14,499	142	1967 – 2000	7,223,715
Clarkson Hill	255	17	1968 - 2008	N/A(2)
Irigaray	1,832	(1)	1969 – 1996	688,302
Jab/West Jab	2,854	(1)	1972 – 2007	1,006,120
Ludeman	7,567	(1)	1967 – 2012	3,783,022
Jab/West Jab	2,854	(1)	1972 – 2007	1,006,120
Moore Ranch	3,503	134	1971 - 2011	1,162,202
Nine Mile	1,145	26	1972 - 2006	N/A(2)
Red Rim	138	(1)	1976 - 1981	N/A(2)
Reno Creek	10,151	42	1968 – 2013	N/A(2)

Notes:

1.         Core holes included in drill hole count.

2.         The total drill footage completed in this project area is not available.

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

7-2

March 2023

Figure 7-1:         Drill Hole Map for the Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Project Areas

7-3

March 2023

Figure 7‑2:         Drill Hole Map for the Allemand-Ross, Barge and Ludeman Project Areas

7-4

March 2023

Figure 7‑3:         Drill Hole Map for the Clarkson Hill and Nine Mile Project Areas

7-5

March 2023

Figure 7‑4:         Drill Hole Map for the Jab/West Jab Project Area

7-6

March 2023

Figure 7-5:         Drill Hole Map for the Red Rim Project Area

7-7

March 2023

7.2 Hydrogeologic Information

The hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the project areas include surface water and groundwater investigations, aquifer property investigations and groundwater modeling.

Surface water and groundwater investigations have been conducted with respect to water quality and surface water flow characteristics. These investigations were conducted as part of general site investigations and to satisfy regulatory requirements for baseline site characterization. Water quality testing has consisted of sampling wells, stream channels and impoundments within and near the project areas. At some projects, samples were collected regularly throughout the year according to state and federal regulatory requirements for baseline sampling plans. At other projects, limited sampling was conducted for general investigative purposes. Sampling programs conducted as part of baseline characterization for permitting must follow standard procedures for sample security and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), including chain-of-custody forms and appropriate duplicate and blank samples.

The dominant method for determining hydraulic properties of the aquifers in the project areas is in-situ testing using aquifer pump tests. Aquifer pump tests conducted included single and multi-well tests, where a well is pumped at a specific flow rate and the drawdown or response in neighboring wells is observed. The observations are analyzed to estimate parameters such as the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer. Aquifer pump test results allow in-situ characterization of the production zone aquifer to demonstrate sufficient geologic confinement and transmissivity for ISR operations. Aquifer pump testing has historically and is currently the industry standard for characterization of groundwater flow parameters. In some cases, lab physical testing of core samples for permeability and porosity was also conducted. Procedures related to core sampling and testing are discussed in Chapter 8.1 of this TRS.

The QP was unable to review all of the data associated with hydrogeologic investigations at the project areas due to the quantity of data. In addition, some of the data were not available for the review. It is the opinion of the QP that previous hydrogeologic studies were generally conducted using industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted. Historical mining in areas not previously evaluated for hydrogeologic conditions would suggest that physical characteristics of the host formations are conducive to ISR.

The level of hydrogeologic investigation conducted for the individual project areas generally correlates to the overall progress of the Project, as it relates to regulatory permitting and approval. Extensive hydrogeologic testing is required to obtain state and federal permits for ISR operations. UEC’s project areas included in this TRS are in varying stages of development. Some project areas such as Christensen Ranch have been developed and have had significant production, while other project areas such as Barge have not yet been permitted. Table 7-2 classifies the extent of hydrogeologic investigations that have been conducted in each project area. For additional details on the hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the project areas, please refer to the applicable permit documents for each project area, which are available from WDEQ.

7-8

March 2023

Table 7-2:         Extent of Project Area Hydrogeologic Investigations

Project Area	Surface Water Investigation	Groundwater Investigation	Aquifer Hydraulic Property Investigations	Groundwater Modeling	Notes
Allemand-Ross	Low	Medium	Medium	Low	The Allemand-Ross project area has not been permitted, although some historical and recent groundwater investigations have been conducted. The investigations include water quality analysis and aquifer testing.
Barge	Low	Low	Low	Low	The Barge project area has not been permitted for uranium recovery; therefore, limited hydrogeologic investigation has been conducted. The QP believes formations will support ISR based on nearby projects and operations.
Charlie	High	High	High	High	The Charlie project area has been extensively investigated. Analyses include single well and multiple well aquifer pump tests, groundwater models and water quality testing conducted in support of permitting actions and for mine planning.
Christensen Ranch	High	High	High	High	The Christensen Ranch project area is fully permitted and has been extensively investigated. Analyses include historical and recent aquifer pump tests, groundwater models and water quality testing conducted in support of state and federal permitting actions and for mine planning.
Clarkson Hill	Low	Low	Low	Low	The Clarkson Hill project area has not been permitted for uranium recovery, and no recent surface water or hydrogeologic investigations have been conducted. The QP believes investigation of the host formation hydrogeologic conditions is needed to support an economic analysis of ISR mining.
Irigaray	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Although a majority of the resources in the Irigaray project area are not permitted, historical groundwater investigations including aquifer pump testing and groundwater modeling have been conducted. Limited investigation has been conducted with respect to classifying surface water and groundwater quality outside of the permitted area.
Jab/West Jab	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	The Jab project area was included in a previous uranium recovery permitting action that was submitted in 2008 but then withdrawn. As part of the permitting action, considerable hydrogeologic investigation was conducted, including water quality and aquifer pump testing. Comprehensive hydrogeologic investigations at the West Jab project area have not been conducted, although some historical groundwater investigations occurred in the 1980s.

7-9

March 2023

Table 7-2:         Extent of Project Area Hydrogeologic Investigations (Continued)

Project Area	Surface Water Investigation	Groundwater Investigation	Aquifer Hydraulic Property Investigations	Groundwater Modeling	Notes
Ludeman	High	High	High	Medium	The Ludeman project area is fully permitted and has been extensively investigated. Analyses include historical and recent aquifer pump tests, groundwater modeling and water quality testing conducted in support of state and federal permitting actions and for mine planning.
Moore Ranch	High	High	High	High	The Moore Ranch project area is fully permitted and has been extensively investigated. Analyses include historical and recent aquifer pump tests, groundwater models and water quality analysis conducted in support of state and federal permitting actions and for mine planning.
Nine Mile	Low	Medium	Medium	Low	Hydrogeologic data for the Nine Mile project area, including permeability and groundwater velocity, were collected by RME and reported in Nigbor et al., 1982; however, the methods and number of aquifer tests are not reported. Pilot-scale ISR mining by RME and U.S. Bureau of Mines at the Nine Mile project area showed the formation has hydrogeologic properties amenable to ISR mining.
Red Rim	Low	Low	Low	Low	The Red Rim project area has not been permitted for uranium recovery, and no surface water or hydrogeologic investigations have been conducted. The QP believes investigation of the host formation hydrogeologic conditions is needed to support an economic analysis of ISR mining.
Reno Creek	Medium	Medium	High	Medium	Most of the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas have been extensively investigated as part of previous permitting actions. The Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas have not been permitted and, therefore, have not been as thoroughly investigated, although aquifer pump tests have been conducted in these areas. Testing to date is adequate to characterize the project area for regulatory and high-level operational purposes. Pilot-scale R&D ISR mining showed the formation has hydrogeologic properties amenable to ISR mining.

7-10

March 2023

7.3 Geotechnical Information

Project areas where geotechnical investigations have been conducted include Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman and Reno Creek. Investigations generally included shallow borings to determine soil properties and depth to groundwater for designs of plant building foundations and holding ponds. Additional details of the investigation at the Reno Creek project area are included in the TRS prepared for the Reno Creek Project (WWC, 2022). Details of investigations conducted at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas are included in the permit documents for the Willow Creek Project. These documents are available from the WDEQ. Geotechnical investigations will be conducted at the other project areas prior to construction of satellite plants, holding ponds and other associated infrastructure.

The QP noted that the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray facilities have already been constructed, and to the QP’s knowledge, these facilities are currently functioning without issue. The QP reviewed the geotechnical investigation conducted at the Reno Creek project area. In the opinion of the QP, the methodology of these investigations is appropriate, and the results are reasonable and acceptable.

7.4 Exploration Target

7.4.1 Charlie Project Area

An exploration target was estimated for several of the sand units at the Charlie project area. Exploration targets were defined for the E, F and G sand units. These units are deeper and were not as extensively drilled as the upper sand units A through D. While mineralization is present in drilling for the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands. Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored. Within the E sand there are areas where the drill data reflect sufficient thickness, grade and continuity to estimate indicated and inferred mineral resources as discussed in Chapter 11.

Methods

Exploration targets were estimated by applying a range of GT values, determined from available drill data, to an interpreted trend of mineralization. A trend for each of the exploration target areas was defined from drilling and/or geologic data based on a redox front interpreted from the drill data by the QP.

Specific parameters used included:

● The average GT by sand varied from a low value of 0.63 (7.0 ft @ 0.09% eU₃O₈) to a high value of 1.28 (8.5 ft @ 0.151% eU₃O₈).

● A width across the redox front of 50 ft was assumed for both the low and high cases.

● The length of trend was interpreted as 10,060 ft without accounting for the typical sinuosity observed along roll-fronts.

Exploration Target Estimate

Exploration target estimates at the Charlie project area are shown in Table 7-3.

7-11

March 2023

In the opinion of the QP, the methods used and results of the exploration target for the Charlie project area are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry. However, exploration target is conceptual in nature and does not meet the SEC standards identified in S-K 1300 to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and, as such, there is no certainty that the exploration target provided herein will be realized.

7.4.2 Jab/West Jab

The exploration target was estimated for several of the trends at the Jab/West Jab project area. The mineral outline in the Jab area is mapped with sufficient data to provide an estimate of the exploration target. Table 7-3 contains the results from this estimate. These estimates were derived from drill holes with mineral intercept data where the spacing was too sparse to classify the resource. In the future, increased drilling in this area could upgrade this target resource to a classified resource.

Methods

the exploration target for the Jab/West Jab project area was derived from drill holes that were spaced too far apart (800+ ft) to be considered inferred. Resources were estimated based on actual exploration results, on the basis of substantial geological evidence, by projecting mineralization along the defined redox front using the nearest available data points in areas of limited sampling data. The available data were sufficient to estimate the exploration target but not sufficient to verify geological and grade continuity to a level of confidence that would support the classification of the resource.

Exploration Target Estimate

The exploration target estimates at the Jab/West Jab project area are shown in Table 7-3.

In the opinion of the QP, the methods used and results of the exploration target for the Jab/West Jab project area are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry. However, exploration target is conceptual in nature and does not meet the SEC standards identified in S-K 1300 to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and, as such, there is no certainty that the exploration target provided herein will be realized.

Table 7-3:         Project Exploration Target

Exploration Target	GT Cutoff	Approximate Average Grade % eU3O8	Approximate Ore Tons (000s)	Approximate eU3O8 (lbs)
Charlie
Exploration Target	N/A	0.090 – 0.151	232 - 282	417,000 – 850,000
Charlie Project Area Exploration Target Total Estimate			232 - 282	417,000 – 850,000
Jab
Exploration Target	0.25	0.034	205	138,000
West Jab
Exploration Target	0.25	0.091	110	200,000
Jab/West Jab Project Area Exploration Target Total Estimate			315	338,000

7-12

March 2023

8.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

8.1 Typical and Standard Industry Methods

UEC has not carried out any sampling on the Project. Mineral resource estimates are based on historical drill hole data that were acquired by UEC. UEC has no direct knowledge of the sample preparation, analyses and security for this work and has relied on information provided in previous reporting. Based on the QP’s review of the Project data and previous reporting, it is the QP’s opinion that exploration was conducted and documented in accordance with industry standards in place at the time the work was performed. Details on sample preparation, analysis and security are not available for all the work previously performed. Mineral resource estimates are based on data from drill hole gamma ray logs and laboratory assay of core samples. The QP has verified these data as described in Chapter 9.

UEC has QA/QC procedures to guide drilling, logging, sampling, analytical testing, sample handling and storage. UEC has followed these procedures as they relate to handling and storing previously collected data.

The sample preparation, analyses and security procedures typically used in previous Project work are described below, along with UEC’s procedures for sample and data handling and storage.

Downhole Geophysical Logging

Geophysical logging was routinely conducted for drill holes on the Project. Geophysical logs typically collected data for gamma ray, single-point resistance, spontaneous potential and drill hole deviation. Natural gamma logs provide an indirect measurement of uranium content by logging gamma radiation in counts per second (CPS) at 0.1 ft intervals. CPS are then converted to equivalent U₃O₈ (eU₃O₈). The conversion requires an algorithm and several correction factors that are applied to the CPS value. The correction factors include a k-factor, dead time factor and water factor. K-factors and dead times vary from probe to probe and can also vary in each probe over time. Industry standards include regular recalibration of gamma ray probes at a U.S. Department of Energy test pit. The nearest test pit locations are Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado.

Downhole deviation surveys were also routinely conducted in drill holes and provide true depth, azimuth and distance from collar location. Industry standards include evaluating deviation and applying true depth corrections, if necessary. No true depth corrections were required for the Project.

Drill hole locations were surveyed using traditional or GPS methods, depending on when the work was performed. All recent drill hole collar locations were surveyed using Trimble GPS technology to provide easting and northing coordinates and elevations.

Drill hole locations and logs were provided to UEC in paper and/or digital formats. UEC transferred paper locations and logs to digital formats. Any field geologist’s lithology logs were also included for further evaluation. UEC maintains Project drill hole data on a local, secure server with physical backups.

8-1

March 2023

Core Drilling

Cores are typically collected at the drill by the supervising geologist, then boxed and labeled with appropriate identification. Core boxes are transported to a locked storage facility and stored securely until core samples are prepared and sent under chain-of-custody for laboratory analysis. Geophysical logging of core holes is typically performed using the same procedures as in conventional rotary drill holes.

In general, core sample preparation and analysis followed standard industry practices. These practices included: measurement and detailed geologic descriptions, evaluation using hand-held scintillometer, correlation with down hole geophysical logs, bagging and sealing to prevent oxidation, and boxing to maintain core integrity.

Core samples from the Project were analyzed by multiple independent laboratories including Core Laboratories in Denver, Colorado and Houston, Texas; Energy Laboratories in Casper, Wyoming; J.E. Litz and Associates of Golden, Colorado; Weatherford Laboratories (now Stratum Reservoir) of Casper, Wyoming; Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. (now Pace Analytical Services, LLC) of Sheridan, Wyoming; and Skyline Laboratories of Wheatridge, Colorado.

Equilibrium Studies

The great majority of the data available for estimating mineral resources is radiometric logging data from which the uranium content is interpreted. Radiometric equilibrium conditions may affect the grade and spatial location of uranium in the mineralization. Generally, the equilibrium ratio of chemical U₃O₈ (c) to radiometric eU₃O₈ (e) is assumed to be one, i.e., equilibrium is assumed. Equilibrium occurs when the relationship of uranium to its naturally occurring radioactive progeny is in balance. Oxygenated groundwater moving through a deposit can disperse uranium down the groundwater gradient, leaving most of the progeny in place. The dispersed uranium will be in a favorable state of disequilibrium (c/e greater than one), while the depleted area will be in an unfavorable state (c/e less than one). The effect of disequilibrium can vary within a deposit and has been shown to be variable from the oxidized to the reduced side of the roll-fronts.

Previous reports for six of the project areas determined that data were adequate to evaluate equilibrium conditions. All of these evaluations concluded that the project areas exhibited radiometric equilibrium. Data for the remaining project areas were not adequate to evaluate radiometric equilibrium conditions.

Lithologic Logs

Standard industry practice is to collect drill cutting samples from all drill holes, typically at five ft depth intervals. These samples are documented by a field geologist, who prepares a lithologic log for the drill hole. Lithologic logs are not used directly in the preparation of mineral resource estimates, but they are valuable for confirming geophysical log interpretation and for identifying redox conditions based on sample color. Identifying redox conditions in the host formation is critical for the interpretation and mapping of roll-fronts.

8-2

March 2023

Groundwater Quality Testing

The pre-operational baseline collection period utilized guidance from WDEQ/LQD Guideline 4, WDEQ/WQD Guideline 8 and NRC Regulatory Guides 4.14 and 4.15 to ensure proper QA/QC procedures were implemented during all sampling efforts.

All samples were sent to labs where testing was conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

Key QA/QC procedures utilized included:

● establishing monitoring locations and frequency of sampling efforts in accordance with applicable WDEQ and NRC rules and regulations;

● ensuring all field parameters were stabilized for three consecutive readings prior to sample collection as required when low-flow sampling techniques are used (WDEQ/LQD Guideline 4, Reference Document 10);

● adhering to all sample preservation and handling requirements;

● establishing a documented chain-of-custody program;

● collecting random duplicate samples as required;

● collecting field blank samples as required; and

● maintaining current field equipment calibration schedules as required by the manufacturer.

8.2 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

In the opinion of the QP:

● drill programs included downhole gamma ray, spontaneous potential and single point resistance logs. Industry-standard practice is that gamma ray probes are calibrated at a U.S. Department of Energy test pit and are checked routinely in a local bore hole as a QC measure. Uranium grades (eU₃O₈) are based entirely on probe data and are considered to have adequate QC. Both the probe use and QC measures are in line with uranium industry-standard operating procedures;

● sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for core hole drill programs are in line with industry-standard methods for roll-front uranium deposits, but the data are used only for disequilibrium studies;

● digital database construction and security are adequate. The physical database is properly organized and secure; and

● data ware subject to validation and checks that are considered appropriate and consistent with industry standards.

The QP did not review all procedures conducted for sample preparation, analysis and security for each sample due to the quantity of the associated data. In the opinion of the QP, previous operators/owners used industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted. The QP is of the opinion that the quality of the uranium analytical data is sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation without limitations on mineral resource confidence categories.

8-3

March 2023

9.0    DATA VERIFICATION

9.1 Summary

The following is a summary of all data verification efforts for each project area discussed in this TRS.

Allemand-Ross

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Allemand-Ross project area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs and historical reports developed by Conoco intent on developing the property as a production center. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

● Paper records of historical radiometric data were input into a spreadsheet. Radiometric log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.

● Historical drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps. Field checks of historical drill hole locations were conducted, and the locations were found to be within acceptable tolerances. Historical drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the North American Datum (NAD) 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes. Approximately 10% of the historical drill holes were resurveyed.

● Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey-grade GPS equipment.

● Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historical data.

● Since no historical core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the project area was conducted in 2005 with the completion of 11 holes.

● WWC prepared an independent Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) Technical Report on resources for this project area in April 2019 (WWC, 2019c). The current resource estimate is based on that report.

Barge

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Barge project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

● The QP reviewed the mineral resource model and, in the QP’s opinion, the model is accurate and reliable.

● An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project was prepared in April 2019 by BRS, Inc. (2019a). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Charlie

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Charlie project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

● An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in April 2019 (BRS, 2019c), and a Preliminary Economic Assessment was prepared in September 2019 (BRS, 2019d) by BRS, Inc. The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of these reports and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

9-1

March 2023

Christensen Ranch and Irigaray

● The resource estimate is based on historical drill holes with uranium assays by gamma logging and a limited number of core holes with chemical assays. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

● Both the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas have been successfully mined since 1978 and are currently on care and maintenance. Past production from both project areas confirms the presence of significant mineral resources that were estimated using similar methods.

● A study was conducted in 1982 that compared the chemical assays of 77 historical core holes drilled on the property with radiometric data that had been reinterpreted. Conclusions of the study indicate that the total grade thicknesses (GTs) are well within the margin of error expected in such calculations, but that radiometric interpretations showed a bias. The original estimates underestimated the in-place grades and overestimated the in-place thicknesses of mineralized zones. It was concluded that these biases effectively offset one another (Scott Wilson Mining, 2010).

● Another study was conducted in 1994 with prompt fission neutron (PFN) logging equipment to determine equilibrium and the extent of remobilized uranium in a producing wellfield. Core samples were also collected and chemically assayed to check the accuracy of the PFN logging and further determine disequilibrium. The study found that the PFN logging determined the same vertical and horizontal mineralization limits as the gamma logs. Core hole chemical assays were also compared with historical gamma logs, and the results indicated reasonably good correlations between the two (Scott Wilson Mining, 2010).

● A WWC professional previously worked at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas from 1995 until 1999. During that time, he was the only on-staff geologist at the project areas and was responsible for reviewing thousands of logs for mine unit planning and development and has personal knowledge of the data quality.

Clarkson Hill

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Clarkson Hill project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

● An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project was prepared in July 2017 by BRS, Inc. (2017b). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Jab/West Jab

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Jab/West Jab project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

● The QP reviewed a random sampling of 10% of the original logs and compared the GT, intercept depth and location to the mineral intercept table used in the GT contour mineral resource estimate.

9-2

March 2023

● Confirmation drilling to validate historical data on the Jab portion of the project area was conducted by previous owners in 2006 and 2007. 20 offset holes were drilled within 10 ft of the surface location of historical holes. With respect to total GT of all 20 verification holes, the variance from historical holes was less than 1%; however, variation in individual holes was higher. The GT variation of offset holes ranged from 39% less to 142% more than the historical holes.

● An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in April 2019 by BRS, Inc. (2019b). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Ludeman

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Ludeman project area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs, reports and digital databases. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

● Historical radiometric data log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.

● Historical drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps. Historical drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the NAD 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes. Approximately 10% of the historical drill holes were resurveyed.

● Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey-grade GPS equipment.

● Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historical data.

● The Ludeman project area has been host to two successful pilot plant studies. The Luenberger Pilot was in production for 12 months from two wellfields, which recovered a combined 14,600 lbs U₃O₈. Recovery rates in the two wellfields were 68% and 27% of estimated in-place resources, and peak head grades were 175 ppm and 32 ppm (UNC Teton-Nedco, 1983). The North Platte Pilot was in production for five months with total recovery of 1,515 lbs of U₃O₈ at a recovery rate of 27% (Ortiz, 2005). Baseline investigations for a third pilot study were conducted by the APS Commission; however, actual pilot-scale production was never conducted. Laboratory leach testing noted that the overall recovery averaged 76% of estimated in-place resource (Hazen, 1984).

● WWC prepared an independent NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources for this project area in April 2019 (WWC, 2019b). The current resource estimate is based on that report.

Moore Ranch

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Moore Ranch project area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs and lithologic logs developed by Conoco, a major U.S. company, intent on developing the property as a production center. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

● Paper records of historical radiometric data were input into a spreadsheet. Radiometric log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.

9-3

March 2023

● Historical drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps. Historical drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the NAD 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes. Approximately 10% of the historical drill holes were resurveyed.

● Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey-grade GPS equipment.

● Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historical data.

● Since no historical core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the project area was conducted in 2006 and 2008. The cores were assayed to verify historical data, and two were used for leach testing.

● WWC prepared an independent NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources for this project area in April 2019 (WWC, 2019a). The current resource estimate is based on that report.

Nine Mile

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Nine Mile project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

● The Nine Mile project area was host to several pilot-scale ISR studies in the 1970s performed by RME, including a joint study with U.S. Bureau of Mines from 1977 to 1979. Pilot-scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50 ft radius. The testing demonstrated that uranium recovery using a sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide lixiviant was successful (Nigbor et al., 1982).

● An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in March 2018 by BRS, Inc. (2018). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Red Rim

● Data used for the resource estimate at the Red Rim project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

● An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in March 2017 by BRS, Inc. (2017a). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

Reno Creek

● WWC prepared an independent TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project, Campbell County, WY USA,” which was current on December 31, 2021. That report details the resource estimate data verification for the Reno Creek project area (WWC, 2022).

9.2 Limitations

As noted in previous sections, all data used for mineral resource estimates is from historical drill holes and core samples that were collected by previous owners of the properties. In some instances, the data are not in the possession of UEC, and therefore were not available for review and verification by the QP. In addition, due to the sheer quantity of data associated with the project areas, the QP was unable to review all of the data.

9-4

March 2023

The QP visited all of the project areas except the Barge project area, which was inaccessible.

9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy

Based on the QP’s review of the Project data and previous reporting, it is the QP’s opinion that exploration was conducted and documented in accordance with industry standards in place at the time the work was performed. The QP finds the historical and more recent exploration data and the overall data adequacy to be reasonably sufficient for applying QA/QC techniques. The QP has verified the Project data as described above. The significant delineation and production drilling conducted at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas has repeatedly shown that the exploration methods used for the Project produce data that can be verified in a production scenario.

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

9-5

March 2023

10.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

10.1 Summary of Properties

UEC plans to use an ISR mineral extraction process to recover uranium from the host sandstone formations in the project areas. UEC will employ a leaching solution, lixiviant, composed of an oxidant and sodium bicarbonate, to bring the uranium to the surface through a series of injection and recovery wells.

The proposed mineral processing for the Project is the same as is currently being used or proposed at other ISR operations in Texas, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The components of uranium ISR are typically the following:

● Wellfields to inject the lixiviant solution and recover the uranium, which is pumped to the surface by recovery wells and then to a satellite plant;

● Processing in a satellite plant, which recovers dissolved uranium through an IX circuit onto resin, and transportation of the loaded resin to a CPP; and

● Further processing in a CPP, which includes the following:

o Elution Circuit to remove the uranium from the IX resins and produce a rich eluate;

o Yellowcake circuit to precipitate the uranium as yellowcake from the rich eluate; and

o Yellowcake dewatering, drying and packaging circuit to filter, dry and package the yellowcake for shipment.

UEC has not performed any metallurgical testing in the project areas since acquiring them. A summary of the mineral processing and metallurgical testing previously conducted for the project areas is included in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1:         Project Area Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Summary

Project Area	Notes
Allemand-Ross	No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Allemand-Ross project area or in-situ.
Barge	Mineralized material in the vicinity of the Barge project area was mined by open pit methods and recovered by conventional mineral processing. In addition, testing by RME of ISR at the Bear Creek mine utilized acidic lixiviant in various concentrations ranging from 5 to 12 mg/L H2SO4. The average uranium content in the effluent ranged from 50 to 80 ppm. The report recommends a lixiviant concentration of 3 mg/L H2SO4. Porosity in the sand of the Wasatch Formation was 28%. However, alkaline lixiviants commonly used in ISR were not tested (BRS, 2019a).

10-1

March 2023

Table 10-1:         Project Area Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Summary (Continued)

Project Area	Notes
Charlie	In 1994, PRI entered a joint venture agreement with Charlie project area owner Cotter and completed a feasibility study for development as an ISR mine. As part of the feasibility study PRI completed a comprehensive bench scale leach test in July 1994 (PRI, 1995) which concluded that the mineralized material could be successfully leached using carbonate lixiviants similar to those used at other Wyoming ISR operations including PRI’s Highland facility. Metallurgical testing concluded that an average uranium recovery of 76.5% could be achieved with a neutral alkaline lixiviant (pH 7.4 s.u., 150 psi O2, 0.5 g/l HCO3). While the uranium: vanadium ratio of the mineralization at the Charlie project area is reported to be 1.41:1, only trace amounts of vanadium and other metals were detected in the leach solutions.
Christensen Ranch/ Irigaray	Both the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas have had extensive ISR uranium production. Christensen Ranch produced some 3.7 million pounds U3O8 from 1989 until 2000 and approximately 6.5-million lbs in total. Irigaray produced some 0.74 million pounds U3O8 from 1978 until 2000. There is an existing satellite IX plant at Christensen Ranch and an existing CPP at Irigaray.
Clarkson Hill	No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Clarkson Hill project area or in-situ.
Jab/West Jab	UCC completed metallurgical testing of core samples from the Jab project area in 1981 to develop an acid leach using an on-site heap leach. Bench scale tests concluded that 95% recovery could be achieved using 35 lbs of H2SO4 per ton of mineralized material as a lixiviant with 4 lbs per ton of mineralized material NaClO3 as an oxidant. The study recommended using 85% recovery and 45 lbs per ton H2SO4 for feasibility purposes. Alkaline lixiviants commonly used in ISR were not tested. Hydrological studies completed in 1984 indicate that, except for the RD mineralized area, the geohydrological setting of the Jab/West Jab project area is suitable for ISR (BRS, 2019b).
Ludeman	No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Ludeman project area or in-situ; however, Chapter 9.1 describes two successful pilot plant studies that were conducted by previous owners.
Moore Ranch	In 2008, Uranium One contracted with Energy Laboratories of Casper, Wyoming to perform agitation leach tests on cores from the Moore Ranch project area. The tests were performed on samples from two core holes using sodium bicarbonate (2 g/L NaHCO3) as the carbonate complexing agent source and hydrogen peroxide (0.5 g/L H2O2) as the uranium oxidizing agent. The tests were conducted at ambient pressure. Uranium recoveries from the core samples were 82.1% and 87.6%, averaging 84.8% (WWC, 2019a).
Nine Mile	No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Nine Mile project area or in-situ; however, Chapter 9.1 describes a successful pilot ISR and leachability study that was conducted by RME and the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Red Rim	No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the project area or in-situ.
Reno Creek	The mineral processing and metallurgical testing completed at the Reno Creek project area is described in detail in the Reno Creek TRS, which was current as of December 31, 2021 (WWC, 2022).

10-2

March 2023

10.2 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy

The QP considers the metallurgical and physical test work and results to date to be adequate to support general process design and selection. Pump testing and core analysis demonstrate that the aquifers have sufficient porosity, permeability and transmissivity to support ISR operations, in the project areas where these data have been collected. Equilibrium testing demonstrates that, in general, positive equilibrium exists which indicates that uranium is present where gamma data suggest it is present and at the grade indicated by the probe data. Laboratory leach testing demonstrates that the uranium can be solubilized using a carbonate and oxygen based lixiviant where these data have been collected.

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

10-3

March 2023

11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

11.1 Mineral Resource Assumptions and Parameters Applied to Each Project Area

The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:

● Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones; and

● Resources are located below the water table.

The primary method for estimating Project mineral resources is the GT contour method. The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the disequilibrium factor and the ore zone density.

The Delaunay Triangulation Method was used to estimate resources at the Reno Creek project area and is described in detail in the Reno Creek TRS (WWC, 2022). At the Charlie, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas, inferred mineral resources were estimated by projecting along an identified redox boundary or mineral trend. Mineral resources for a small portion of the Red Rim project area were estimated using a polygonal method, where GT values are applied across a defined localized polygonal area based on the distance to the nearest drill hole.

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the project areas are summarized in Table 11-1.

11.1.1 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction

Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the project areas can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb and an estimated recovery factor of 80% which is consistent with leach testing results (where applicable) and is typical in uranium ISR projects. The cutoffs were determined separately for each project area with the unique aspects of each project area taken into consideration.

Uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: 1) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco’s combination of Ux Consulting (UxC) and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022), 2) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb.), 3) UxC’s price forecast, and 4) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. Table 11-2 contains the UxC uranium price forecast as of Q4 of 2021 (UxC, 2021).

11-1

March 2023

Table 11‑1:         Methods, Parameters and Cutoffs by Project Area

Project Area	Mineral Resource Estimation Method	Disequilibrium Factor	Bulk Density (ft3/ton)	Cutoff Parameters1
				Min. Grade (% U3O8)	Min. Thickness (ft)	Min. GT
Allemand-Ross	GT Contour	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.25
Barge	GT Contour	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.25
Charlie	GT Contour (Indicated) Projected (Inferred)	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.20
Christensen Ranch	GT Contour	1.0	17.0	0.04	2	0.25
Clarkson Hill	GT Contour	1.0	16.0	0.02	2	0.20
Irigaray	GT Contour	1.0	17.0	0.04	2	0.25
Jab/West Jab	GT Contour	1.0	16.0	0.02	-	0.25
Ludeman	GT Contour	1.0	17.0	0.02	2	0.25
Moore Ranch	GT Contour	1.0	16.0	0.02	2	0.30
Nine Mile	GT Contour and Projected (Inferred)2	1.0	16.0	0.015	-	0.25
Red Rim	GT Contour (Indicated)3 Polygonal (Indicated)4 GT Contour (Inferred)5 Projected (Inferred)6	1.0	16.0	-	-	0.25
Reno Creek	Delaunay Triangulation	1.0	17.0	0.01	1	0.20

Notes:

1. Cutoff parameters are discrete; therefore, the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.

2. Mineral resources at Nine Mile that were estimated using a GT contour method were previously classified as indicated but have been reclassified as inferred due to increased risk regarding surface access.

3. Inferred resources were projected along principal redox fronts with width, thickness and grade projected from the nearest data points.

4. Where bracketed by drill data.

5. A small area was calculated based on polygonal methods, where the polygon was limited by the property line or one-half the distance to adjacent holes with low grade mineralization.

6. Where not bracketed fully by drill data.

7. Some inferred mineralization was projected to extend along a defined trend.

11-2

March 2023

Table 11-2:         UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U₃O₈)

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
UxC Low Price Midpoint	$36.00	$46.37	$48.11	$52.13	$56.47
UxC Mid Price Midpoint	$36.00	$40.02	$41.33	$42.59	$43.02
UxC High Price Midpoint	$36.00	$43.18	$44.14	$46.71	$48.39

In the opinion of the QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:

● First, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb.

● Second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021 such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (Sprott, 2021) and the physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd. (Yue Li, 2021), which effectively remove uranium supply from the market.

● Third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors (Murtaugh and Chia, 2021) will increase demand for uranium.

● Finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last 3 years, with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021 due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

For the above reasons, the $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

11.1.2 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates

Measured, indicated and inferred resources at the project areas are classified based on the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The specific criteria for classifying resources as measured, indicated or inferred vary by project area depending on the methodology used. Table 11-3 details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the project areas.

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the project areas:

● First, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed.

● Second, as shown on the geologic cross sections (Figures 6-3a, 6-3b, 6-5a, 6-6a and 6‑8a), the subsurface geology within the project areas is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas.

● Third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design.

11-3

March 2023

Table 11-3:         Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area

Project Area	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Allemand-Ross	0 – 70	70 – 200	200 – 400
Barge	-	50 – 100	-
Charlie	-	Up to 4001	N/A2
Christensen Ranch	0 - 100	100 – 300	300 – 500
Clarkson Hill	-	-	50 - 1003
Irigaray	0 - 100	100 – 300	300 – 500
Jab/West Jab	50 – 100	50 – 100	-
Ludeman	0 – 70	70 – 200	200 – 400
Moore Ranch	0 – 70	70 – 200	200 – 400
Nine Mile	-	-	50-100
Red Rim	-	N/A4	N/A2
Reno Creek	0 – 50	50 – 250	250 – 500

Notes:

1. Indicated mineral resources were calculated along redox fronts. The maximum width projected was 50 ft, and the maximum projection along the redox front between drill holes was 200 ft.

2. Inferred mineral resources were estimated for these areas where the location of the redox front or mineral trend could be reasonably interpreted based on drill data, without using specific drill hole spacing.

3. Mineralization in drill holes with 50-100 ft spacing was classified as inferred mineral resources due to the lack of recent drilling to verify the pre-2008 drill data.

4. Indicated mineral resources were calculated along defined trends, where drill data bracketed the mineral trend, without using specific drill hole spacing.

● Finally, historical production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman and Reno Creek project areas. Similarly, commercial production at the Smith Highland Mine is just south of Allemand-Ross and Barge, and commercial production has been undertaken at the Lost Creek ISR Project, which is also in the Battle Spring Formation just south of the Jab/West Jab project area.

This combination of drill hole spacing, well known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected lead the QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.

11.2 Site-by-Site Summaries

Cautionary Statement:

This TRS is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves, which may result in economic and technical failure and may adversely impact future profitability.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the project areas. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in Table 11-4 and estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in Table 11-5.

11-4

March 2023

Table 11‑4:         Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Allemand-Ross
Measured	0.25	0.085	246	417,000
Indicated	0.25	0.066	32	42,400
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.083	278	459,400
Barge
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.051	4,301	4,361,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.051	4,301	4,361,000
Charlie
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.2	0.123	1,255	3,100,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.2	0.123	1,255	3,100,000
Christensen Ranch
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.073	6,555	9,596,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.073	6,555	9,596,000
Clarkson Hill
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	N/A	N/A	0	0
Total Measured and Indicated	N/A	N/A	0	0
Irigaray
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.076	3,881	5,899,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.076	3,881	5,899,000
Jab/West Jab
Measured	0.25	0.072	1,621	2,335,000
Indicated	0.25	0.077	253	392,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.073	1,874	2,727,000
Ludeman
Measured	0.25	0.094	2,674	5,016,900
Indicated	0.25	0.088	2,660	4,696,900
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.091	5,334	9,713,800
Moore Ranch
Measured	0.3	0.06	2,675	3,210,000
Indicated	N/A	N/A	0	0
Total Measured and Indicated	0.3	0.06	2,675	3,210,000

11-5

March 2023

Table 11‑4:         Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary (Continued)

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons (000s)	eU3O8 (lbs)
Nine Mile
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	N/A	N/A	0	0
Total Measured and Indicated	N/A	N/A	0	0
Red Rim
Measured	N/A	N/A	0	0
Indicated	0.25	0.17	337	1,142,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.25	0.17	337	1,142,000
Reno Creek
Measured	0.2	0.043	14,990	12,920,000
Indicated	0.2	0.039	16,980	13,070,000
Total Measured and Indicated	0.2	0.041	31,970	25,990,000
Project Totals
Measured			22,206	23,898,900
Indicated			36,254	42,299,300
Total Measured and Indicated			58,460	66,198,200

Notes:

1. 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. Resources are reported as of December 31, 2021.

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. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

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

11-6

March 2023

Table 11‑5:         Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

Mineral Resource	GT Cutoff	Average Grade % eU3O8	Ore Tons	eU3O8
			(000s)	(lbs)
Allemand-Ross
Inferred	0.25	0.098	1,275	2,496,000
Barge
Inferred	N/A	N/A	0	0
Charlie
Inferred	0.2	0.12	411	988,000
Christensen Ranch
Inferred	N/A	N/A	0	0
Clarkson Hill
Inferred	0.2	0.058	957	1,113,000
Irigaray
Inferred	0.25	0.068	104	141,000
Jab/West Jab
Inferred	0.25	0.06	1,402	1,677,000
Ludeman
Inferred	0.25	0.073	866	1,258,000
Moore Ranch
Inferred	0.3	0.047	46	43,700
Nine Mile
Inferred	0.25	0.036	3,405	4,308,000
Red Rim
Inferred	0.25	0.163	473	1,539,000
Reno Creek
Inferred	0.2	0.039	1,920	1,490,000
Project Inferred Totals
Inferred			10,859	15,053,700

Notes:

1. Sum of inferred tons and lbs may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.

2. Inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

3. Resources are reported as of December 31, 2021.

4. All reported inferred resources except Jab/West Jab 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. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

11-7

March 2023

11.3 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

● Assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;

● Changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;

● Changes to future commodity demand;

● Variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;

● Density assignments; and

● Changes to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Project.

● Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors, and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any three-dimensional location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;

● Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several automated techniques. The host units are relatively flat lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present. A few uncertain roll-front interpretations were noted. Some of the interpretations were revised, but additional work is needed to ensure a remaining small percentage of interpretations are verified; and

● Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Project that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Project.

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Project.

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The QP expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

11-8

March 2023

11.4 QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate

In the opinion of the QP, it is difficult to fully resolve all issues relating to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. However, the work undertaken on the Project to date, both through historical in-situ and recent laboratory testing, demonstrates that uranium can be extracted using common industry methods and standard leaching technology. Further, through work conducted in support of receiving regulatory authorization, UEC has demonstrated that the host sandstones at several project areas have the hydraulic properties required for in-situ extraction with adequate confinement by overlying and underlying intervals. Finally, the host sandstones of the Wasatch and Fort Union formations have been mined in the PRB since the 1970s using ISR technology, with many million lbs extracted under similar conditions to those of the project areas.

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

11-9

March 2023

12.0    MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

12-1

March 2023

13.0    MINING METHODS

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

13-1

March 2023

14.0    PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

14-1

March 2023

15.0    INFRASTRUCTURE

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

15-1

March 2023

16.0    MARKET STUDIES

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

16-1

March 2023

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

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

17-1

March 2023

18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

18-1

March 2023

19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

This chapter is not relevant to this TRS.

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

19-1

March 2023

20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas are located in the PRB of northeast Wyoming. The projects lie in the center of one of the most prolific uranium producing regions for ISR in Wyoming. The region is home to three producing ISR operations: Cameco’s Smith Ranch/Highland Project; Energy Fuels Inc.’s Nichols Ranch Project; and Strata Energy’s Ross Project.

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the GGRB of southwest Wyoming. Two significant uranium projects that are near Jab/West Jab include Ur-Energy Inc.’s Lost Creek Uranium Project and Rio Tinto’s Sweetwater Uranium Mill.

The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the WRB of central Wyoming. The Gas Hills Uranium District is located approximately 40 miles to the west of the Clarkson Hill project area. Although it is not in the WRB, Ur-Energy’s permitted but unconstructed Shirley Basin ISR Project is located 30 miles to the southeast of the Clarkson Hill project area.

Table 20-1 presents the status of significant uranium ISR projects in the PRB and GGRB.

Table 20-1:         Significant Uranium Projects in the Powder River, Wind River and Greater Green River Basins

Company	Project	Basin	Distance to Nearest TRS Project Area (miles)	Status	CPPs	Satellites	Licensed Capacity (mmlbs)
Cameco	Smith Ranch/Highland	Powder River	2.0	Care and Maintenance	1	5	5.5
Energy Fuels	Nichols Ranch	Powder River	3.8	Care and Maintenance	1	2	2
Strata	Ross Project	Powder River	66.2	Operating	0	1	3
Ur-Energy	Lost Creek	Great Divide	7.4	Operating	1	0	2.2
Rio Tinto	Sweetwater	Great Divide	11.4	Care and Maintenance	1	0	4.1

The QP has not verified the information from the adjacent properties. In addition, this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineral resources for the project areas. The data presented above has been sourced from public information obtained from company, state and federal websites.

20-1

March 2023

21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

To the QP’s knowledge, there is no additional information or explanation necessary to make this TRS understandable and not misleading.

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

21-1

March 2023

22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

This independent TRS for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth in S-K 1300. The objective of this IA is to disclose the mineral resources at the Project.

22.1 Conclusions

Based on the density of drilling, continuity of geology and mineralization, testing and data verification, the mineral resource estimates meet the criteria for measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources as shown in Tables 11-4 and 11-5.

Assumptions regarding uranium prices, mining costs and metallurgical recoveries are forward-looking, and the actual prices, costs and performance results may be significantly different. The QP is not aware of any relevant factors which would materially affect the mineral resource estimates. Additionally, the QP is not aware of any environmental, regulatory, land tenure or political factors that will materially affect the Project as a whole from moving forward to mineral resource recovery operations.

The QP has weighed the potential benefits and risks presented in this TRS and has found the Project to be potentially viable and meriting further evaluation and development.

22.2 Risks and Opportunities

This TRS is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QP can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. Bench-scale tests have been performed on various core samples from the Project. The most significant potential risks to recovering the resources presented in this TRS will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands. The amount of uranium ultimately recovered from the Project is subject to in-situ wellfield recovery processes that can be impacted by variable geochemical and hydrogeological conditions.

UEC has not completed a Pre-feasibility nor a Feasibility study to apply detailed capital and operational expenditures to the Project. Since these studies have not been completed for the Project, there has not been a formal demonstration of economic and technical capability. Therefore, since mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic value, there is uncertainty in the Project achieving acceptable levels of mineral resource production with a positive economic outcome. Nevertheless, it is the QP’s opinion that the Project risks are low since UEC has permitted the Project to the point at which construction and operations can commence within specific project areas.

In addition, the Project is located in a state where ISR projects have been and are operated successfully. The ISR mining method has been proven effective at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas and has been tested to various degrees with leachability or pilot studies at seven other project areas.

The Project is located in sparsely populated areas, with the exception of the Nine Mile project area. The basic infrastructure necessary to support an ISR mining operation — power, water and transportation — are located within reasonable proximity of the project areas.

There are some inherent risks to the Project similar in nature to mining projects in general and more specifically to uranium mining projects:

● Market and Contracts – Unlike other commodities, most uranium does not trade on an open market. Contracts are negotiated privately by buyers and sellers. Changes in the price of uranium can have a significant impact on the outcome of the Project.

22-1

March 2023

● Uranium Recovery and Processing – This TRS is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QP can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. Bench-scale tests have been performed on various core samples from the Project. The most significant potential risks to meeting the production results presented in this TRS will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands.

● Wellfield Operations – Reduced hydraulic conductivity in the formation due to chemical precipitation during production, lower natural hydraulic conductivities than estimated, high flare and/or recovery of significant amounts of groundwater, the need for additional injection wells to increase uranium recovery rates, variability in the uranium concentration in the host sands and discontinuity of the mineralized zone confining layers are all potential issues that could occur. These conditions could limit recovery of the mineral resources delineated across the Project. The risks associated with these potential issues have been minimized to the greatest extent possible by delineation and hydraulic studies of the sites.

● Permitting - All or portions of five project areas are permitted, but the remaining seven project areas need to be permitted. Specific risks associated with permitting vary by project area, as discussed in Chapters 3.2 and 3.3.

● Social and Political - As with any uranium project in the USA, there will undoubtedly be some social/political/environmental opposition to development of the Project. The Project sites are relatively remote. As such, there are very few people that could be directly impacted by the Project. Wyoming is known to be friendly to mining and has a well-established, robust regulatory framework. The Project has strong local support, including from nearby agriculture operations. While ever present with permitting projects, social, political or environmental opposition to the Project is not likely to be a major risk.

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

22-2

March 2023

23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources determined by this TRS to indicate favorable conditions for future extraction from the Project.

The QP recommends that the mineral resources in this TRS be used for development of a Preliminary Feasibility Study. Estimated cost based on UEC hiring a third-party engineering firm is $120,000. Additionally, UEC should advance the baseline studies necessary to effectuate regulatory authorizations required to mine at the unpermitted project areas as the resources from these project areas become necessary to provide material to the Irigaray CPP. Estimated costs based on UEC hiring a third-party engineering firm is $400,000 per property. Finally, the QP recommends continuing to maintain federal lode claims, state and private mineral leases along with surface use agreements to accommodate future oil and gas drilling and Project development.

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

23-1

March 2023

24.0 REFERENCES

Atherley, B., C. Heidenreich, and J. Moran, 1981, Nine Mile Lake Geological Evaluation, Unpublished report, Rocky Mountain Energy, April 22, 1981.

BRS, Inc., 2017a, Red Rim Uranium Project Mineral Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report, Carbon County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Anfield Resource, Inc., March 31, 2017.

BRS, Inc., 2017b, Clarkson Hill Uranium Project Mineral Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report, Natrona County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Anfield Resources, Inc., July 27, 2017.

BRS, Inc., 2018, Nine Mile Lake Uranium Project Mineral Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report, Natrona County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Anfield Resources, Inc., March 29, 2018.

BRS, Inc., 2019a, Barge Uranium Project Mineral Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report, Amended and Restated, Converse County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranium One Americas, Inc., April 16, 2019.

BRS, Inc., 2019b, Jab Uranium Project Mineral Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report, Amended and Restated, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranium One Americas, Inc., April 16, 2019.

BRS, Inc., 2019c, Charlie Uranium Project Mineral Resource NI 43-101 Technical Report, Johnson County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Anfield Energy, Inc., February 7, 2019.

BRS, Inc., 2019d, Charlie Uranium Project Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101 Technical Report, Johnson County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Anfield Energy, Inc., September 23, 2019.

Cameco, 2022, Uranium Price, 28 Feb 2022. Available on the internet as of March 2022: https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price.

Conoco, Inc., 1980, Environmental Report for the Sand Rock Mill Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 40-8743, July 1980.

Conoco, Inc., 1981, Progress Report for Project Phase II – 1980-81 Exploration Drilling and Progress Program Project Phase III – 1981-82. Internal Joint Venture Report, March 12, 1981.

Curtis, Jan and Kate Grimes, 2004, Wyoming Climate Atlas, published by the University of Wyoming, March 2004.

Davis, J.F., 1969, Uranium Deposits of the Powder River Basin, Contributions to Geology, Wyoming Uranium Issue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 131–142.

Denson, N.M., J.H. Dover, and L.M. Osmonson, 1978, Lower Tertiary Coal Bed Distribution and Coal Resources of the Reno Junction-Antelope Creek Area, Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston Counties, Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 960.

Dribus, J.R. and R.F. Nanna, 1982, National Uranium Resource Evaluation, Rawlins Quadrangle, Wyoming and Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, National Uranium Resource Evaluation.

Flores, R.M., 2004, Coalbed Methane in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana: An Assessment of the Tertiary-Upper Cretaceous Coalbed Methane Total Petroleum System, U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-C, Chapter 2.

24-1

March 2023

Flores, R. M. and L.R. Bader, 1999, Fort Union Coal in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana: A Synthesis, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625.

Flores, R.M., B.D. Spear, S.A. Kinney, P.A. Purchase, and C.M. Gallagher, 2010, After a Century—Revised Paleogene Coal Stratigraphy, Correlation, and Deposition, Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1777.

Gregory, R.W., 2019, Uranium Geology and Resources of the Gas Hills District, Wind River Basin, Central Wyoming, Wyoming State Geological Survey Public Information Circular 47.

Gregory, R.W., R.W. Jones, and K.D. Cottingham, 2010, Uranium Map of Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey Map Series 94, scale 1:500,000.

Hazen (Hazen Research, Inc.), 1984, In-Situ Leach Simulations on Uranium Ores, Peterson Project, Converse County, Wyoming.

Hinaman, Kurt, 2005, Hydrogeologic Framework and Estimates of Ground-water Volumes in Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous Hydrogeologic Units in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5008.

Lemmers, J. and D. Smith, 1981, Idaho Claims Geologic Evaluation, Converse County, Wyoming, internal report for UNC Teton Exploration.

Love, J.D. and A.C. Christiansen, 1985, Geologic Map of Wyoming, 3 sheets, scale 1:500,000, U.S. Geological Survey, re-released 2014, Wyoming State Geological Survey.

Lynds, R.M. and C.J. Carroll, 2015, Stratigraphic Cross Sections and Subsurface Model of the Lance and Fort Union Formations, Great Divide Basin, Wyoming, Wyoming State Geological Survey Open File Report 15-3.

McKeel, B.K., J.D. Love, and M.E. Crew, 1973, Electric Log Cross Sections Showing Lithology of the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations, Sheridan to Wyodak, Powder River Basin, Wyoming, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.

Murtaugh, D. and K. Chia, 2021, China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout, Bloomberg News; 2 Nov 2021. Available on the internet as of December 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s.

Nigbor, M.T., W.H. Englemann, and D.R. Tweeton, 1982. Case History of a Pilot-Scale Acidic In Situ Uranium Leaching Experiment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 8652.

Ortiz, Richard, 2005, Evaluation Report of Uranium Property – Jebsen Claims, North Platte Project for High Plains Uranium.

Pippiringos, George N. and Norman M. Denson, 1970, The Battle Spring Formation in South-Central Wyoming, pages 161-168 of the Symposium on Wyoming Sandstones: Their Economic Importance — Past, Present, & Future, 22^nd Annual Field Conference Guidebook.

PRI (Power Resources, Inc.), 1995, Charlie Uranium ISL Project Feasibility Study, unpublished report, January 1995.

Rackley, R.I., 1972, Environment of Wyoming Tertiary Uranium Deposits, AAPG Bulletin Vol. 56, No. 4.

24-2

March 2023

Rich, E.I., 1962, Reconnaissance Geology of Hiland-Clarkson Hill Area, Natrona County, Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1107-G.

Scott Wilson Mining, 2010, Technical Report on the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves of the Christensen and Irigaray Project, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranium One, Inc., June 30, 2010.

Sharp, W.N. and A.B. Gibbons, 1964, Geology and Uranium Deposits of the Southern Part of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1147-D, 164.

Sprott, 2021, Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Available on the internet as of December 2021: https://sprott.com/investment-strategies/physical-commodity-funds/uranium/#.

UNC Teton-Nedco, 1983, Leuenberger In Situ Mining Project, Converse County, Wyoming.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, 2020 Decennial Census. Available on the internet as of March 2022: https://www.census.gov/.

U.S. EPA, 2013, Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, map scale 1:7,500,000, https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states.

Utah International (Utah International Mining Company), 1971, internal memo, December 1971.

UxC, 2021, Uranium Market Outlook Q4 2021.

Wallis, Stewart, 2005, Technical Report on the Great Divide Basin Properties, Wyoming, revised October 20, 2005.

WWC (WWC Engineering), 2019a, Technical Report on Resources, Moore Ranch Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranium One Americas, Inc., April 30, 2019.

WWC (WWC Engineering), 2019b, Technical Report on Resources, Ludeman Uranium Project, Converse County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranium One Americas, Inc., January 25, 2019.

WWC (WWC Engineering), 2019c, Technical Report on Resources, Allemand-Ross Uranium Project, Converse County, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranium One Americas, April 30, 2019.

WWC (WWC Engineering), 2022, Technical Report Summary, S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report, Reno Creek Project, Campbell County, WY, USA, prepared for Uranium Energy Corporation, January 31, 2022.

Yue Li, Y., 2021, No.1 Uranium Miner Backs Physical Fund in Nod to Robust Demand, Bloomberg News, 18 Oct 2021. Available on the internet as of December 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-18/no-1-uranium-miner-backs-physical-fund-in-nod-to-robust-demand.

24-3

March 2023

25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

For this TRS, the QP has relied on information provided by UEC regarding property ownership, title and mineral rights in light of reviews by mineral title specialists retained by UEC; regulatory status and environmental information, including liabilities on the Project; and estimated commodity sales prices. Additionally, this TRS was prepared by the QP with reliance on reports and information from others as cited throughout this TRS and as referenced in Chapters 11 and 24.

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

25-1

March 2023

26.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

Western Water Consultants, Inc., d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC), of 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, USA does hereby certify that:

● WWC is an independent, third-party engineering firm comprised of mining experts, such as professional geologists, professional engineers and certified environmental scientists.

● WWC has read the definition of “qualified person” set out in S-K 1300 and certifies that by reason of education, professional registration and relevant work experience, WWC professionals fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300.

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

(“Signed and Sealed”) Western Water Consultants, Inc.

March 9, 2023

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

26-1

March 2023

XML

Document And Entity Information - USD ($)	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Sep. 27, 2022	Jan. 31, 2022
Document Information [Line Items]
Entity Central Index Key	0001334933
Entity Registrant Name	URANIUM ENERGY CORP
Amendment Flag	true
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--07-31
Document Fiscal Period Focus	FY
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2022
Document Type	10-K/A
Document Annual Report	true
Document Period End Date	Jul. 31, 2022
Document Transition Report	false
Entity File Number	001-33706
Entity Incorporation, State or Country Code	NV
Entity Tax Identification Number	98-0399476
Entity Address, Address Line One	1830 – 1030 West Georgia Street
Entity Address, City or Town	Vancouver
Entity Address, State or Province	BC
Entity Address, Country	CA
Entity Address, Postal Zip Code	V6E 2Y3
City Area Code	361
Local Phone Number	888-8235
Title of 12(b) Security	Common Stock
Trading Symbol	UEC
Security Exchange Name	NYSEAMER
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	Yes
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Interactive Data Current	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Large Accelerated Filer
Entity Small Business	false
Entity Emerging Growth Company	false
ICFR Auditor Attestation Flag	true
Entity Shell Company	false
Entity Public Float			$ 725,158,707
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		345,766,062
Amendment Description	Uranium Energy Corp. (the “Company”) is filing this Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) (the “Form 10-K/A”) to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022, as originally filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on September 29, 2022 (the “Original Report”), to amend the disclosure contained in Items 2, 9 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 new property disclosure requirements for registrants engaged in mining operations recently implemented by the SEC and reflected in the Original Report for the first time.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 as included after Item 16 of the Original Report have not been restated and no disclosures contained in the accompanying notes have been added to or amended in any manner.   For the convenience of the reader, this Form 10-K/A sets forth the Company’s Annual Report in its entirety, and not just those portions that have been amended since the filing of the Original Report.  Other than the amendments to the Items noted above, none of the disclosure contained in any other Item of the Original Report has been amended, updated or otherwise revised.  Furthermore, none of the Items, including the amendments as noted above, have been amended, updated or otherwise revised to reflect material subsequent events occurring after the filing date of the Original Report on September 29, 2022.  Such subsequent matters are or will be addressed in subsequent reports filed by the Company with the SEC.   Item 15 of the Original Report has been amended to contain: (i) currently dated certifications from the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer), as required by Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) and 13a-14(b), attached as Exhibits 31.1, 31.2 and 32.1 to this Form 10-K/A; (ii) a currently dated consent of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, attached as Exhibit 23.1 to this Form 10-K/A; (iii) 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, 23.3. 23.4. 23.5. 23.6 and 23.7 to this Form 10-K/A; and (iv) and each of the following and updated Technical Report Summaries in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K: (a) Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA, dated March 9, 2023; (b) Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA, dated March 9, 2023; (c) Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, TX USA, dated March 9, 2023; and (c) Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA, dated March 9, 2023; attached as Exhibits 96.3, 96.4, 96.5 and 96.6 to this Form 10-K/A.
Auditor Firm ID	271
Auditor Name	PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Auditor Location	Vancouver, Canada

XML

Consolidated Balance Sheets - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 32,536	$ 44,313
Inventories	66,570	29,172
Prepaid expenses and deposits	2,871	1,434
Other current assets	214	126
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS	102,191	75,045
MINERAL RIGHTS AND PROPERTIES	181,948	63,784
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT	20,234	7,358
RESTRICTED CASH	7,251	2,038
EQUITY-ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT	24,177	20,730
INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SECURITIES	14,834	0
OTHER NON-CURRENT ASSETS	3,612	586
TOTAL ASSETS	354,247	169,541
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities	8,162	2,764
Other current liabilities	336	430
Current portion of long-term debt	0	10,075
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES	8,498	13,269
ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS	17,276	3,939
OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES	1,028	337
DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES	536	541
TOTAL LIABILITIES	27,338	18,086
STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Common stock $0.001 par value: 750,000,000 shares authorized, 289,638,307 shares issued and outstanding (July 31, 2021 - 236,796,866)	289	237
Additional paid-in capital	613,179	441,990
Share issuance obligation	0	360
Accumulated deficit	(286,373)	(291,625)
Accumulated other comprehensive income	(186)	493
TOTAL EQUITY	326,909	151,455
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY	$ 354,247	$ 169,541

XML

Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parentheticals) - $ / shares	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Common stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.001	$ 0.001
Common stock, shares authorized (in shares)	750,000,000	750,000,000
Common stock, shares issued (in shares)	289,638,307	236,796,866
Common stock, shares outstanding (in shares)	289,638,307	236,796,866

XML

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE	$ 23,161	$ 0	$ 0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	(15,868)	0	0
GROSS PROFIT	7,293	0	0
OPERATING COSTS
Mineral property expenditures	10,154	4,479	4,582
General and administrative	15,026	12,640	9,442
Acquisition-related costs	3,444	0	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	1,379	393	310
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS	30,003	17,512	14,334
LOSS FROM OPERATIONS	(22,710)	(17,512)	(14,334)
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
Interest expenses and finance costs	(1,519)	(2,880)	(3,462)
Income from equity-accounted investment	4,126	5,205	2,968
Debt receivable recovery	18,342	0	0
Gain on settlement of debt receivable	1,780	0	0
Gain (loss) on disposition of assets	6,427	(2)	2
Unrealized loss on equity securities	(1,898)	0	0
Realized gain on equity securities	547	0	0
Other income	152	372	210
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)	27,957	2,695	(282)
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES	5,247	(14,817)	(14,616)
DEFERRED TAX BENEFIT	5	4	6
NET INCOME (LOSS) FOR THE YEAR	5,252	(14,813)	(14,610)
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME
Translation (loss) gain	(679)	613	(133)
TOTAL OTHER COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME	(679)	613	(133)
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) FOR THE YEAR	$ 4,573	$ (14,200)	$ (14,743)
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic (in dollars per share)	$ 0.02	$ (0.07)	$ (0.08)
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted (in dollars per share)	$ 0.02	$ (0.07)	$ (0.08)
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING,
Basic Weighted Average Number of Shares (in shares)	271,019,472	210,295,992	183,041,766
Diluted (in shares)	280,102,073	210,295,992	183,041,766

XML

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income (loss) for the year	$ 5,252	$ (14,813)	$ (14,610)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash flows in operating activities
Stock-based compensation	4,681	5,471	3,493
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	1,379	393	310
Amortization of long-term debt discount	525	1,376	1,670
Income from equity-accounted investment	(4,126)	(5,205)	(2,968)
Debt receivable recovery	(18,342)	0	0
Gain on settlement of debt receivable	(1,780)	0	0
(Gain) loss on disposition of assets	(6,427)	2	(2)
Unrealized loss on equity securities	1,898	0	0
Realized gain on equity security	(547)	0	0
Gain on loan extinguishment	0	(286)	0
Deferred tax benefits	(5)	(4)	(6)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Inventories	(37,206)	(28,961)	0
Prepaid expenses and deposits	(1,398)	(113)	454
Other current assets	17	(6)	146
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities	3,262	669	(1,281)
Other liabilities	(170)	7	(76)
NET CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES	(52,987)	(41,470)	(12,870)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from share issuances, net of issuance costs	168,014	95,436	0
Repayments of long-term debt	(10,000)	(10,000)	0
Repayments of other loans	(191)	(145)	0
Proceeds from government loans	0	0	307
Cash paid for withholding amounts on RSU and PRSU shares	(557)	(833)	0
NET CASH PROVIDED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES	157,266	84,458	307
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Net cash used in U1A Acquisition	(113,588)	0	0
Investment in mineral rights and properties	(590)	(80)	(80)
Purchase of property, plant and equipment	(620)	(148)	(84)
Purchase of additional interest in equity-accounted investment	0	(3,397)	0
Investment in term deposits	0	(10,000)	0
Investment in equity securities	(15,215)	0	0
Proceeds from redemption of term deposits	0	10,000	11,832
Proceeds from debt receivable recovery	9,171	0	0
Proceeds from sale of equity security	9,980	0	0
Proceeds from disposition of assets	19	0	3
NET CASH (USED IN) PROVIDED BY INVESTING ACTIVITIES	(110,843)	(3,625)	11,671
NET CHANGE IN CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH	(6,564)	39,363	(892)
CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH, BEGINNING OF YEAR	46,351	6,988	7,880
CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH, END OF YEAR	$ 39,787	$ 46,351	$ 6,988

XML

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Direct Offering [Member] Common Stock [Member]	Direct Offering [Member] Additional Paid-in Capital [Member]	Direct Offering [Member] Share Issuance Obligation [Member]	Direct Offering [Member] Retained Earnings [Member]	Direct Offering [Member] AOCI Attributable to Parent [Member]	Direct Offering [Member]	Common Stock [Member]	Additional Paid-in Capital [Member]	Share Issuance Obligation [Member]	Retained Earnings [Member]	AOCI Attributable to Parent [Member]	Total
Balance (in shares) at Jul. 31, 2019							180,896,431
Balance at Jul. 31, 2019							$ 181	$ 336,048	$ 187	$ (262,202)	$ 13	$ 74,227
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility (in shares)							1,743,462
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility							$ 2	1,398	0	0	0	1,400
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs (in shares)							105,844
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs							$ 0	(154)	104	0	0	$ (50)
Issued upon exercise of stock options (in shares)												0
Common stock issued for consulting services (in shares)							380,933
Common stock issued for consulting services							$ 0	351	0			$ 351
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan (in shares)							1,509,200
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan							$ 2	1,308	(187)			1,123
Amortization of stock-based compensation								2,085				2,085
Net income (loss) for the year							0	0	0	(14,610)	0	(14,610)
Other comprehensive income (loss)							0	0	0	0	(133)	(133)
Issued for consulting services							$ 0	23	0	0	0	23
Balance (in shares) at Jul. 31, 2020							184,635,870
Balance at Jul. 31, 2020							$ 185	341,059	104	(276,812)	(120)	64,416
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility (in shares)							1,249,039
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility							$ 1	1,169	0	0	0	1,170
Issued under ATM offering, net of issuance costs (in shares)	26,136,364						15,934,606
Issued under ATM offering, net of issuance costs	$ 26	$ 52,515	$ 0	$ 0	$ 0	$ 52,541	$ 16	35,219				35,235
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs (in shares)							536,361
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs							$ 1	(1,255)	256	0	0	$ (998)
Issued upon exercise of stock options (in shares)							3,326,255					3,326,255
Issued upon exercise of stock options							$ 3	1,913				$ 1,916
Issued upon exercise of warrants (in shares)							3,692,865
Issued upon exercise of warrants							$ 4	3,585				3,589
Common stock issued for consulting services (in shares)							312,302
Common stock issued for consulting services							$ 0	953	0	0	0	953
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan (in shares)							973,204
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan							$ 1	1,593	0	0	0	1,594
Amortization of stock-based compensation							0	3,260	0	0	0	3,260
Net income (loss) for the year							0	0	0	(14,813)	0	(14,813)
Other comprehensive income (loss)											613	613
Issued in connection with ATM offering							0	1,518	0	0	0	1,518
Issued in connection with a direct offering as issuance costs							$ 0	461	0	0	0	461
Balance (in shares) at Jul. 31, 2021							236,796,866
Balance at Jul. 31, 2021							$ 237	441,990	360	(291,625)	493	151,455
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility (in shares)							161,594
Issued as anniversary fees for credit facility							$ 0	600	0	0	0	600
Issued under ATM offering, net of issuance costs (in shares)							47,507,536
Issued under ATM offering, net of issuance costs							$ 48	163,707				163,755
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs (in shares)							628,803
Issued upon vesting of RSUs and PRSUs							$ 0	(2,188)	(360)	0	0	$ (2,548)
Issued upon exercise of stock options (in shares)							2,152,095					2,152,095
Issued upon exercise of stock options							$ 2	932				$ 934
Issued upon exercise of warrants (in shares)							1,771,869
Issued upon exercise of warrants							$ 2	3,323				3,325
Issued for acquisition of mineral properties (in shares)							111,864
Issued for acquisition of mineral properties							$ 0	426				426
Common stock issued for consulting services (in shares)							56,273
Common stock issued for consulting services							$ 0	187				187
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan (in shares)							451,407
Common stock issued under Stock Incentive Plan							$ 0	1,478				1,478
Amortization of stock-based compensation								2,724				2,724
Net income (loss) for the year							0	0	0	5,252	0	5,252
Other comprehensive income (loss)							$ 0	0	0	0	(679)	(679)
Balance (in shares) at Jul. 31, 2022							289,638,307
Balance at Jul. 31, 2022							$ 289	$ 613,179	$ 0	$ (286,373)	$ (186)	$ 326,909

XML

Note 1 - Nature of Operations

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Nature of Operations [Text Block]

NOTE 1: NATURE OF OPERATIONS

Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003. Uranium Energy Corp. and its subsidiary companies and a controlled partnership (collectively, the “Company”) are engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing of uranium and titanium concentrates, on projects located in the United States, Canada and Paraguay.

As at July 31, 2022, we had working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of $93,693 including cash and cash equivalents of $32,536 and uranium inventory holdings of $66,160. Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we received further cash proceeds of $14,808 under the 2021 ATM Offerings (refer to Note 14: Capital Stock).  We believe our existing cash resources and, if necessary, cash generated from the sale of the Company’s liquid assets, will provide sufficient funds to carry out our planned operations for 12 months from the date that our audited consolidated financial statements are issued.  Our continuation as a going concern for a period beyond those 12 months will be dependent upon our ability to obtain adequate additional financing, as our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. 

Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and on debt financing in order to fund our operations, and this reliance is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Our continued operations, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets, are dependent ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations.

XML

Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Business Description and Basis of Presentation [Text Block]

NOTE 2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and are presented in thousands of United States dollars. All inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated upon consolidation.

Certain financial statement line items have been reclassified to conform with current year’s presentation.

Exploration Stage

We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our Palangana and Christensen Ranch Mines (collectively, the “ISR Mines”). We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (“S-K 1300”), through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing in-situ recovery (“ISR”) mining, such as our ISR Mines. As a result, and despite the fact that we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines, we remain an Exploration Stage issuer, as defined by the SEC, and will continue to remain as an Exploration Stage issuer until such time proven or probable reserves have been established.

Beginning with our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2022, we report our mineral holdings in accordance with the SEC’s S-K 1300.

Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the Exploration Stage by establishing proven or probable reserves.  Expenditures relating to exploration activities, such as drill programs to establish mineralized materials, are expensed as incurred. Expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities, such as the construction of mine wellfields, ion exchange facilities and disposal wells, are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves are established for that project, after which expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred.

Companies in the Production Stage, as defined by the SEC, having established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to future reporting periods to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold.  We are in the Exploration Stage which has resulted in our Company reporting larger losses than if it had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing mine development activities.  Additionally, there would be no corresponding depletion allocated to future reporting periods of our Company since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage.  Any capitalized costs, such as expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method.  As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Business Combination

We recognize and measure the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date, while transaction costs related to business combinations are expensed as incurred. An income, market or cost valuation method may be utilized to estimate the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, if any, in a business combination. The income valuation method represents the present value of future cash flows over the life of the asset using: (i) discrete financial forecasts, which rely on management’s estimates of resource quantities and exploration potential, costs to produce and develop resources, revenues and operating expenses; (ii) appropriate discount rates; and (iii) expected future capital requirements (the “income valuation method”). The market valuation method uses prices paid for a similar asset by other purchasers in the market, normalized for any differences between the assets (the “market valuation method”). The cost valuation method is based on the replacement cost of a comparable asset at the time of the acquisition adjusted for depreciation and economic and functional obsolescence of the asset (the “cost valuation method”). If the initial accounting for the business combination is incomplete by the end of the reporting period in which the acquisition occurs, an estimate will be recorded. Subsequent to the acquisition date, and not later than one year from the acquisition date, we will record any material adjustments to the initial estimate based on new information obtained that would have existed as of the date of the acquisition. Any adjustment that arises from information obtained that did not exist as of the date of the acquisition will be recorded in the period the adjustments arises.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported revenues and expenses during the reported periods.  Areas requiring significant judgements, estimates and assumptions include the valuation of acquired mineral rights and properties, existence of impairment indicators for the Company’s long-live assets, valuation and measurement of impairment losses on mineral rights and properties, valuation of recoverability of a credit loss, valuation of stock-based compensation and asset retirement obligations. Other areas requiring estimates include allocations of expenditures to inventories, depletion and amortization of mineral rights and properties and depreciation of property, plant and equipment.  Actual results could differ significantly from those estimates and assumptions.

Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of our Company, including its subsidiaries, is the United States dollar. Our subsidiaries, UEC Resources Ltd., UEC Resources (SK) Ltd. and Cue Resources Ltd., maintain their accounting records in their local currency, the Canadian dollar. Piedra Rica Mining S.A., Transandes Paraguay S.A., Metalicos Y No Metalicos S.R.L. and Trier S.A. maintain their accounting records in their local currency, the Paraguayan Guarani. In accordance with ASC 830: Foreign Currency Matters, the financial statements of our subsidiaries are translated into United States dollars using period-end exchange rates as to monetary assets and liabilities and average exchange rates as to revenues and expenses. Non-monetary assets are translated at their historical exchange rates. Net gains and losses resulting from foreign exchange translations and foreign currency exchange gains and losses on transactions occurring in a currency other than our Company’s functional currency are included in the determination of net loss in the period.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents consist of bank deposits and term deposits with an original maturity of three months or less.

Fair Value Measurement

Fair value accounting establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

● Level 1 - Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical unrestricted assets or liabilities;

● Level 2 - Quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability, and model-based valuation techniques for which all significant inputs are observable in the market or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities; and

● Level 3 - Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (supported by little or no market activity).

The financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, are carried at cost, which approximate their fair values due to the immediate or short-term maturity. Investments in equity securities are carried at fair value. Other loans payable and long-term debt are carried at amortized costs which approximate their respective fair values.

Inventories

Inventories are comprised of supplies, work-in-progress and uranium concentrates (“U₃O₈”) from production and purchased uranium concentrates from the market. Expenditures related to the extraction and processing of uranium concentrates and depreciation and depletion charges of extraction and processing plant and equipment are capitalized as work-in-progress and uranium concentrates from production. Costs of purchased uranium concentrates include the purchase price and other direct costs incurred during the purchase process.

Inventories are carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value and are charged to cost of sales using the average costing method.

Equity Investments

Investments in an entity in which our ownership is greater than 20% but less than 50%, or where other facts and circumstances indicate that we have the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financing policies of an entity, are accounted for using the equity method in accordance with ASC 323: Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures. Equity-accounted investments are recorded initially at cost and adjusted subsequently to recognize our share of the earnings, losses or other changes in capital of the investee entity after the date of acquisition. We periodically evaluate whether declines in fair values of our equity investments below the carrying value are other-than-temporary and, if so, whether an impairment loss is required.

Additionally, we hold certain equity investments in entities that we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence. These equity investments represent our ownership interests in certain entities, and therefore meet the definition of an equity security under ASC 321 Investments – Equity Securities and are measured at fair value at each period end, with unrealized holding gains or losses recorded to earnings.

Other Non-Current Assets

Other non-current assets include future expenditures that we have paid in advance but will not receive benefits within one year. Expenses are recognized over the period the expenditures are used or the benefits from the expenditures are received. Transaction costs incurred in connection with acquisitions of long-term assets are also included in other non-current assets, which will be capitalized as acquisition costs if the transaction succeeds or will be written off if the transaction does not complete. Right-of-use (“ROU”) assets recognized in connection with recognition of lease liabilities are also included in Other Non-Current Assets.

Mineral Rights

Acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under S-K 1300, are established for that project.

Where proven and probable reserves have been established, the project’s capitalized expenditures are depleted over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method upon commencement of production. Where proven and probable reserves have not been established, the project’s capitalized expenditures are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method upon commencement of extraction. We have not established proven or probable reserves for any of our projects.

Databases

Expenditures relating to mineral property databases are capitalized upon acquisition while those developed internally are expensed as incurred. Mineral property databases are amortized using the straight-line method over a five-year period during which management believes these assets will contribute to our cash flows. Databases are included in Mineral Rights and Properties in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated to their estimated residual values using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives, as follows:

● Plant and processing facilities: 10 to 21 years;

● Mining and logging equipment and vehicles: 5 to 10 years;

● Computer equipment: 3 years;

● Furniture and fixtures: 5 years; and

● Buildings: 20 years.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets including mineral rights and property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. Management applies judgment to assess whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable giving rise to the requirement to conduct an impairment test. Circumstances which could trigger an impairment test include, but are not limited to: significant decreases in the market price of the asset; significant adverse changes in the business climate or legal factors including significant decreases in uranium or titanium prices; significant increases in reclamation costs and accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of the asset; current period cash flow or operating losses combined with a history of losses or a forecast of continuing losses associated with the use of the asset; and current expectation that the asset will more likely than not be sold or disposed of significantly before the end of its estimated useful life. Recoverability of these assets is measured by comparing the carrying value to the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. When the carrying value of an asset exceeds the related undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recorded by writing down the carrying value of the related asset to its estimated fair value, which is determined using discounted future cash flows or other measures of fair value.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities. We provide a valuation allowance on deferred tax assets unless it is more likely than not that such assets will be realized.

Restoration and Remediation Costs (Asset Retirement Obligations)

Various federal and state mining laws and regulations require our Company to reclaim the surface areas and restore underground water quality to the pre-existing quality or class of use after the completion of mining. We recognize the present value of the future restoration and remediation costs as an asset retirement obligation in the period in which we incur an obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development and/or normal use of the assets.

Asset retirement obligations consist of estimated final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal and environmental remediation costs to be incurred by our Company in the future. The asset retirement obligation is estimated based on the current costs escalated at an inflation rate and discounted at a credit adjusted risk-free rate at inception. The asset retirement obligations are capitalized as part of the costs of the underlying assets and amortized over its remaining useful life. The asset retirement obligations are accreted to an undiscounted value until they are settled. The accretion expenses are charged to earnings and the actual retirement costs are recorded against the asset retirement obligations when incurred. Any difference between the recorded asset retirement obligations and the actual retirement costs incurred will be recorded as a gain or loss in the period of settlement.

Long-Term Debt

Long-Term Debt is carried at amortized cost. Debt issuance costs, debt premiums and discounts and annual fees are included in the long-term debt balance and amortized using the effective interest rate over the contractual terms of the Long-Term Debt.

Leases

We determine if a contractual arrangement represents or contains a lease at inception. Operating leases with lease terms greater than 12 months are included in Other Non-Current Assets, Other Current Liabilities and Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheet. Assets under finance leases are included in Property, Plant and Equipment and the related lease liabilities in Other Current Liabilities and Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Operating and finance lease ROU assets and lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of the future lease payments over the lease term at the commencement date. When the rate implicit to the lease cannot be readily determined, we utilize the incremental borrowing rate in determining the present value of the future lease payments. The incremental borrowing rate is the rate of interest our Company would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term and the amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment.

The operating lease expenses are recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term and included in general and administration expenses. Short-term leases, which have an initial term of 12 months or less, are not recorded in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We have leases arrangements that include both lease and non-lease components. We account for each separate lease component and its associated non-lease components as a single lease component for all of our asset classes.

Revenue Recognition

Our revenues are primarily derived from the sale of U₃O₈ that we purchased under our Physical Uranium Program.  The sales contracts specify the quantity to be delivered, the price, payment terms and the year of the delivery.  Ten days before the scheduled delivery date, the Company notifies the conversion facility with instructions for a title transfer to the customer. Revenue is recognized once a title transfer of the U₃O₈ is confirmed by the conversion facility.

Stock-Based Compensation

We measure stock-based awards at fair value on the date of the grant and expense the awards over the requisite service period of employees or consultants.  The fair value of stock options is determined using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model.  The fair value of restricted stock units (“RSU”s) is determined using the share price of the Company at the date of grant.  The fair value of performance based restricted stock units (“PRSU”s) is determined using the Monte Carlo Simulation Model.  Stock-based compensation expense related to stock option awards is recognized over the requisite service period on a graded vesting basis.  Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur.

The Company’s estimates may be impacted by certain variables including, but not limited to, stock price volatility, employee stock option exercise behaviors, additional stock option grants, the Company’s performance and related tax impacts.

Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

Basic earnings or loss per share includes no potential dilution and is computed by dividing the earnings or loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings or loss per share reflect the potential dilution of securities that could share in the earnings or loss of our Company. Dilutive securities are excluded from the calculation of our diluted weighted average common shares outstanding if their effect would be anti-dilutive based on the treasury stock method or due to a net loss from continuing operations.

XML

Note 3 - Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc.

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Business Combination Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 3: ACQUISITION OF URANIUM ONE AMERICAS, INC.

On December 17, 2021, we completed the acquisition of all the issued and outstanding shares of Uranium One Americas, Inc. (“U1A”), a Nevada corporation, from Uranium One Investments Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., for total cash consideration of $128,495 (the “U1A Acquisition”). Subsequent to the completion of the U1A Acquisition, we changed the name of U1A to UEC Wyoming Corp. (“UEC Wyoming”) and, in conjunction therewith, we also changed the name of U1A’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Uranium One USA Inc., a Delaware corporation, to UEC Uranium Corp.

The UEC Wyoming Portfolio consists of the Irigaray Processing Facility, the Christensen Ranch Mine and the Ludeman, Antelope, Moore Ranch and Barge Projects located in Wyoming, which creates a Wyoming hub-and-spoke operation for the Company.

The U1A Acquisition was accounted for as a business combination with UEC identified as the acquirer. The Company’s judgement that the U1A Acquisition is a business combination is based on the Company’s assessment that substantially all the fair value of the assets are not concentrated in a single asset or group of similar assets. In accordance with the acquisition method of accounting, the purchase price has been assigned to the assets acquired, and the liabilities assumed, based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. In connection with the U1A Acquisition, we incurred acquisition-related costs of $3,444, which were expensed in Fiscal 2022.

As of July 31, 2022, we had completed the analysis to assign fair values to all assets acquired and liabilities assumed and, therefore, the purchase price allocation for the U1A Acquisition is final.

The table below sets forth the consideration paid and the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed for the U1A Acquisition as at July 31, 2022:

Consideration paid
Cash	$	125,593
Working capital adjustment (1)		2,902
Total consideration paid	$	128,495
Assets acquired and liabilities assumed
Cash & cash equivalents (1)	$	1,183
Prepaid expenses and deposits (1)		1,550
Other current assets (1)		73
Inventories (1)		192
Mineral rights and properties (2)		110,693
Property, plant and equipment (3)		13,004
Restricted cash		13,755
Debt receivable (4)		-
Other non-current assets (5)		1,613
Total assets		142,063
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (1)		96
Other liabilities (5)		765
Asset retirement obligations (6)		12,707
Total liabilities		13,568
Total net assets	$	128,495

Notes:

(1) The working capital adjustment represents the working capital of U1A at the date of the U1A Acquisition, which was comprised of: (i) cash and cash equivalents of $1,183; (ii) prepaid expenses and deposits of $1,550; (iii) other current assets of $73; (iv) inventories of $192; and (v) accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $96.  The fair value of these working capital items approximates their respective carrying values at the date of the acquisition.

(2) The fair value of mineral rights and properties was determined using the discounted cash flow model (being the net present value of expected future cash flows).  Expected future cash flows are based on estimates of future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures and the discount rate.  The Company’s estimates of recoverable mineral resources are based on information prepared by qualified persons (management’s specialists).

(3) The fair value of property, plant and equipment was determined using a replacement cost approach.

(4) Other non-current assets included certain material and supply inventories classified as non-current and ROU assets associated with U1A’s operating leases. The fair value of long-term inventory was determined to approximate its carrying value. ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases are measured based on the present value of the future lease payments over the remaining lease terms at the acquisition date.

(5) The fair value of asset retirement obligations was measured based on the expected costs and timing for final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal, and environmental remediation, which are discounted to present value using credit adjusted risk-free rates.

Since it has been consolidated from December 17, 2021, UEC Wyoming’s net income of $15,616, primarily resulted from the recovery of the Anfield Debt, and operating costs of $4,206 were included in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for Fiscal 2022. 

The following unaudited proforma financial information presents consolidated results assuming the U1A Acquisition occurred on August 1, 2020.

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021
Sales and service revenue	$	23,298	$	192
Net income (loss) for the year		2,626		(21,945	)

XML

Note 4 - Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Debt Settlement and Property Swap [Text Block]

NOTE 4: ANFIELD DEBT SETTLEMENT AND PROPERTY SWAP

In connection with the U1A Acquisition, we acquired certain indebtedness totaling $18,342 due from Anfield, which was owed to U1A prior to the closing of the U1A Acquisition (the “Anfield Debt”). We assigned a value of $Nil to the Anfield Debt net of the expected credit loss on the preliminary purchase price allocation given that the probability of the Anfield Debt being collectable was remote at December 17, 2021.

On April 19, 2022, we entered into a debt settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) and a property swap agreement (the “Swap Agreement”; and together with the Settlement Agreement, the “Anfield Agreements”) with Anfield to settle the Anfield Debt. Pursuant to the Anfield Agreements, the Anfield Debt was settled by the payment by Anfield to UEC of $9,171 in cash and the issuance by Anfield to UEC in units of Anfield (each, an “Anfield Unit”) with a deemed value of $9,171, with each such Anfield Unit being comprised of one common share in the capital of Anfield (each, an “Anfield Common Share”) and one Anfield Common Share purchase warrant (each whole such warrant being an “Anfield Warrant”). Each Anfield Warrant entitles UEC to acquire one Anfield Common Share at a price of CA$0.18 until May 12, 2027 (collectively, the “Anfield Debt Settlement”). Completion of the Anfield Agreements was contingent on Anfield raising additional financing.

On June 7, 2022, we closed the Anfield Debt Settlement whereby we received $9,171 in cash and Anfield Units, being comprised of 96,272,918 Anfield Common Shares with a fair value of $7,702 and 96,272,918 Anfield Warrants with a fair value of $3,249. As a result, UEC owns approximately 16% of Anfield’s outstanding shares. 

Anfield Common Shares were measured using the Anfield share price of US$0.08 per share at the date of issuance. Anfield Warrants were measured at US$0.03 per share using the Black-Sholes Valuation Model at the date of issuance with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.93	%
Annual Volatility	64.94	%
Life in Years	4.94
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0	%

Our investment in Anfield Common Shares and Anfield Warrants are accounted for as Investment in Equity Securities with changes in fair value charged to Unrealized Gain or Loss from Equity Securities on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Consequently, we reversed the entire expected credit loss on the debt receivable and recognized a recovery on debt receivable of $18,342 on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.  The fair value of the cash and the Anfield Common Shares and Anfield Warrants totaled $20,122, which exceeded the amounts of $18,342 previously written off at the date of U1A Acquisition by $1,780.  In accordance with ASC 326 Financial Instruments – Credit Loss, as amended by ASU 2019-04, “expected recoveries of amounts previously written off and expected to be written off shall be included in the valuation account and shall not exceed the aggregate of amounts previously written off and expected to be written off by an entity.”  As a result, we recorded a gain of $1,780 on settlement of the Anfield Debt receivable on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Concurrent with the Anfield Debt Settlement, we completed the Swap Agreement whereby we have received from Anfield 25 ISR uranium projects with a fair value of $6,500 located in Wyoming in exchange for the Company’s  Slick Rock Project and Long Park Project located in Colorado with a total carrying value of $92.  The Property Swap was considered a nonmonetary transaction, and in accordance with ASC 850 – Nonmonetary Transactions, the accounting for nonmonetary transactions should be based on the fair values of the assets involved. The cost of a nonmonetary asset acquired in exchange for another nonmonetary asset is the fair value of the asset surrendered to obtain it, and a gain or loss is recognized on the exchange.  The fair value of properties we surrendered was estimated to be $6,500 using the discounted cash flow model.  As a result, we recorded a gain of $6,408 on disposition of assets on our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

XML

Note 5 - Inventories

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Inventory Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 5: INVENTORIES

As at July 31, 2022, we held 1,800,000 pounds of purchased uranium concentrate inventory. Costs of inventory consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Material and supplies	$	232	$	33
Uranium concentrates from production		178		178
Purchased uranium inventories		66,160		28,961
	$	66,570	$	29,172

As at July 31, 2022, our uranium inventory purchase commitments over the next five fiscal years are as the follows:

	Purchase Commitments in Pounds		Total Purchase Price
Fiscal 2023		1,721,000	$	65,309
Fiscal 2024		895,000		38,913
Fiscal 2025		600,000		23,120
Fiscal 2026		100,000		3,620
Total		3,316,000	$	130,962

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we sold 150,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $7,178 and entered into agreements to sell 600,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory for gross proceeds of $30,675 with delivery dates in October 2022. 

XML

Note 6 - Mineral Rights and Properties

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Mineral Industries Disclosures [Text Block]

NOTE 6: MINERAL RIGHTS AND PROPERTIES

Mineral Rights

As at July 31, 2022, we had mineral rights in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay. These mineral rights were acquired through staking and purchase, lease or option agreements and are subject to varying royalty interests, some of which are indexed to the sale price of uranium. As at July 31, 2022, annual maintenance payments of approximately $4.2 million were required to maintain these mineral rights.

As at July 31, 2022, the carrying value of these mineral rights and properties was as follows:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Mineral Rights and Properties
Palangana Mine	$	6,028		$	6,028
Goliad Project		8,689			8,689
Burke Hollow Project		1,496			1,496
Anderson Project		3,470			3,470
Workman Creek Project		1,000			900
Reno Creek Project		31,528			31,528
Christensen Ranch Mine		39,062			-
Ludeman Project		32,306			-
Antelope Project		29,855			-
Moore Ranch Project		4,972			-
Irigaray Project		1,362			-
Barge Project		3,136			-
Gas Hills Project		980			-
Nine Mile Project		954			-
Charlie Project		905			-
Diabase Project		982			547
Yuty Project		11,947			11,947
Oviedo Project		1,133			1,133
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		1,933			1,433
Other Properties		4,139			540
		185,877			67,711
Accumulated Depletion		(3,930	)		(3,930	)
		181,947			63,781
Databases and Land Use Agreements		2,459			2,459
Accumulated Amortization		(2,458	)		(2,456	)
		1			3
	$	181,948		$	63,784

We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under the S-K 1300, for any of our mineral projects. We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Since we commenced uranium extraction at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated.

Mineral property expenditures incurred on our projects were as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Mineral Property Expenditures
Palangana Mine	$	1,060	$	890	$	1,343
Burke Hollow Project		3,647		1,446		1,130
Goliad Project		240		237		190
Anderson Project		108		79		71
Workman Creek Project		33		33		33
Reno Creek Project		821		672		597
Christensen Ranch Mine		1,257		-		-
Ludeman Project		219		-		-
Antelope Project		70		-		-
Moore Ranch Project		143		-		-
Barge Project		37		-		-
Yuty Project		86		31		66
Oviedo Project		619		372		350
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		574		199		230
Other Mineral Property Expenditures		1,240		520		572
	$	10,154	$	4,479	$	4,582

United States Projects

● Palangana Mine, Texas

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Palangana Mine. These agreements are subject to certain royalty and overriding royalty interests indexed to the sale price of uranium and generally have an initial five-year term with extension provisions.

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, we continued with reduced operations at the Palangana Mine to capture residual uranium only.  As a result, no depletion for the Palangana Mine was recorded on our consolidated financial statements.

● Goliad Project, Texas

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Goliad Project. These agreements are subject to certain fixed royalty interests based on net proceeds from sales or indexed to the sales price of uranium and have an initial five-year term with extension provisions.

● Burke Hollow Project, Texas

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Burke Hollow Project. These agreements are subject to fixed royalty interests based on net proceeds from sales and have an initial five-year term with extension provisions.

● Anderson Project, Arizona

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims and state leases at the Anderson Project located in Yavapai County, Arizona.

● Workman Creek Project, Arizona

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims in the Workman Creek Project located in Gila County, Arizona. The Workman Creek Project is subject to a 3.0% net smelter royalty requiring an annual advance royalty payment of $50 for 2016 and 2017, and $100 thereafter. We have an exclusive right and option to acquire 1.5% of the net smelter royalty for $1,000 at any time until January 21, 2024. Additionally, certain individuals hold an option to acquire a 0.5% net smelter royalty exercisable by paying the Company the sum of $333 at any time until January 21, 2024. We have made all required payments.

● Reno Creek Project, Wyoming

The Reno Creek Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases, various private mineral leases and certain surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium.

During Fiscal 2022, we acquired the following projects through the U1A Acquisition. The fair value of these projects was determined using a discounted cash flow model, being the net present value of expected future cash flows. Refer to Note 3: Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc.

● Christensen Ranch Mine, Wyoming

The Christensen Ranch Mine consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements, which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. These state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine (through end of mining and final reclamation) if held by production.

● Irigaray Project, Wyoming

The Irigaray Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. These state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, through end of mining and final reclamation, if held by production.

● Ludeman Project, Wyoming

The Ludeman Project consists of various U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. These state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales or indexed to the sales price of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, if held by production.

● Moore Ranch Project, Wyoming

The Moore Ranch Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases and private mining and surface use agreements which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. The state mineral leases and the mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales or indexed to the sales price of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, if held by production.

● Barge Project, Wyoming

The Barge Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims which grant us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. We currently do not have a surface use agreement, therefore there are no royalty requirements at this time.

● Antelope Project, Wyoming

The Antelope Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims along with several state mineral leases. Only the state leases are subject to royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales, not the mineral lode claims. The state leases have a term of 10 years and the federal mineral claims are held by payment on an annual basis.

During Fiscal 2022, we acquired the following projects through the Swap Agreement with Anfield. The allocated fair value of these projects was determined based on the identified or historic resources. Refer to Note 4: Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap.

● Gas Hills Project, Wyoming

The Gas Hill Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims and several state mineral leases. Only the state leases are subject to royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, not the mineral lode claims. The state leases have a term of 10 years and the federal mineral claims are held by payment on an annual basis.

● Nine Mile Project, Wyoming

The Nine Mile Lake Project consists of U.S. federal mineral lode claims, state mineral leases private mineral leases and surface use agreements. The state mineral leases and the private mining and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, and have terms ranging from 10 years to the life of the mine, through end of mining and final reclamation, if held by production.

● Charlie Project, Wyoming

The Charlie Project consists of a single State of Wyoming mining lease. The state mineral lease is subject to a royalty interest based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, with a lease term of 10 years, extendable for the life of exploration and mining. The mineral leases and surface use agreements are subject to certain royalty interests based on gross proceeds from sales of uranium, with terms ranging from five to 20 years, some of which have extension provisions.

Canadian Project

● Diabase Project, Canada

During Fiscal 2022, we entered into property purchase agreements whereby we acquired 10 mineral claims as additions to our existing Diabase Project (the “Diabase Additions”) located on the southern rim of the Athabasca Basin uranium district in Saskatchewan, Canada. In connection with the Diabase Additions, we paid total consideration of $435, which consisted of 111,864 shares with a fair value of $426 and transaction costs of $9. As a result of these claims being added to our existing Diabase Project, the carrying value of our Diabase Project increased to $982 ( July 31, 2021: $547).

Paraguay Projects

During Fiscal 2018 and Fiscal 2019, we had communications and filings with the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the former MOPC took the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Paraná Projects were not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages.  While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect our continuing rights in those concessions. 

● Yuty Project, Paraguay

The Yuty Project is a property under one exploitation concession and is subject to an overriding royalty of $0.21 per pound of uranium produced from the Yuty Project.

● Oviedo Project, Paraguay

The Oviedo Project is a property under one exploration permit and is subject to a 1.5% gross overriding royalty over which we have an exclusive right and option at any time to acquire 0.5% for $167 and a right of first refusal to acquire all or any portion of the remaining 1.0%.

● Alto Paraná Titanium Project, Paraguay

The Alto Paraná Titanium Project is a property under certain titanium mineral concessions located in the departments of Alto Paraná and Canindeyú in Paraguay.  The Alto Paraná Titanium Project is subject to a 1.5% net smelter returns royalty. We have the right, exercisable to July 2023, to acquire 0.5% of the net smelter royalty at a purchase price of $500.

During Fiscal 2022, the Company exercised its option to acquire one-half percent of the net smelter returns royalty payable on its Alto Paraná Project for total consideration of $500 pursuant to the terms of a Net Smelter Returns Royalty Agreement under a Share Purchase and Option Agreement as entered between UEC and CIC Resources Inc. in March 2016.   The consideration of $500 paid for this option exercise was capitalized to mineral rights and properties and added to the carrying value of the Alto Paraná Titanium Project.

XML

Note 7 - Property, Plant and Equipment

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Property, Plant and Equipment Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 7:         PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

During Fiscal 2022, in connection with the U1A Acquisition, we acquired a satellite plant located at the Christensen Ranch Mine, a central processing plant (the “Irigaray Processing Facility”) and various equipment with a total fair value of $13,004 (refer to Note 3: Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc.). The recently acquired plants, facility and equipment have an estimated useful life of three to 21 years and will be depreciated using the straight-line method over their respective useful lives.

As at July 31, 2022, property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022							July 31, 2021
	Cost		Accumulated Depreciation			Net Book Value		Cost		Accumulated Depreciation			Net Book Value
Plant and Processing Facilities	$	18,964	$	(1,306	)	$	17,658	$	6,643	$	(851	)	$	5,792
Mining Equipment		2,777		(2,382	)		395		2,355		(2,313	)		42
Logging Equipment and Vehicles		2,666		(1,851	)		815		1,924		(1,775	)		149
Computer Equipment		360		(313	)		47		326		(284	)		42
Furniture and Fixtures		190		(177	)		13		185		(172	)		13
Buildings		298		(72	)		226		298		(58	)		240
Land		1,080		-			1,080		1,080		-			1,080
	$	26,335	$	(6,101	)	$	20,234	$	12,811	$	(5,453	)	$	7,358

XML

Note 8 - Restricted Cash

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Restricted Cash [Text Block]

NOTE 8: RESTRICTED CASH

Restricted cash includes cash and cash equivalents and money market funds as collateral for various bonds posted in favor of applicable state regulatory agencies in Arizona, Texas and Wyoming, and for estimated reclamation costs associated with our plants, processing facilities and various projects. Restricted cash will be released upon completion of reclamation of a mineral property or restructuring of a surety and collateral arrangement.

As at July 31, 2022, restricted cash consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	2,038		$	1,839
Restricted cash received from U1A Acquisition		13,755			-
(Release) addition of surety bond collateral		(8,550	)		199
Interest received		8			-
Balance, end of year	$	7,251		$	2,038

During Fiscal 2022, we received $8,550 as a result of the partial release of surety bond collateral related to the Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility.

Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash are included in the following accounts:

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021		July 31, 2020
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,536	$	44,313	$	5,149
Restricted cash		7,251		2,038		1,839
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash	$	39,787	$	46,351	$	6,988

XML

Note 9 - Equity-Accounted Investment

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Equity Method Investments and Joint Ventures Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 9: EQUITY-ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT

As at July 31, 2022, we owned 15,000,000 shares of Uranium Royalty Corp. (“URC”), representing a 15.5% ( July 31, 2021: 18.1%) interest in URC.  In addition, two of our officers are members of URC’s board of directors, and one is also an executive officer of URC.  As a consequence, our ability to exercise significant influence over URC’s operating and financing policies continued to exist during Fiscal 2022.  Should URC’s outstanding options and warrants be fully exercised, UEC’s ownership interest would decrease from 15.5% to 13.0%.

URC is a public company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange with the trading symbol URC.V and on NASDAQ with the trading symbol UROY. As at July 31, 2022, the fair value of our investment in URC was approximately $43.7 million.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the changes in carrying value of our equity-accounted investment are summarized as follows:

Balance, July 31, 2019	$	8,680
Share of loss from URC		(89	)
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,057
Translation loss		(133	)
Balance, July 31, 2020		11,515
Addition		3,397
Share of income from URC		732
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		4,473
Translation gain		613
Balance, July 31, 2021		20,730
Share of income from URC		153
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,973
Translation loss		(679	)
Balance, July 31, 2022	$	24,177

During Fiscal 2021, we participated in an equity financing and acquired an additional 1,000,000 common shares of URC at a price of CA$4.10 per share for total consideration of $3,397.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we recorded a gain on dilution of ownership interest of $3,973, $4,473 and $3,057, respectively, as a result of URC issuing more shares from its equity financings and the exercises of certain of URC’s share purchase warrants.

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2020, we recorded a translation loss of $679 and $133, respectively, whereas during Fiscal 2021 we recorded a translation gain of $613, as a result of translating the ending balance of the equity-accounted investment denominated in Canadian Dollars to U.S. Dollars using the period end exchange rates, which was included in other comprehensive income (loss) in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).

XML

Note 10 - Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 10: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES

As at July 31, 2022, accounts payable and accrued liabilities consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Trade payables	$	2,019	$	1,301
Accrued purchases		1,497		459
Accrued payroll liabilities		3,946		418
Liabilities assumed from prior acquisitions		700		586
	$	8,162	$	2,764

XML

Note 11 - Long-term Debt

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Credit Agreement [Member]

Notes to Financial Statements

Long-Term Debt [Text Block]

NOTE 11: LONG-TERM DEBT

As at July 31, 2022, our long-term debt consisted of the following:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	10,075		$	19,869
Amortization of discount and accrued fees		525			1,376
Payment of anniversary fees		(600	)		(1,170	)
Principal repayment		(10,000	)		(10,000	)
Balance, end of year	$	-		$	10,075

During Fiscal 2021, we made voluntary principal payments totaling $10,000 to certain Lenders, and during Fiscal 2022, we repaid the remaining $10,000 principal amount to the remaining Lender, which decreased the principal balance outstanding to $Nil as at July 31, 2022 under our Credit Facility.

Pursuant to the terms of our Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, during Fiscal 2022, we issued 161,594 shares with a fair value of $600 as payment of anniversary fees to our remaining Lender. During Fiscal 2021, we issued an aggregate of 1,249,039 shares with a fair value of $1,170, and during Fiscal 2020, we issued an aggregate of 1,743,462 shares with a fair value of $1,400, as payments of anniversary fees to the Lenders.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the amortization of debt discount and accrued fees totaled $525, $1,376 and $1,670, respectively, which was recorded as interest expense and included in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we paid $409, $1,255 and $1,627, respectively, in cash for interest on our long-term debt.

XML

Note 12 - Asset Retirement Obligations

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Asset Retirement Obligation Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 12: ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS

Asset retirement obligations (“ARO”s) relate to future remediation and decommissioning activities at our Palangana Mine, Hobson Processing Facility, Reno Creek Project and Alto Paraná Titanium Project, as well as our recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility pursuant to the U1A Acquisition.

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	3,939	$	3,735
Accretion		630		204
Assumed from U1A Acquisition		12,707		-
Balance, end of year	$	17,276	$	3,939

The estimated amounts and timing of cash flows and assumptions used for the ARO estimates are as follows:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Undiscounted amount of estimated cash flows	$28,739			$8,221
Payable in years	1	to	23		9	to	21
Inflation rate	1.56%	to	5.32%		1.56%	to	2.17%
Discount rate	3.72%	to	6.35%		5.50%	to	5.96%

During Fiscal 2022, we assumed ARO of $12,707 related to the Christensen Ranch Mine and Satellite Plant and the Irigaray Processing Facility as a result of the U1A Acquisition. The estimated timing of cash flows for the remediation and decommissioning activities ranges from one year to 23 years from the date of U1A Acquisition.

The undiscounted amounts of estimated cash flows for the next five years and beyond are as follows:

Fiscal 2023	$	214
Fiscal 2024		1,300
Fiscal 2025		1,472
Fiscal 2026		2,489
Fiscal 2027		2,509
Remaining balance		20,755
	$	28,739

XML

Note 13 - Lease Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Lessee, Operating Leases [Text Block]

NOTE 13: LEASE LIABILITIES

The Company primarily has operating leases for corporate offices and processing facilities with a remaining term of 1.0 to 21.9 years as at July 31, 2022.  The lease for the processing facilities has an evergreen option that can continue for so long as they are in operation.  Short-term leases, which have an initial term of 12 months or less, are not recorded on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, total lease expenses include the following components:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2022
Operating Leases	$	274	$	220	$	230
Short-term Leases		1,401		607		445
Total Lease Expenses	$	1,675	$	827	$	675

As at July 31, 2022 and 2021, the weighted average remaining lease term was 16.5 and 17.0 years, and the weighted average discount rate was 4.52% and 4.74%, respectively.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021, and Fiscal 2020, cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of operating lease liabilities totaled $472, $252 and $176, respectively.

Minimum future lease payments under operating leases with terms longer than one year are as follows:

Fiscal 2023	$	291
Fiscal 2024		113
Fiscal 2025		104
Fiscal 2026		104
Fiscal 2027		69
Thereafter		975
Total lease payments		1,656
Less: imputed interest		(472	)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	1,184
Current portion of lease liabilities	$	244
Non-current portion of lease liabilities	$	940

Current lease liabilities are included in Other Current Liabilities, and non-current liabilities are included in Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Stockholders' Equity Note Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 14: CAPITAL STOCK

Equity Financing

On September 23, 2020, we completed our September 2020 Offering of 12,500,000 units at a price of $1.20 for gross proceeds of $15,000. Each unit was comprised of one share of our Company and one-half of one share purchase warrant, and each whole warrant entitles its holder to acquire one share at an exercise price of $1.80 per share, exercisable immediately upon issuance and expiring 24 months from the date of issuance. In connection with the September 2020 Offering, we also issued compensation share purchase warrants to agents as part of share issuance costs to purchase 583,333 shares of our Company exercisable at an exercise price of $1.80 per share and expiring 24 months from the date of issuance.

The shares were valued at the Company’s closing price of $0.96 per share on September 23, 2020. The share purchase warrants were valued at $0.23 per warrant using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	0.14	%
Expected Annual Volatility	76.81	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	2.00
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0.00	%

Net proceeds from the September 2020 Offering were allocated to the fair values of the shares and share purchase warrants as presented below:

Fair Value of Shares	$	12,000
Fair Value of Share Purchase Warrants		1,446
Total Fair Value Before Allocation to Net Proceeds	$	13,446
Gross Proceeds	$	15,000
Share Issuance Costs - Cash		(878	)
Net Cash Proceeds Received	$	14,122
Relative Fair Value Allocation to:
Shares	$	12,603
Share Purchase Warrants		1,519
	$	14,122

During Fiscal 2021, we issued 13,668,906 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2020 ATM Offering for net cash proceeds of $29,321.

On March 19, 2021, we completed a registered direct offering of 10,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for net proceeds of $29,084.

On April 8, 2021, we completed a registered direct offering of 3,636,364 shares of the Company’s common stock for net proceeds of $11,316. In connection with the April 2021 Offering, we also issued, on a private placement basis, 181,818 common stock purchase warrants (each, an “Agent Warrant”) to the agent as partial compensation, and each Agent Warrant entitles its holder to acquire one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.125 per share and expiring five years from the date of issuance.

The Agent Warrants were valued at $1.80 per warrant using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	0.85	%
Expected Annual Volatility	72.17	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	5.00
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0.00	%

During Fiscal 2021, we issued 2,265,700 shares of the Company’s common stocks under our May 2021 ATM Offering for net cash proceeds of $6,157.

During Fiscal 2022, we issued 47,507,536 shares of the Company’s common stocks under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $163,814.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we issued a further 3,510,100 shares of the Company’s common stock under our 2021 ATM Offerings for net cash proceeds of $14,808.

Share Purchase Warrants

A continuity schedule of outstanding share purchase warrants as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the periods, is as follows:

	Number of Warrants			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Balance, July 31, 2019		19,443,910		$	1.94
Issued		300,000			1.38
Expired		(12,021,929	)		1.87
Balance, July 31, 2020		7,721,981			2.03
Issued in connection with September 2020 Offering		6,833,333			1.80
Issued in connection with April 2021 Offering		181,818			4.13
Exercised		(8,240,505	)		1.99
Expired		(1,109,304	)		1.87
Balance, July 31, 2021		5,387,323			1.90
Exercised		(1,771,869	)		1.88
Balance, July 31, 2022		3,615,454		$	1.92

A summary of share purchase warrants outstanding and exercisable as at July 31, 2022 is as follows:

Weighted Average Exercise Price		Number of Warrants Outstanding		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Years)		Expiry Date
$	1.80		3,408,636		0.15	September 23, 2022
	1.64		25,000		0.80	May 21, 2023
	4.13		181,818		3.68	April 5, 2026
$	1.92		3,615,454		0.33

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we received cash proceeds totaling $3,325, $3,589 and $Nil, respectively, from the exercise of share purchase warrants.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we received cash proceeds totaling $6,141 from the exercise of share purchase warrants.

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Share-Based Payment Arrangement [Text Block]

NOTE 15: STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

Stock Options

As at July 31, 2022, we had one stock option plan, our 2022 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2022 Plan”), which superseded and replaced the Company’s 2021 Stock Incentive Plan (collectively the “Stock Incentive Plan”), such that no further shares are issuable under the prior plan.

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, we granted stock options under the Stock Incentive Plan to certain of our directors, officers, employees and consultants to purchase an aggregate of 1,279,692, 959,588 and 4,838,900 shares of the Company, respectively, which are subject to a 24-month vesting provision whereby, at the end of each of the first three and six months after the grant date, 12.5% of the total stock options become exercisable, and whereby at the end of each of 12, 18 and 24 months after the grant date, 25% of the total stock options become exercisable. In addition, during Fiscal 2020, we granted performance stock options (the “PSO”s) under the Stock Incentive Plan to certain of our directors and officers to purchase an aggregate of 1,325,000 shares of the Company. The PSOs are subject to a three-year vesting provision whereby one-third of the total PSOs become exercisable at the end of each of the first, second and third year after the date of grant.

The fair value of these stock options was estimated at the date of grant, using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model, with the following weighted average assumptions:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate		2.73	%		0.70	%		0.40	%
Expected Volatility		78.75	%		72.57	%		60.48	%
Expected Life in Years		4.96			5.00			4.93
Expected Dividend Yield		0	%		0	%		0	%
Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value	$	2.45		$	1.30		$	0.45

A continuity schedule of outstanding stock options as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year periods, is as follows:

	Number of Stock Options			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Balance, July 31, 2019		15,738,350		$	1.30
Granted		6,163,900			0.95
Cancelled/Forfeited		(179,344	)		1.02
Expired		(6,208,156	)		1.39
Balance, July 31, 2020		15,514,750			1.13
Granted		959,588			2.21
Exercised		(4,705,005	)		1.09
Expired		(1,365,000	)		1.48
Balance, July 31, 2021		10,404,333			1.21
Granted		1,279,692			3.80
Exercised		(2,728,498	)		1.17
Expired		(75,000	)		2.50
Balance, July 31, 2022		8,880,527		$	1.58

The table below sets forth the number of shares issued and cash received upon exercise of stock options:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Number of Options Exercised on Cash Basis		872,580		1,734,127		-
Number of Options Exercised on Forfeiture Basis		1,855,918		2,970,878		-
Total Number of Options Exercised		2,728,498		4,705,005		-
Number of Shares Issued on Cash Exercise		872,580		1,734,127		-
Number of Shares Issued on Forfeiture Basis		1,279,515		1,592,128		-
Total Number of Shares Issued Upon Exercise of Options		2,152,095		3,326,255		-
Cash Received from Exercise of Stock Options	$	934	$	1,916	$	-
Total Intrinsic Value of Options Exercised	$	8,336	$	6,882	$	-

A continuity schedule of outstanding unvested stock options at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year periods, is as follows:

	Number of Unvested Stock Options			Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		3,310,600		$	0.59
Granted		6,163,900			0.45
Vested		(2,590,154	)		0.60
Cancelled/Forfeited		(86,875	)		0.43
Balance, July 31, 2020		6,797,471			0.46
Granted		959,588			1.30
Vested		(3,865,852	)		0.47
Balance, July 31, 2021		3,891,207			0.66
Granted		1,279,692			2.45
Vested		(2,984,745	)		0.59
Balance, July 31, 2022		2,186,154		$	1.79

As at July 31, 2022, the aggregate intrinsic value of all outstanding stock options granted was estimated at $23,292 (vested: $20,469 and unvested: $2,823). As at July 31, 2022, the unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested stock options was $3,196 expected to be recognized over 1.17 years.

A summary of stock options outstanding and exercisable as at July 31, 2022 is as follows:

			Options Outstanding						Options Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices			Outstanding at July 31, 2022		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Exercisable at July 31, 2022		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)
$0.80	to	$0.99		3,968,499	$	0.92		7.55		3,968,499	$	0.92		7.55
$1.00	to	$1.99		2,738,875		1.29		4.23		2,297,207		1.32		3.52
$2.00	to	$2.99		903,461		2.22		8.95		416,167		2.22		8.94
$3.00	to	$3.98		1,269,692		3.80		9.75		12,500		3.18		4.91
				8,880,527	$	1.58		6.98		6,694,373	$	1.14		6.25

Restricted Stock Units

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the Company granted RSUs to certain directors and officers of the Company under our Stock Incentive Plan. RSUs granted during Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021 have a vesting period of three years from the grant date, whereby one-third of the RSUs will vest at the end of the first, second and third year, respectively, from the date of grant. RSUs granted during Fiscal 2020 have a vesting period of three years from the grant date, whereby one-half of the RSUs will vest at the end of the first year, and one-third of the remaining one-half will vest at the end of each of the first, second and third year, respectively, from the date of grant. The fair value of these RSUs were determined using the share prices at the respective grant dates.

A continuity schedule of outstanding RSUs as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year end periods, is as follows:

	Number of Restricted Stock Units			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		465,000		$	0.94
Granted		1,305,000			0.91
Vested		(155,000	)		0.94
Balance, July 31, 2020		1,615,000			0.92
Granted		407,617			2.15
Vested		(1,025,005	)		0.91
Balance, July 31, 2021		997,612			1.42
Granted		346,790			4.03
Vested		(508,368	)		1.25
Balance, July 31, 2022		836,034		$	2.61

A summary of outstanding unvested RSUs as at July 31, 2022, is as follows:

Grant Date	Number of Restricted Stock Units		Grant Date Fair Value		Remaining Life (Years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value
July 16, 2020		217,498	$	0.91		0.96	$	913
July 21, 2021		271,746		2.15		1.98		1,141
May 01, 2022		58,824		4.25		2.75		247
July 29, 2022		287,966		3.98		3.00		1,209
		836,034	$	2.61		2.12	$	3,510

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, the number of RSUs vested, the net RSU shares issued and the net RSU shares forfeited as payments of tax withholding amounts are as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Number of RSUs vested		508,368		1,025,005		155,000
Number of net RSU shares issued		267,681		536,361		105,844
Number of RSU shares forfeited as payments of withholding amount		240,687		488,644		49,156

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, stock-based compensation relating to the RSUs were $780, $1,060 and $309, respectively. As at July 31, 2022, unrecognized compensation costs related to unvested RSUs totaled $1,749, which is expected to be recognized over a period of approximately 1.85 years.

Performance Based Restricted Stock Units

During Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021, the Company granted 120,816 and 246,475 target PRSUs (the “Target PRSUs”) and allocated up to the same amount of respective PRSUs (the “Additional PRSUs”, and together with the Target PRSUs, the “PRSUs”) respectively, to the Company’s executive officers under our Stock Incentive Plan. These PRSUs vest based on certain performance goals measured by the Company’s share price relative to the Global X Uranium ETF share price over a three-year period (the “Performance Period”). The PRSUs vest based on relative Total Shareholder Return’s (“TSR”) (stock price appreciation) over the measurement period from the grant date of the PRSUs (the “Measurement Period”). No PRSUs were granted in Fiscal 2020.

These PRSUs have a market condition considered in the determination of the fair value such that the ultimate number of PRSUs that vest will be determined by the Company’s share performance relative to the Global X Uranium ETF share price from the grant date over the Performance Period. Depending on the TSR performance, the percentage eligible to vest at the end of the respective Measurement Period would range from 0% to 200% of the Target PRSUs for that Measurement Period. The vested PRSUs will accrue annually and will not settle until the end of the Performance Period. Each vested PRSU converts into one common share of the Company at the end of the Performance Period with no cash settlement alternatives. The PRSUs carry neither rights to dividends nor voting rights. The Company accounts for the PRSUs as an equity-settled plan.

The fair values of the Target PRSUs granted in Fiscal 2022 and Fiscal 2021 were valued using the Monte Carlo Simulation Model at the date of grant with the following principal assumptions. No PRSUs were granted in Fiscal 2020.

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate		2.80	%		0.39	%
Expected Volatility		90.90	%		78.03	%
Expected Dividend Yield		0	%		0	%
Expected Life in Years		3			3
Correlation		76.89	%		66.02	%
Grant Price	$	3.98		$	2.15
Grant Date Fair Value	$	4.80		$	2.48

During Fiscal 2022, an aggregate of 445,000 PRSUs vested based on UEC’s share performance relative to the Global X Uranium ETF. These vested PRSUs, together with 222,500 and 90,001 PRSUs vested and accrued during Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, respectively, were settled in July 2022, which was the end of three-year Performance Period. As a result, 757,501 PRSU shares vested and were settled, with 361,122 net PRSU shares being issued and 396,379 net PRSU shares being forfeited as payment of tax withholding amounts.

A continuity schedule of unvested PRSUs comprised of Target PRSUs and Additional PRSUs as at July 31, 2022, and the changes during the fiscal year end periods, is as follows:

	Number of Unvested PRSUs			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		890,000		$	1.15
Forfeited		(132,499	)		1.15
Balance, July 31, 2020		757,501			1.15
Granted		492,950			2.48
Balance, July 31, 2021		1,250,451			1.67
Granted		241,632			4.80
Vested		(757,501	)		1.15
Balance, July 31, 2022		734,582		$	3.24

During Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, stock-based compensation related to amortization of PRSUs totaled $293, $156 and $274, respectively. As at July 31, 2022, unrecognized compensation costs relating to unvested PRSUs totaled $981, which is expected to be recognized over a period of approximately 2.41 years.

Stock-Based Compensation

A summary of stock-based compensation expense for Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, is as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Stock-Based Compensation for Consultants
Common stock issued to consultants	$	770	$	877	$	540
Amortization of stock option expenses		220		288		240
		990		1,165		780
Stock-Based Compensation for Management
Common stock issued to management		-		135		225
Amortization of stock option expenses		471		774		645
Amortization of RSU and PRSU expenses		1,035		1,215		583
		1,506		2,124		1,453
Stock-Based Compensation for Employees
Common stock issued to employees		1,187		1,200		635
Amortization of stock option expenses		960		982		640
Amortization of RSU expenses		38		-		-
		2,185		2,182		1,275
Settlement of share issuance obligation		-		-		(15	)
	$	4,681	$	5,471	$	3,493

XML

Note 16 - Sales and Service Revenue and Cost of Sales and Services

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Revenue from Contract with Customer [Text Block]

NOTE 16: SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE AND COST OF SALES AND SERVICES

During Fiscal 2022, we recorded sales of $22,946 from the sales of 500,000 pounds of our uranium concentrate inventory. During Fiscal 2022, we recorded revenue from toll processing services of $215, which was generated from processing uranium resins according to a toll processing agreement that we inherited from the U1A Acquisition. No sales of purchased inventory and revenue from toll processing services are recorded in Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020.

The table below provides a breakdown of sales and service revenue and cost of sales and service revenue:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021		2020
Sales of purchased uranium inventory	$	22,946		$	-	$	-
Revenue from toll processing services		215			-		-
Total sales and service revenue	$	23,161		$	-	$	-
Cost of purchased uranium inventory	$	(15,689	)	$	-	$	-
Cost of toll processing services		(179	)		-		-
Total cost of sales and services	$	(15,868	)	$	-	$	-

Of the total sales of purchased uranium inventory, sales to customer A represent 57% and sales to customer B represent 43%.

XML

Note 17 - Unrealized Loss on Equity Securities

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Investments in Debt and Marketable Equity Securities (and Certain Trading Assets) Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 17: UNREALIZED LOSS ON EQUITY SECURITIES

During Fiscal 2022, we recorded unrealized loss on equity securities as a result of re-valuating our investments in equity securities as at July 31, 2022. Our investments in Anfield and UEX shares are level 1 financial instruments, which was re-valuated using the quoted share prices, and our investment in Anfield Warrants is a level 2 financial instrument, which was re-valuated using observable inputs using the Black-Sholes Valuation Model with the following assumptions.

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.59	%
Annual Volatility	64.76	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	4.78
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0	%

Unrealized loss on equity securities for Fiscal 2022 consisted for the following:

Urealized loss from investment in Anfield shares	$	(1,925	)
Urealized loss from investment in Anfield warrants		(1,105	)
Urealized gain from investment in UEX shares		1,132
Total	$	(1,898	)

XML

Note 18 - Net Income (Loss) Per Share

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Earnings Per Share [Text Block]

NOTE 18: NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

The following table reconciles the weighted average number of shares used in the computation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share for Fiscal 2022, Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020:

	Year Ended July 31,
Numerator	2022		2021			2020
Net Income (Loss) for the Year	$	5,252	$	(14,813	)	$	(14,610	)
Denominator
Basic Weighted Average Number of Shares		271,019,472		210,295,992			183,041,766
Dilutive Effect of Stock Awards and Warrants		9,082,601		-			-
Diluted Weighted Average Number of Shares		280,102,073		210,295,992			183,041,766
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic	$	0.02	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted	$	0.02	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)

For Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2020, all outstanding share purchase warrants and stock awards including stock options, RSUs and PRSUs were excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share as their effects would be anti-dilutive.

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Income Tax Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 19: INCOME TAXES

As at July 31, 2022, we had U.S. net operating loss carry-forwards of approximately $199.0 million and Canadian net operating loss carry-forwards of approximately $4.5 million in Canadian dollars that may be available to reduce future years’ taxable income.  These carry-forwards will begin to expire, if not utilized, commencing in 2023.  In addition, as at July 31, 2022, we had U.S. net operating loss totaling $95.9 million and interest expenses of $5.5 million subject to IRC section 163(j) limitation, which will be carried forward indefinitely as a result of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017.  Future tax benefits which may arise as a result of these losses have not been recognized in these consolidated financial statements, as their realization has been determined not likely to occur and, accordingly, we have recorded a full valuation allowance for the deferred tax assets relating to these tax loss carry-forwards.

We review the valuation allowance requirements on an annual basis based on projected future operations. When circumstances change resulting in a change in management’s judgement about the recoverability of deferred tax assets, the impact of the change on the valuation allowance will generally be reflected in current income.

A reconciliation of income tax computed at the federal and state statutory tax rates including the Company’s effective tax rate is as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Federal income tax provision rate		21.00	%		21.00	%		21.00	%
State income tax provision rate, net of federal income tax effect		2.95	%		0.83	%		0.72	%
Total income tax provision rate		23.95	%		21.83	%		21.72	%

The actual income tax provisions differ from the expected amounts calculated by applying the combined federal and state corporate income tax rates to our loss before income taxes.

The components of these differences are as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Income (Loss) before income taxes	$	5,247		$	(14,817	)	$	(14,616	)
Corporate tax rate		23.95	%		21.83	%		21.72	%
Expected tax expense (recovery)		1,257			(3,235	)		(3,175	)
Increase (decrease) resulting from
Foreign tax rate differences		158			77			86
Permanent differences		(326	)		(217	)		170
Prior year true-up		6			(270	)		118
Change in state tax rate		(460	)		(406	)		(553	)
Foreign exchange rate differences		(4	)		(56	)		17
Other		188			163			72
Change in valuation allowance		(824	)		3,940			3,233
Tax adjustment from operations		(5	)		(4	)		(32	)
Unrealized loss, other comprehensive loss		-			-			26
Deferred tax benefits	$	(5	)	$	(4	)	$	(6	)

We have incurred taxable losses for all years since inception and, accordingly, no provision for current income tax has been recorded for the current or any prior fiscal years.

As at July 31, 2022, we re-evaluated the realizability of our tax loss carry-forwards and our conclusion that the realization of these tax loss carry-forwards is not likely to occur remains unchanged. As a result, we will continue to record a full valuation allowance for the deferred tax assets relating to the remaining tax loss carry-forwards.

The components of income (loss) from operations before income taxes, by tax jurisdiction, are as follows:

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2020			2019
United States	$	6,054		$	(14,297	)	$	(13,962	)
Canada		268			94			54
Paraguay		(1,075	)		(614	)		(708	)
	$	5,247		$	(14,817	)	$	(14,616	)

The Company’s deferred tax assets (liabilities) are as follows:

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Deferred tax assets (liabilities)
Mineral properties	$	1,401		$	1,277
Exploration costs		1,875			6,547
Stock option expense		4,651			4,623
Depreciable property		1,078			(1,163	)
Inventories		(3,955	)		(3,608	)
Asset retirement obligations		2,924			107
Other		654			81
Section 163(j) interest expense carry forwards		2,040			1,061
Loss carry forwards		70,162			49,988
		80,830			58,913
Valuation allowance		(80,454	)		(58,913	)
Deferred tax assets		-			-
Deferred tax assets, other comprehensive loss		-			-
Deferred tax liabilities
Mineral properties		(536	)		(541	)
Net deferred tax liabilities	$	(536	)	$	(541	)

As the criteria for recognizing deferred tax assets have not been met due to the uncertainty of realization, a valuation allowance of 100% has been recorded for the current and prior years.

The Company’s U.S. net operating loss carry-forwards expire as follows:

July 31, 2023	$	1,887
July 31, 2024		2,035
July 31, 2025		2,398
July 31, 2026		8,461
July 31, 2027		6,807
Remaining balance		177,442
	$	199,030

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a change in ownership under IRC Section 382 has occurred as a result of the Company’s acquisitions in prior years. When an ownership change has occurred, the utilization of these losses against future income would be subject to an annual limitation, which would be equal to the value of the acquired company immediately prior to the change in ownership multiplied by the IRC Section 382 rate in effect during the month of the change.

The Company’s Canadian net operating loss carry-forwards in Canadian dollars expire as follows:

July 31, 2027	$	183
July 31, 2028		630
July 31, 2029		769
July 31, 2030		764
July 31, 2031		1,206
Remaining balance		980
	$	4,532

XML

Note 20 - Segmented Information

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Segment Reporting Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 20: SEGMENTED INFORMATION

We currently operate in a single reportable segment and we are focused on uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing of uranium concentrates.

As at July 31, 2022, long-term assets located in the U.S. were $196,137 or 78% of our total long-term assets of $252,056.

The table below provides a breakdown of the Company’s long-term assets by geographic segment:

	July 31, 2022
Balance Sheet Items	United States								Canada		Paraguay		Total
	Texas		Arizona		Wyoming		Other States
Mineral Rights and Properties	$	12,420	$	4,727	$	148,720	$	85	$	982	$	15,014	$	181,948
Property, Plant and Equipment		7,068		-		12,773		-		26		367		20,234
Restricted Cash		1,949		15		5,287		-		-		-		7,251
Equity-Accounted Investment		-		-		-		-		24,177		-		24,177
Investment in Equity Securities		-		-		-		-		14,834		-		14,834
Other Non-Current Assets		1,447		-		1,646		-		519		-		3,612
Total Long-Term Assets	$	22,884	$	4,742	$	168,426	$	85	$	40,538	$	15,381	$	252,056

	July 31, 2021
Balance Sheet Items	United States								Canada		Paraguay		Total
	Texas		Arizona		Wyoming		Other States
Mineral Rights and Properties	$	12,421	$	4,627	$	31,528	$	147	$	547	$	14,514	$	63,784
Property, Plant and Equipment		6,646		-		313		-		34		365		7,358
Restricted Cash		1,949		15		74		-		-		-		2,038
Equity-Accounted Investment		-		-		-		-		20,730		-		20,730
Other Non-Current Assets		522		-		16		-		48		-		586
Total Long-Term Assets	$	21,538	$	4,642	$	31,931	$	147	$	21,359	$	14,879	$	94,496

The table below provides a breakdown of our operating results by geographic segment. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated.

	Year ended July 31, 2022
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Sales and service revenue	$	-		$	-		$	215		$	22,946		$	-		$	-		$	23,161
Cost of sales and services		-			-			(179	)		(15,689	)		-			-			(15,868	)
Gross profit		-			-			36			7,257			-			-			7,293
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures		5,525			156			3,117			72			5			1,279			10,154
General and administrative		9,817			15			922			1			4,226			45			15,026
Acquisition-related costs		-			-			3,444			-			-			-			3,444
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		375			-			983			-			16			5			1,379
Total operating costs		15,717			171			8,466			73			4,247			1,329			30,003
Income (loss) from operations		(15,717	)		(171	)		(8,430	)		7,184			(4,247	)		(1,329	)		(22,710	)
Other income (expenses)		(1,096	)		(19	)		6,074			-			22,994			4			27,957
Income (loss) before income taxes	$	(16,813	)	$	(190	)	$	(2,356	)	$	7,184		$	18,747		$	(1,325	)	$	5,247

	Year ended July 31, 2021
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures	$	3,002		$	125		$	672		$	69		$	8		$	603		$	4,479
General and administrative		9,596			15			86			2			2,894			47			12,640
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		358			-			15			-			17			3			393
Total operating costs		12,956			140			773			71			2,919			653			17,512
Loss from operations		(12,956	)		(140	)		(773	)		(71	)		(2,919	)		(653	)		(17,512	)
Other income (expenses)		(2,542	)		(19	)		(10	)		-			5,259			7			2,695
Loss before income taxes	$	(15,498	)	$	(159	)	$	(783	)	$	(71	)	$	2,340		$	(646	)	$	(14,817	)

	Year ended July 31, 2020
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures	$	3,166		$	104		$	597		$	70		$	-		$	645		$	4,582
General and administrative		6,983			14			112			2			2,272			59			9,442
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		274			-			15			1			12			8			310
Total operating costs		10,423			118			724			73			2,284			712			14,334
Loss from operations		(10,423	)		(118	)		(724	)		(73	)		(2,284	)		(712	)		(14,334	)
Other income (expenses)		(3,418	)		(19	)		2			-			3,148			5			(282	)
Loss before income taxes	$	(13,841	)	$	(137	)	$	(722	)	$	(73	)	$	864		$	(707	)	$	(14,616	)

XML

Note 21 - Subsequent Event

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Subsequent Events [Text Block]

NOTE 21: SUBSEQUENT EVENT

On June 13, 2022, we entered into a definitive agreement with UEX pursuant to which UEC would acquire all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX in an all-share transaction by way of the UEX Acquisition.  On June 21, 2022, under the UEX Agreement, we completed a private placement in UEX, whereby UEC acquired 11,627,907 UEX common shares at a price of CA$0.43 per UEX common share for total consideration of $3,867.  Subsequently, UEC acquired an additional 6,844,000 UEX common shares for total consideration of $1,914 by making purchases through the facilities of the TSX subject to and in accordance with applicable laws.  As of July 31, 2022, we owned 18,471,907 UEX common shares, representing a 3% interest in UEX, with a fair value of $6,914.  The investment in UEX was accounted for as investment in equity securities with change in fair value of $1,132 recorded as unrealized gain in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Subsequent to July 31, 2022, we closed the UEX Acquisition under the Canada Business Corporations Act, pursuant to which UEC acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX that UEC did not already own.  The UEX Acquisition was approved at a special meeting of UEX securityholders held on August 15, 2022 and was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on August 18, 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the UEX Acquisition, UEX shareholders received 0.090 common shares of UEC for each UEX common share held.  As a result, we issued 48,518,745 shares of UEC in exchange for the common shares of UEX that UEC did not already own.  The UEX shares UEC owned before closing the UEX Acquisition were returned to treasury.

At the date of these consolidated financial statements are issued, we are not able to gather sufficient information to determine whether the UEX Acquisition is an asset acquisition or business combination.

XML

Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Basis of Accounting, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Basis of Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and are presented in thousands of United States dollars. All inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated upon consolidation.

Certain financial statement line items have been reclassified to conform with current year’s presentation.

Exploratory Drilling Costs Capitalization and Impairment, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Exploration Stage

We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our Palangana and Christensen Ranch Mines (collectively, the “ISR Mines”). We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (“S-K 1300”), through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our uranium projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing in-situ recovery (“ISR”) mining, such as our ISR Mines. As a result, and despite the fact that we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines, we remain an Exploration Stage issuer, as defined by the SEC, and will continue to remain as an Exploration Stage issuer until such time proven or probable reserves have been established.

Beginning with our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2022, we report our mineral holdings in accordance with the SEC’s S-K 1300.

Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the Exploration Stage by establishing proven or probable reserves.  Expenditures relating to exploration activities, such as drill programs to establish mineralized materials, are expensed as incurred. Expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities, such as the construction of mine wellfields, ion exchange facilities and disposal wells, are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves are established for that project, after which expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred.

Companies in the Production Stage, as defined by the SEC, having established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to future reporting periods to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold.  We are in the Exploration Stage which has resulted in our Company reporting larger losses than if it had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing mine development activities.  Additionally, there would be no corresponding depletion allocated to future reporting periods of our Company since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage.  Any capitalized costs, such as expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method.  As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Business Combinations Policy [Policy Text Block]

Business Combination

We recognize and measure the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date, while transaction costs related to business combinations are expensed as incurred. An income, market or cost valuation method may be utilized to estimate the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, if any, in a business combination. The income valuation method represents the present value of future cash flows over the life of the asset using: (i) discrete financial forecasts, which rely on management’s estimates of resource quantities and exploration potential, costs to produce and develop resources, revenues and operating expenses; (ii) appropriate discount rates; and (iii) expected future capital requirements (the “income valuation method”). The market valuation method uses prices paid for a similar asset by other purchasers in the market, normalized for any differences between the assets (the “market valuation method”). The cost valuation method is based on the replacement cost of a comparable asset at the time of the acquisition adjusted for depreciation and economic and functional obsolescence of the asset (the “cost valuation method”). If the initial accounting for the business combination is incomplete by the end of the reporting period in which the acquisition occurs, an estimate will be recorded. Subsequent to the acquisition date, and not later than one year from the acquisition date, we will record any material adjustments to the initial estimate based on new information obtained that would have existed as of the date of the acquisition. Any adjustment that arises from information obtained that did not exist as of the date of the acquisition will be recorded in the period the adjustments arises.

Use of Estimates, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported revenues and expenses during the reported periods.  Areas requiring significant judgements, estimates and assumptions include the valuation of acquired mineral rights and properties, existence of impairment indicators for the Company’s long-live assets, valuation and measurement of impairment losses on mineral rights and properties, valuation of recoverability of a credit loss, valuation of stock-based compensation and asset retirement obligations. Other areas requiring estimates include allocations of expenditures to inventories, depletion and amortization of mineral rights and properties and depreciation of property, plant and equipment.  Actual results could differ significantly from those estimates and assumptions.

Foreign Currency Transactions and Translations Policy [Policy Text Block]

Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of our Company, including its subsidiaries, is the United States dollar. Our subsidiaries, UEC Resources Ltd., UEC Resources (SK) Ltd. and Cue Resources Ltd., maintain their accounting records in their local currency, the Canadian dollar. Piedra Rica Mining S.A., Transandes Paraguay S.A., Metalicos Y No Metalicos S.R.L. and Trier S.A. maintain their accounting records in their local currency, the Paraguayan Guarani. In accordance with ASC 830: Foreign Currency Matters, the financial statements of our subsidiaries are translated into United States dollars using period-end exchange rates as to monetary assets and liabilities and average exchange rates as to revenues and expenses. Non-monetary assets are translated at their historical exchange rates. Net gains and losses resulting from foreign exchange translations and foreign currency exchange gains and losses on transactions occurring in a currency other than our Company’s functional currency are included in the determination of net loss in the period.

Cash and Cash Equivalents, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents consist of bank deposits and term deposits with an original maturity of three months or less.

Fair Value Measurement, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Fair Value Measurement

Fair value accounting establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

● Level 1 - Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical unrestricted assets or liabilities;

● Level 2 - Quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability, and model-based valuation techniques for which all significant inputs are observable in the market or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities; and

● Level 3 - Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (supported by little or no market activity).

The financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, are carried at cost, which approximate their fair values due to the immediate or short-term maturity. Investments in equity securities are carried at fair value. Other loans payable and long-term debt are carried at amortized costs which approximate their respective fair values.

Inventory, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Inventories

Inventories are comprised of supplies, work-in-progress and uranium concentrates (“U₃O₈”) from production and purchased uranium concentrates from the market. Expenditures related to the extraction and processing of uranium concentrates and depreciation and depletion charges of extraction and processing plant and equipment are capitalized as work-in-progress and uranium concentrates from production. Costs of purchased uranium concentrates include the purchase price and other direct costs incurred during the purchase process.

Inventories are carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value and are charged to cost of sales using the average costing method.

Equity Method Investments [Policy Text Block]

Equity Investments

Investments in an entity in which our ownership is greater than 20% but less than 50%, or where other facts and circumstances indicate that we have the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financing policies of an entity, are accounted for using the equity method in accordance with ASC 323: Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures. Equity-accounted investments are recorded initially at cost and adjusted subsequently to recognize our share of the earnings, losses or other changes in capital of the investee entity after the date of acquisition. We periodically evaluate whether declines in fair values of our equity investments below the carrying value are other-than-temporary and, if so, whether an impairment loss is required.

Additionally, we hold certain equity investments in entities that we do not have the ability to exercise significant influence. These equity investments represent our ownership interests in certain entities, and therefore meet the definition of an equity security under ASC 321 Investments – Equity Securities and are measured at fair value at each period end, with unrealized holding gains or losses recorded to earnings.

Other Non-current Asset, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Other Non-Current Assets

Other non-current assets include future expenditures that we have paid in advance but will not receive benefits within one year. Expenses are recognized over the period the expenditures are used or the benefits from the expenditures are received. Transaction costs incurred in connection with acquisitions of long-term assets are also included in other non-current assets, which will be capitalized as acquisition costs if the transaction succeeds or will be written off if the transaction does not complete. Right-of-use (“ROU”) assets recognized in connection with recognition of lease liabilities are also included in Other Non-Current Assets.

Mineral Rights,Policy [Policy Text Block]

Mineral Rights

Acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under S-K 1300, are established for that project.

Where proven and probable reserves have been established, the project’s capitalized expenditures are depleted over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method upon commencement of production. Where proven and probable reserves have not been established, the project’s capitalized expenditures are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method upon commencement of extraction. We have not established proven or probable reserves for any of our projects.

Databases [Policy Text Block]

Databases

Expenditures relating to mineral property databases are capitalized upon acquisition while those developed internally are expensed as incurred. Mineral property databases are amortized using the straight-line method over a five-year period during which management believes these assets will contribute to our cash flows. Databases are included in Mineral Rights and Properties in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Property, Plant and Equipment, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated to their estimated residual values using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives, as follows:

● Plant and processing facilities: 10 to 21 years;

● Mining and logging equipment and vehicles: 5 to 10 years;

● Computer equipment: 3 years;

● Furniture and fixtures: 5 years; and

● Buildings: 20 years.

Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, Including Intangible Assets, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived assets including mineral rights and property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. Management applies judgment to assess whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable giving rise to the requirement to conduct an impairment test. Circumstances which could trigger an impairment test include, but are not limited to: significant decreases in the market price of the asset; significant adverse changes in the business climate or legal factors including significant decreases in uranium or titanium prices; significant increases in reclamation costs and accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of the asset; current period cash flow or operating losses combined with a history of losses or a forecast of continuing losses associated with the use of the asset; and current expectation that the asset will more likely than not be sold or disposed of significantly before the end of its estimated useful life. Recoverability of these assets is measured by comparing the carrying value to the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. When the carrying value of an asset exceeds the related undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recorded by writing down the carrying value of the related asset to its estimated fair value, which is determined using discounted future cash flows or other measures of fair value.

Income Tax, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities. We provide a valuation allowance on deferred tax assets unless it is more likely than not that such assets will be realized.

Asset Retirement Obligation [Policy Text Block]

Restoration and Remediation Costs (Asset Retirement Obligations)

Various federal and state mining laws and regulations require our Company to reclaim the surface areas and restore underground water quality to the pre-existing quality or class of use after the completion of mining. We recognize the present value of the future restoration and remediation costs as an asset retirement obligation in the period in which we incur an obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development and/or normal use of the assets.

Asset retirement obligations consist of estimated final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal and environmental remediation costs to be incurred by our Company in the future. The asset retirement obligation is estimated based on the current costs escalated at an inflation rate and discounted at a credit adjusted risk-free rate at inception. The asset retirement obligations are capitalized as part of the costs of the underlying assets and amortized over its remaining useful life. The asset retirement obligations are accreted to an undiscounted value until they are settled. The accretion expenses are charged to earnings and the actual retirement costs are recorded against the asset retirement obligations when incurred. Any difference between the recorded asset retirement obligations and the actual retirement costs incurred will be recorded as a gain or loss in the period of settlement.

Debt, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Long-Term Debt

Long-Term Debt is carried at amortized cost. Debt issuance costs, debt premiums and discounts and annual fees are included in the long-term debt balance and amortized using the effective interest rate over the contractual terms of the Long-Term Debt.

Lessee, Leases [Policy Text Block]

Leases

We determine if a contractual arrangement represents or contains a lease at inception. Operating leases with lease terms greater than 12 months are included in Other Non-Current Assets, Other Current Liabilities and Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheet. Assets under finance leases are included in Property, Plant and Equipment and the related lease liabilities in Other Current Liabilities and Other Non-Current Liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Operating and finance lease ROU assets and lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of the future lease payments over the lease term at the commencement date. When the rate implicit to the lease cannot be readily determined, we utilize the incremental borrowing rate in determining the present value of the future lease payments. The incremental borrowing rate is the rate of interest our Company would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term and the amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment.

The operating lease expenses are recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term and included in general and administration expenses. Short-term leases, which have an initial term of 12 months or less, are not recorded in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

We have leases arrangements that include both lease and non-lease components. We account for each separate lease component and its associated non-lease components as a single lease component for all of our asset classes.

Revenue [Policy Text Block]

Revenue Recognition

Our revenues are primarily derived from the sale of U₃O₈ that we purchased under our Physical Uranium Program.  The sales contracts specify the quantity to be delivered, the price, payment terms and the year of the delivery.  Ten days before the scheduled delivery date, the Company notifies the conversion facility with instructions for a title transfer to the customer. Revenue is recognized once a title transfer of the U₃O₈ is confirmed by the conversion facility.

Share-Based Payment Arrangement [Policy Text Block]

Stock-Based Compensation

We measure stock-based awards at fair value on the date of the grant and expense the awards over the requisite service period of employees or consultants.  The fair value of stock options is determined using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model.  The fair value of restricted stock units (“RSU”s) is determined using the share price of the Company at the date of grant.  The fair value of performance based restricted stock units (“PRSU”s) is determined using the Monte Carlo Simulation Model.  Stock-based compensation expense related to stock option awards is recognized over the requisite service period on a graded vesting basis.  Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur.

The Company’s estimates may be impacted by certain variables including, but not limited to, stock price volatility, employee stock option exercise behaviors, additional stock option grants, the Company’s performance and related tax impacts.

Earnings Per Share, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

Basic earnings or loss per share includes no potential dilution and is computed by dividing the earnings or loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings or loss per share reflect the potential dilution of securities that could share in the earnings or loss of our Company. Dilutive securities are excluded from the calculation of our diluted weighted average common shares outstanding if their effect would be anti-dilutive based on the treasury stock method or due to a net loss from continuing operations.

XML

Note 3 - Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Recognized Identified Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed [Table Text Block]

Consideration paid
Cash	$	125,593
Working capital adjustment (1)		2,902
Total consideration paid	$	128,495
Assets acquired and liabilities assumed
Cash & cash equivalents (1)	$	1,183
Prepaid expenses and deposits (1)		1,550
Other current assets (1)		73
Inventories (1)		192
Mineral rights and properties (2)		110,693
Property, plant and equipment (3)		13,004
Restricted cash		13,755
Debt receivable (4)		-
Other non-current assets (5)		1,613
Total assets		142,063
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (1)		96
Other liabilities (5)		765
Asset retirement obligations (6)		12,707
Total liabilities		13,568
Total net assets	$	128,495

Business Acquisition, Pro Forma Information [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021
Sales and service revenue	$	23,298	$	192
Net income (loss) for the year		2,626		(21,945	)

XML

Note 4 - Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Fair Value Measurement Inputs and Valuation Techniques [Table Text Block]

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.93	%
Annual Volatility	64.94	%
Life in Years	4.94
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0	%

XML

Note 5 - Inventories (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Inventory, Current [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Material and supplies	$	232	$	33
Uranium concentrates from production		178		178
Purchased uranium inventories		66,160		28,961
	$	66,570	$	29,172

Contractual Obligation, Fiscal Year Maturity [Table Text Block]

	Purchase Commitments in Pounds		Total Purchase Price
Fiscal 2023		1,721,000	$	65,309
Fiscal 2024		895,000		38,913
Fiscal 2025		600,000		23,120
Fiscal 2026		100,000		3,620
Total		3,316,000	$	130,962

XML

Note 6 - Mineral Rights and Properties (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule Of Mineral Rights and Property Acquisition Costs [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Mineral Rights and Properties
Palangana Mine	$	6,028		$	6,028
Goliad Project		8,689			8,689
Burke Hollow Project		1,496			1,496
Anderson Project		3,470			3,470
Workman Creek Project		1,000			900
Reno Creek Project		31,528			31,528
Christensen Ranch Mine		39,062			-
Ludeman Project		32,306			-
Antelope Project		29,855			-
Moore Ranch Project		4,972			-
Irigaray Project		1,362			-
Barge Project		3,136			-
Gas Hills Project		980			-
Nine Mile Project		954			-
Charlie Project		905			-
Diabase Project		982			547
Yuty Project		11,947			11,947
Oviedo Project		1,133			1,133
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		1,933			1,433
Other Properties		4,139			540
		185,877			67,711
Accumulated Depletion		(3,930	)		(3,930	)
		181,947			63,781
Databases and Land Use Agreements		2,459			2,459
Accumulated Amortization		(2,458	)		(2,456	)
		1			3
	$	181,948		$	63,784

Schedule Of Mineral Property Expenditures Incurred by Major Projects [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Mineral Property Expenditures
Palangana Mine	$	1,060	$	890	$	1,343
Burke Hollow Project		3,647		1,446		1,130
Goliad Project		240		237		190
Anderson Project		108		79		71
Workman Creek Project		33		33		33
Reno Creek Project		821		672		597
Christensen Ranch Mine		1,257		-		-
Ludeman Project		219		-		-
Antelope Project		70		-		-
Moore Ranch Project		143		-		-
Barge Project		37		-		-
Yuty Project		86		31		66
Oviedo Project		619		372		350
Alto Paraná Titanium Project		574		199		230
Other Mineral Property Expenditures		1,240		520		572
	$	10,154	$	4,479	$	4,582

XML

Note 7 - Property, Plant and Equipment (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Property, Plant and Equipment [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022							July 31, 2021
	Cost		Accumulated Depreciation			Net Book Value		Cost		Accumulated Depreciation			Net Book Value
Plant and Processing Facilities	$	18,964	$	(1,306	)	$	17,658	$	6,643	$	(851	)	$	5,792
Mining Equipment		2,777		(2,382	)		395		2,355		(2,313	)		42
Logging Equipment and Vehicles		2,666		(1,851	)		815		1,924		(1,775	)		149
Computer Equipment		360		(313	)		47		326		(284	)		42
Furniture and Fixtures		190		(177	)		13		185		(172	)		13
Buildings		298		(72	)		226		298		(58	)		240
Land		1,080		-			1,080		1,080		-			1,080
	$	26,335	$	(6,101	)	$	20,234	$	12,811	$	(5,453	)	$	7,358

XML

Note 8 - Restricted Cash (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Restrictions on Cash and Cash Equivalents [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	2,038		$	1,839
Restricted cash received from U1A Acquisition		13,755			-
(Release) addition of surety bond collateral		(8,550	)		199
Interest received		8			-
Balance, end of year	$	7,251		$	2,038

Schedule of Cash and Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021		July 31, 2020
Cash and cash equivalents	$	32,536	$	44,313	$	5,149
Restricted cash		7,251		2,038		1,839
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash	$	39,787	$	46,351	$	6,988

XML

Note 9 - Equity-Accounted Investment (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Equity Method Investments [Table Text Block]

Balance, July 31, 2019	$	8,680
Share of loss from URC		(89	)
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,057
Translation loss		(133	)
Balance, July 31, 2020		11,515
Addition		3,397
Share of income from URC		732
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		4,473
Translation gain		613
Balance, July 31, 2021		20,730
Share of income from URC		153
Gain on dilution of ownership interest		3,973
Translation loss		(679	)
Balance, July 31, 2022	$	24,177

XML

Note 10 - Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Trade payables	$	2,019	$	1,301
Accrued purchases		1,497		459
Accrued payroll liabilities		3,946		418
Liabilities assumed from prior acquisitions		700		586
	$	8,162	$	2,764

XML

Note 11 - Long-term Debt (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Credit Agreement [Member]

Notes Tables

Schedule of Long-Term Debt Instruments [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	10,075		$	19,869
Amortization of discount and accrued fees		525			1,376
Payment of anniversary fees		(600	)		(1,170	)
Principal repayment		(10,000	)		(10,000	)
Balance, end of year	$	-		$	10,075

XML

Note 12 - Asset Retirement Obligations (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Change in Asset Retirement Obligation [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022		July 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$	3,939	$	3,735
Accretion		630		204
Assumed from U1A Acquisition		12,707		-
Balance, end of year	$	17,276	$	3,939

Schedule Of Estimated Cash flow and Assumption Used For ARO [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Undiscounted amount of estimated cash flows	$28,739			$8,221
Payable in years	1	to	23		9	to	21
Inflation rate	1.56%	to	5.32%		1.56%	to	2.17%
Discount rate	3.72%	to	6.35%		5.50%	to	5.96%

Schedule Of Undiscounted Amounts Of Estimated Cash Flows [Table Text Block]

Fiscal 2023	$	214
Fiscal 2024		1,300
Fiscal 2025		1,472
Fiscal 2026		2,489
Fiscal 2027		2,509
Remaining balance		20,755
	$	28,739

XML

Note 13 - Lease Liabilities (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Lease, Cost [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2022
Operating Leases	$	274	$	220	$	230
Short-term Leases		1,401		607		445
Total Lease Expenses	$	1,675	$	827	$	675

Lessee, Operating Lease, Liability, Maturity [Table Text Block]

Fiscal 2023	$	291
Fiscal 2024		113
Fiscal 2025		104
Fiscal 2026		104
Fiscal 2027		69
Thereafter		975
Total lease payments		1,656
Less: imputed interest		(472	)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	1,184
Current portion of lease liabilities	$	244
Non-current portion of lease liabilities	$	940

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Warrants, Valuation Assumptions [Table Text Block]

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	0.14	%
Expected Annual Volatility	76.81	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	2.00
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0.00	%

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	0.85	%
Expected Annual Volatility	72.17	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	5.00
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0.00	%

Schedule of Net Proceeds Allocation [Table Text Block]

Fair Value of Shares	$	12,000
Fair Value of Share Purchase Warrants		1,446
Total Fair Value Before Allocation to Net Proceeds	$	13,446
Gross Proceeds	$	15,000
Share Issuance Costs - Cash		(878	)
Net Cash Proceeds Received	$	14,122
Relative Fair Value Allocation to:
Shares	$	12,603
Share Purchase Warrants		1,519
	$	14,122

Schedule Of Share based Compensation Warrants Activity [Table Text Block]

	Number of Warrants			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Balance, July 31, 2019		19,443,910		$	1.94
Issued		300,000			1.38
Expired		(12,021,929	)		1.87
Balance, July 31, 2020		7,721,981			2.03
Issued in connection with September 2020 Offering		6,833,333			1.80
Issued in connection with April 2021 Offering		181,818			4.13
Exercised		(8,240,505	)		1.99
Expired		(1,109,304	)		1.87
Balance, July 31, 2021		5,387,323			1.90
Exercised		(1,771,869	)		1.88
Balance, July 31, 2022		3,615,454		$	1.92

Schedule of Stockholders' Equity Note, Warrants or Rights [Table Text Block]

Weighted Average Exercise Price		Number of Warrants Outstanding		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Years)		Expiry Date
$	1.80		3,408,636		0.15	September 23, 2022
	1.64		25,000		0.80	May 21, 2023
	4.13		181,818		3.68	April 5, 2026
$	1.92		3,615,454		0.33

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Share-Based Payment Award, Stock Options, Valuation Assumptions [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate		2.73	%		0.70	%		0.40	%
Expected Volatility		78.75	%		72.57	%		60.48	%
Expected Life in Years		4.96			5.00			4.93
Expected Dividend Yield		0	%		0	%		0	%
Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value	$	2.45		$	1.30		$	0.45

Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option, Activity [Table Text Block]

	Number of Stock Options			Weighted Average Exercise Price
Balance, July 31, 2019		15,738,350		$	1.30
Granted		6,163,900			0.95
Cancelled/Forfeited		(179,344	)		1.02
Expired		(6,208,156	)		1.39
Balance, July 31, 2020		15,514,750			1.13
Granted		959,588			2.21
Exercised		(4,705,005	)		1.09
Expired		(1,365,000	)		1.48
Balance, July 31, 2021		10,404,333			1.21
Granted		1,279,692			3.80
Exercised		(2,728,498	)		1.17
Expired		(75,000	)		2.50
Balance, July 31, 2022		8,880,527		$	1.58

Cash Proceeds Received and Tax Benefit from Share-Based Payment Awards [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Number of Options Exercised on Cash Basis		872,580		1,734,127		-
Number of Options Exercised on Forfeiture Basis		1,855,918		2,970,878		-
Total Number of Options Exercised		2,728,498		4,705,005		-
Number of Shares Issued on Cash Exercise		872,580		1,734,127		-
Number of Shares Issued on Forfeiture Basis		1,279,515		1,592,128		-
Total Number of Shares Issued Upon Exercise of Options		2,152,095		3,326,255		-
Cash Received from Exercise of Stock Options	$	934	$	1,916	$	-
Total Intrinsic Value of Options Exercised	$	8,336	$	6,882	$	-

Disclosure of Share-Based Compensation Arrangements by Share-Based Payment Award [Table Text Block]

	Number of Unvested Stock Options			Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		3,310,600		$	0.59
Granted		6,163,900			0.45
Vested		(2,590,154	)		0.60
Cancelled/Forfeited		(86,875	)		0.43
Balance, July 31, 2020		6,797,471			0.46
Granted		959,588			1.30
Vested		(3,865,852	)		0.47
Balance, July 31, 2021		3,891,207			0.66
Granted		1,279,692			2.45
Vested		(2,984,745	)		0.59
Balance, July 31, 2022		2,186,154		$	1.79

Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option, Exercise Price Range [Table Text Block]

			Options Outstanding						Options Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices			Outstanding at July 31, 2022		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Exercisable at July 31, 2022		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)
$0.80	to	$0.99		3,968,499	$	0.92		7.55		3,968,499	$	0.92		7.55
$1.00	to	$1.99		2,738,875		1.29		4.23		2,297,207		1.32		3.52
$2.00	to	$2.99		903,461		2.22		8.95		416,167		2.22		8.94
$3.00	to	$3.98		1,269,692		3.80		9.75		12,500		3.18		4.91
				8,880,527	$	1.58		6.98		6,694,373	$	1.14		6.25

Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Restricted Stock Unit, Activity [Table Text Block]

	Number of Restricted Stock Units			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		465,000		$	0.94
Granted		1,305,000			0.91
Vested		(155,000	)		0.94
Balance, July 31, 2020		1,615,000			0.92
Granted		407,617			2.15
Vested		(1,025,005	)		0.91
Balance, July 31, 2021		997,612			1.42
Granted		346,790			4.03
Vested		(508,368	)		1.25
Balance, July 31, 2022		836,034		$	2.61

Schedule of Nonvested Restricted Stock Units Activity [Table Text Block]

Grant Date	Number of Restricted Stock Units		Grant Date Fair Value		Remaining Life (Years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value
July 16, 2020		217,498	$	0.91		0.96	$	913
July 21, 2021		271,746		2.15		1.98		1,141
May 01, 2022		58,824		4.25		2.75		247
July 29, 2022		287,966		3.98		3.00		1,209
		836,034	$	2.61		2.12	$	3,510

Schedule of Restricted Stock Units Activity [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Number of RSUs vested		508,368		1,025,005		155,000
Number of net RSU shares issued		267,681		536,361		105,844
Number of RSU shares forfeited as payments of withholding amount		240,687		488,644		49,156

Schedule of Performance Based Restricted Stock Units, Valuation Assumptions [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate		2.80	%		0.39	%
Expected Volatility		90.90	%		78.03	%
Expected Dividend Yield		0	%		0	%
Expected Life in Years		3			3
Correlation		76.89	%		66.02	%
Grant Price	$	3.98		$	2.15
Grant Date Fair Value	$	4.80		$	2.48

Schedule of Nonvested Performance-Based Units Activity [Table Text Block]

	Number of Unvested PRSUs			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, July 31, 2019		890,000		$	1.15
Forfeited		(132,499	)		1.15
Balance, July 31, 2020		757,501			1.15
Granted		492,950			2.48
Balance, July 31, 2021		1,250,451			1.67
Granted		241,632			4.80
Vested		(757,501	)		1.15
Balance, July 31, 2022		734,582		$	3.24

Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Cost by Plan [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022		2021		2020
Stock-Based Compensation for Consultants
Common stock issued to consultants	$	770	$	877	$	540
Amortization of stock option expenses		220		288		240
		990		1,165		780
Stock-Based Compensation for Management
Common stock issued to management		-		135		225
Amortization of stock option expenses		471		774		645
Amortization of RSU and PRSU expenses		1,035		1,215		583
		1,506		2,124		1,453
Stock-Based Compensation for Employees
Common stock issued to employees		1,187		1,200		635
Amortization of stock option expenses		960		982		640
Amortization of RSU expenses		38		-		-
		2,185		2,182		1,275
Settlement of share issuance obligation		-		-		(15	)
	$	4,681	$	5,471	$	3,493

XML

Note 16 - Sales and Service Revenue and Cost of Sales and Services (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Revenue and Cost of Revenue [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021		2020
Sales of purchased uranium inventory	$	22,946		$	-	$	-
Revenue from toll processing services		215			-		-
Total sales and service revenue	$	23,161		$	-	$	-
Cost of purchased uranium inventory	$	(15,689	)	$	-	$	-
Cost of toll processing services		(179	)		-		-
Total cost of sales and services	$	(15,868	)	$	-	$	-

XML

Note 17 - Unrealized Loss on Equity Securities (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Equity Securities Measurement Inputs [Table Text Block]

Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.59	%
Annual Volatility	64.76	%
Expected Contractual Life in Years	4.78
Expected Annual Dividend Yield	0	%

Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments [Table Text Block]

Urealized loss from investment in Anfield shares	$	(1,925	)
Urealized loss from investment in Anfield warrants		(1,105	)
Urealized gain from investment in UEX shares		1,132
Total	$	(1,898	)

XML

Note 18 - Net Income (Loss) Per Share (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Earnings Per Share, Basic and Diluted [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
Numerator	2022		2021			2020
Net Income (Loss) for the Year	$	5,252	$	(14,813	)	$	(14,610	)
Denominator
Basic Weighted Average Number of Shares		271,019,472		210,295,992			183,041,766
Dilutive Effect of Stock Awards and Warrants		9,082,601		-			-
Diluted Weighted Average Number of Shares		280,102,073		210,295,992			183,041,766
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic	$	0.02	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted	$	0.02	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.08	)

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Schedule of Effective Income Tax Rate Reconciliation [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Federal income tax provision rate		21.00	%		21.00	%		21.00	%
State income tax provision rate, net of federal income tax effect		2.95	%		0.83	%		0.72	%
Total income tax provision rate		23.95	%		21.83	%		21.72	%

Schedule of Components of Income Tax Expense (Benefit) [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2021			2020
Income (Loss) before income taxes	$	5,247		$	(14,817	)	$	(14,616	)
Corporate tax rate		23.95	%		21.83	%		21.72	%
Expected tax expense (recovery)		1,257			(3,235	)		(3,175	)
Increase (decrease) resulting from
Foreign tax rate differences		158			77			86
Permanent differences		(326	)		(217	)		170
Prior year true-up		6			(270	)		118
Change in state tax rate		(460	)		(406	)		(553	)
Foreign exchange rate differences		(4	)		(56	)		17
Other		188			163			72
Change in valuation allowance		(824	)		3,940			3,233
Tax adjustment from operations		(5	)		(4	)		(32	)
Unrealized loss, other comprehensive loss		-			-			26
Deferred tax benefits	$	(5	)	$	(4	)	$	(6	)

Schedule of Income before Income Tax, Domestic and Foreign [Table Text Block]

	Year Ended July 31,
	2022			2020			2019
United States	$	6,054		$	(14,297	)	$	(13,962	)
Canada		268			94			54
Paraguay		(1,075	)		(614	)		(708	)
	$	5,247		$	(14,817	)	$	(14,616	)

Schedule of Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022			July 31, 2021
Deferred tax assets (liabilities)
Mineral properties	$	1,401		$	1,277
Exploration costs		1,875			6,547
Stock option expense		4,651			4,623
Depreciable property		1,078			(1,163	)
Inventories		(3,955	)		(3,608	)
Asset retirement obligations		2,924			107
Other		654			81
Section 163(j) interest expense carry forwards		2,040			1,061
Loss carry forwards		70,162			49,988
		80,830			58,913
Valuation allowance		(80,454	)		(58,913	)
Deferred tax assets		-			-
Deferred tax assets, other comprehensive loss		-			-
Deferred tax liabilities
Mineral properties		(536	)		(541	)
Net deferred tax liabilities	$	(536	)	$	(541	)

Summary of Operating Loss Carryforwards [Table Text Block]

July 31, 2023	$	1,887
July 31, 2024		2,035
July 31, 2025		2,398
July 31, 2026		8,461
July 31, 2027		6,807
Remaining balance		177,442
	$	199,030

July 31, 2027	$	183
July 31, 2028		630
July 31, 2029		769
July 31, 2030		764
July 31, 2031		1,206
Remaining balance		980
	$	4,532

XML

Note 20 - Segmented Information (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2022

Notes Tables

Long-Lived Assets by Geographic Areas [Table Text Block]

	July 31, 2022
Balance Sheet Items	United States								Canada		Paraguay		Total
	Texas		Arizona		Wyoming		Other States
Mineral Rights and Properties	$	12,420	$	4,727	$	148,720	$	85	$	982	$	15,014	$	181,948
Property, Plant and Equipment		7,068		-		12,773		-		26		367		20,234
Restricted Cash		1,949		15		5,287		-		-		-		7,251
Equity-Accounted Investment		-		-		-		-		24,177		-		24,177
Investment in Equity Securities		-		-		-		-		14,834		-		14,834
Other Non-Current Assets		1,447		-		1,646		-		519		-		3,612
Total Long-Term Assets	$	22,884	$	4,742	$	168,426	$	85	$	40,538	$	15,381	$	252,056

	July 31, 2021
Balance Sheet Items	United States								Canada		Paraguay		Total
	Texas		Arizona		Wyoming		Other States
Mineral Rights and Properties	$	12,421	$	4,627	$	31,528	$	147	$	547	$	14,514	$	63,784
Property, Plant and Equipment		6,646		-		313		-		34		365		7,358
Restricted Cash		1,949		15		74		-		-		-		2,038
Equity-Accounted Investment		-		-		-		-		20,730		-		20,730
Other Non-Current Assets		522		-		16		-		48		-		586
Total Long-Term Assets	$	21,538	$	4,642	$	31,931	$	147	$	21,359	$	14,879	$	94,496

Operating Results by Geographic Areas [Table Text Block]

	Year ended July 31, 2022
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Sales and service revenue	$	-		$	-		$	215		$	22,946		$	-		$	-		$	23,161
Cost of sales and services		-			-			(179	)		(15,689	)		-			-			(15,868	)
Gross profit		-			-			36			7,257			-			-			7,293
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures		5,525			156			3,117			72			5			1,279			10,154
General and administrative		9,817			15			922			1			4,226			45			15,026
Acquisition-related costs		-			-			3,444			-			-			-			3,444
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		375			-			983			-			16			5			1,379
Total operating costs		15,717			171			8,466			73			4,247			1,329			30,003
Income (loss) from operations		(15,717	)		(171	)		(8,430	)		7,184			(4,247	)		(1,329	)		(22,710	)
Other income (expenses)		(1,096	)		(19	)		6,074			-			22,994			4			27,957
Income (loss) before income taxes	$	(16,813	)	$	(190	)	$	(2,356	)	$	7,184		$	18,747		$	(1,325	)	$	5,247

	Year ended July 31, 2021
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures	$	3,002		$	125		$	672		$	69		$	8		$	603		$	4,479
General and administrative		9,596			15			86			2			2,894			47			12,640
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		358			-			15			-			17			3			393
Total operating costs		12,956			140			773			71			2,919			653			17,512
Loss from operations		(12,956	)		(140	)		(773	)		(71	)		(2,919	)		(653	)		(17,512	)
Other income (expenses)		(2,542	)		(19	)		(10	)		-			5,259			7			2,695
Loss before income taxes	$	(15,498	)	$	(159	)	$	(783	)	$	(71	)	$	2,340		$	(646	)	$	(14,817	)

	Year ended July 31, 2020
Statement of Operations	United States												Canada			Paraguay			Total
	Texas			Arizona			Wyoming			Other States
Operating Costs:
Mineral property expenditures	$	3,166		$	104		$	597		$	70		$	-		$	645		$	4,582
General and administrative		6,983			14			112			2			2,272			59			9,442
Depreciation, amortization and accretion		274			-			15			1			12			8			310
Total operating costs		10,423			118			724			73			2,284			712			14,334
Loss from operations		(10,423	)		(118	)		(724	)		(73	)		(2,284	)		(712	)		(14,334	)
Other income (expenses)		(3,418	)		(19	)		2			-			3,148			5			(282	)
Loss before income taxes	$	(13,841	)	$	(137	)	$	(722	)	$	(73	)	$	864		$	(707	)	$	(14,616	)

XML

Note 1 - Nature of Operations (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	2 Months Ended
	Sep. 28, 2022	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Working Capital		$ 93,693
Cash and Cash Equivalents, at Carrying Value, Total		32,536	$ 44,313	$ 5,149
Inventory, Net, Total		66,570	$ 29,172
At-the-market Offering [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]
Proceeds from Issuance or Sale of Equity, Total	$ 14,808
Uranium Inventory [Member]
Inventory, Net, Total		$ 66,160

XML

Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Details Textual)	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022
Mineral Rights, Databases [Member]
Mineral Property, Useful Life (Year)	5 years
Plant and Processing Facilities [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	10 years
Plant and Processing Facilities [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	21 years
Mining and logging equipment and vehicles [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	5 years
Mining and logging equipment and vehicles [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	10 years
Computer Equipment [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	3 years
Furniture and Fixtures [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	5 years
Building [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	20 years

XML

Note 3 - Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ in Thousands			12 Months Ended
		Dec. 17, 2021	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Business Combination, Acquisition Related Costs			$ 3,444	$ 0	$ 0
U1A Acquisition [Member]
Business Combination, Consideration Transferred, Total		$ 128,495	128,495
Business Combination, Acquisition Related Costs			3,444
Business Combination, Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Cash and Equivalents	[1]		1,183
Business Combination, Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Current Assets, Prepaid Expense and Other Assets	[1]		1,550
Business Combination, Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Current Assets, Other	[1]		73
Business Combination, Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Inventory	[1]		192
Business Combination, Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Current Liabilities, Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities	[1]		96
Business Combination, Pro Forma Information, Earnings or Loss of Acquiree since Acquisition Date, Actual			15,616
Business Combination, Pro Forma Information, Operating Costs of Acquiree since Acquisition Date, Actual			$ 4,206

[1] The working capital adjustment represents the working capital of U1A at the date of the U1A Acquisition, which was comprised of: (i) cash and cash equivalents of $1,183; (ii) prepaid expenses and deposits of $1,550; (iii) other current assets of $73; (iv) inventories of $192; and (v) accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $96. The fair value of these working capital items approximates their respective carrying values at the date of the acquisition.

XML

Note 3 - Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. - Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands			12 Months Ended
		Dec. 17, 2021	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Cash			$ 113,588	$ (0)	$ (0)
Restricted cash			13,755	0
Asset retirement obligations (6)			12,707	$ 0
U1A Acquisition [Member]
Cash			125,593
Working capital adjustment (1)	[1]		2,902
Total consideration paid		$ 128,495	128,495
Cash & cash equivalents (1)	[1]		1,183
Prepaid expenses and deposits (1)	[1]		1,550
Other current assets (1)	[1]		73
Inventories (1)	[1]		192
Mineral rights and properties (2)	[2]		110,693
Property, plant and equipment (3)	[3]		13,004
Restricted cash			13,755
Debt receivable (4)	[4]		0
Other non-current assets (5)	[5]		1,613
Total assets			142,063
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (1)	[1]		96
Other liabilities (5)	[5]		765
Asset retirement obligations (6)			12,707
Total liabilities			13,568
Total net assets			$ 128,495

[1] The working capital adjustment represents the working capital of U1A at the date of the U1A Acquisition, which was comprised of: (i) cash and cash equivalents of $1,183; (ii) prepaid expenses and deposits of $1,550; (iii) other current assets of $73; (iv) inventories of $192; and (v) accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $96. The fair value of these working capital items approximates their respective carrying values at the date of the acquisition.

[2] The fair value of mineral rights and properties was determined using the discounted cash flow model (being the net present value of expected future cash flows). Expected future cash flows are based on estimates of future uranium prices, production based on current estimates of recoverable mineral resources, future operating costs and capital expenditures and the discount rate. The Company’s estimates of recoverable mineral resources are based on information prepared by qualified persons (management’s specialists).

[3] The fair value of property, plant and equipment was determined using a replacement cost approach.

[4] Other non-current assets included certain material and supply inventories classified as non-current and ROU assets associated with U1A’s operating leases. The fair value of long-term inventory was determined to approximate its carrying value. ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases are measured based on the present value of the future lease payments over the remaining lease terms at the acquisition date.

[5] The fair value of asset retirement obligations was measured based on the expected costs and timing for final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal, and environmental remediation, which are discounted to present value using credit adjusted risk-free rates.

XML

Note 3 - Acquisition of Uranium One Americas, Inc. - Pro Forma Information (Details) - U1A Acquisition [Member] - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Sales and service revenue	$ 23,298	$ 192
Net income (loss) for the year	$ 2,626	$ (21,945)

XML

Note 4 - Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap (Details Textual) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands				12 Months Ended
		Jun. 07, 2022 USD ($) $ / shares shares	Apr. 19, 2022 USD ($) shares	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($) $ / shares	Jul. 31, 2021 USD ($) $ / shares	Jul. 31, 2020 USD ($) $ / shares	Apr. 19, 2022 $ / shares shares	Dec. 17, 2021 USD ($)	Sep. 23, 2020 $ / shares	Jul. 31, 2019 $ / shares
Class of Warrant or Right, Exercise Price of Warrants or Rights (in CAD per share) | $ / shares				$ 1.92	$ 1.90	$ 2.03				$ 1.94
Share Price (in dollars per share) | $ / shares									$ 0.96
Financing Receivable, Allowance for Credit Loss, Recovery				$ 18,342	$ 0	$ 0
Gain (Loss) on Settlement Debt Receivable				1,780	0	0
Gain (Loss) on Disposition of Assets, Total				6,427	$ (2)	$ 2
Swap Agreement [Member]
Swap Agreement, Fair Value Received		$ 6,500
Swap Agreement, Carrying Value Exchanged		92
Swap Agreement, Surrender Value		6,500
Gain (Loss) on Disposition of Assets, Total		$ 6,408
Settlement Agreement [Member] | Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member]
Noncontrolling Interest, Ownership Percentage by Noncontrolling Owners		16.00%
Anfield Warrant [Member]
Warrants, Carrying Value Per Share (in dollars per share) | $ / shares		$ 0.03
Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member]
Proceeds from Sale and Collection of Receivables, Total			$ 9,171
Debt Units Amount Received in Settlement of Indebtedness			$ 9,171
Share Price (in dollars per share) | $ / shares		$ 0.08
Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member] | Settlement Agreement [Member]
Proceeds from Sale and Collection of Receivables, Total		$ 9,171
Common Shares Received in Settlement of Indebtedness (in shares) | shares		96,272,918
Common Shares Received in Settlement of Indebtedness, Fair Value		$ 7,702
Financing Receivable, Allowance for Credit Loss, Recovery				18,342
Cash Payments and Warrants, Fair Value				20,122
Gain (Loss) on Settlement Debt Receivable				1,780
Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member] | Anfield Warrant [Member]
Common Share Purchase Warrant, Per Debt Unit Contains (in shares) | shares			1
Class of Warrant or Right, Number of Securities Called by Each Warrant or Right (in shares) | shares							1
Class of Warrant or Right, Exercise Price of Warrants or Rights (in CAD per share) | $ / shares							$ 0.18
Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member] | Anfield Warrant [Member] | Settlement Agreement [Member]
Warrants Received in Settlement of Indebtedness (in shares) | shares		96,272,918
Warrants Received in Settlement of Indebtedness, Fair Value		$ 3,249
Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member] | Anfield Common Shares [Member]
Common Share, Per Debt Unit Contains (in shares) | shares			1
U1A Acquisition [Member]
Business Combination Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Debt Receivable	[1]			0
U1A Acquisition [Member] | Anfield Energy, Inc. [Member]
Business Combination Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Debt Receivable				$ 0				$ 18,342

[1] Other non-current assets included certain material and supply inventories classified as non-current and ROU assets associated with U1A’s operating leases. The fair value of long-term inventory was determined to approximate its carrying value. ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases are measured based on the present value of the future lease payments over the remaining lease terms at the acquisition date.

XML

Note 4 - Anfield Debt Settlement and Property Swap - Fair Value Assumptions (Details) - Anfield Warrant [Member]	Jun. 07, 2022
Measurement Input, Risk Free Interest Rate [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	0.0293
Measurement Input, Price Volatility [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	0.6494
Measurement Input, Expected Term [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	4.94
Measurement Input, Expected Dividend Rate [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	0

XML

Note 5 - Inventories (Details Textual)	2 Months Ended
	Sep. 28, 2022 USD ($) lb	Jul. 31, 2022 lb
Subsequent Event [Member]
Inventory, Decrease From Sales, Mass (Pound)	150,000
Proceeds From Sale of Inventory | $	$ 7,178
Increase in Sale Obligations, Mass (Pound)	600,000
Increase in Sale Obligations, Value | $	$ 30,675
Uranium Inventory [Member] | Physical Uranium Program [Member]
Inventory, Balance , Mass (Pound)		1,800,000

XML

Note 5 - Inventories - Costs of Inventories (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Material and supplies	$ 232	$ 33
Inventory, Net, Total	66,570	29,172
Uranium Inventory [Member]
Uranium concentrates from production	178	178
Purchased uranium inventories	66,160	$ 28,961
Inventory, Net, Total	$ 66,160

XML

Note 5 - Inventories - Uranium Inventory Purchase Commitments (Details) - Uranium Inventory [Member] $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($) lb
Fiscal 2023 (Pound) | lb	1,721,000
Fiscal 2023 | $	$ 65,309
Fiscal 2024 (Pound) | lb	895,000
Fiscal 2024 | $	$ 38,913
Fiscal 2025 (Pound) | lb	600,000
Fiscal 2025 | $	$ 23,120
Fiscal 2026 (Pound) | lb	100,000
Fiscal 2026 | $	$ 3,620
Total, mass (Pound) | lb	3,316,000
Total | $	$ 130,962

XML

Note 6 - Mineral Rights and Properties (Details Textual) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($) shares	Jul. 31, 2021 USD ($)	Jul. 31, 2020 USD ($)	Jul. 31, 2016 USD ($)
Annual Property Maintenance Fees	$ 4,200
Stock Issued During Period, Value, for Mineral Properties	426
Payments to Acquire Mineral Rights	590	$ 80	$ 80
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 185,877	67,711
Palangana Mine [Member]
Mining Lease and Surface Use Agreements Realted to Royalty, Term (Year)	5 years
Depletion, Total	$ 0	0
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 6,028	6,028
Goliad Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	5 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 8,689	8,689
Burke Hollow Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	5 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 1,496	1,496
Anderson Project [Member]
Interest on Mineral Properties	100.00%
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 3,470	3,470
Workman Creek Project [Member]
Interest on Mineral Properties	100.00%
Net Smelter Royalty, Percent	3.00%
Annual Advance Royalty Payment	$ 100			$ 50
Right and Option to Acquire Net Smelter Royalty, Percent	1.50%
Right and Option to Acquire Royalty, Amount	$ 1,000
Additional Right and Option to Acquire Net Smelter Royalty Held by Certain Individuals, Percent	0.50%
Amount of Royalty Interest Acquired	$ 333
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 1,000	900
Christensen Ranch Mine [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 39,062	0
Irigaray Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 1,362	0
Ludeman Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 32,306	0
Moore Ranch Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 4,972	0
Antelope Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 29,855	0
Gas Hills Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 980	0
Nine Mile Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 954	0
Charlie Project [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Agreements, Term (Year)	10 years
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 905	0
Charlie Project [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Royalty Interest, Term (Year)	5 years
Charlie Project [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Mineral Leases and Surface Use Royalty Interest, Term (Year)	20 years
Diabase Project Addition [Member]
Number of Mineral Claims	10
Net Consideration, Mineral Resources	$ 435
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, for Mineral Properties (in shares) | shares	111,864
Stock Issued During Period, Value, for Mineral Properties	$ 426
Payments to Acquire Mineral Rights	9
Diabase Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	982	547
Yuty Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 11,947	11,947
Overriding Royalty Per Pound	0.21
Oviedo Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 1,133	1,133
Percentage of Gross Overriding Royalty	1.50%
Percentage of Net Smelter Royalty, Right to Acquire	0.50%
Overriding Royalty, Exclusive Right and Option to Acquire	$ 167
Percentage of Gross Overriding Royalty, Remaining	1.00%
Alto Parana Titanium Project [Member]
Amount of Royalty Interest Acquired	$ 500
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 1,933	$ 1,433
Percentage of Gross Overriding Royalty	1.50%
Percentage of Net Smelter Royalty, Right to Acquire	0.50%
Overriding Royalty, Exclusive Right and Option to Acquire	$ 500
Percentage of Royalty Interest Acquired	0.50%

XML

Note 6 - Mineral Rights and Properties - Mineral Rights and Property Acquisition Costs (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Mineral Properties, Gross	$ 185,877	$ 67,711
Accumulated Depletion	(3,930)	(3,930)
Mineral Properties Excluding Mineral Rights, Net	181,947	63,781
Mineral Properties, Net, Total	181,948	63,784
Palangana Mine [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	6,028	6,028
Goliad Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	8,689	8,689
Burke Hollow Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	1,496	1,496
Anderson Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	3,470	3,470
Workman Creek Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	1,000	900
Reno Creek Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	31,528	31,528
Christensen Ranch Mine [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	39,062	0
Ludeman Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	32,306	0
Antelope Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	29,855	0
Moore Ranch Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	4,972	0
Irigaray Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	1,362	0
Barge Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	3,136	0
Gas Hills Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	980	0
Nine Mile Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	954	0
Charlie Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	905	0
Diabase Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	982	547
Yuty Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	11,947	11,947
Oviedo Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	1,133	1,133
Alto Parana Titanium Project [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	1,933	1,433
Other Property Acquisitions [Member]
Mineral Properties, Gross	4,139	540
Databases and Land Use Agreements [Member]
Databases and Land Use Agreements	2,459	2,459
Accumulated Amortization	(2,458)	(2,456)
Mineral Rights	1	3
Mineral Rights and Properties [Member]
Mineral Properties, Net, Total	$ 181,948	$ 63,784

XML

Note 6 - Mineral Rights and Properties - Mineral Property Expenditures (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Mineral Property Expenditures	$ 10,154	$ 4,479	$ 4,582
Palangana Mine [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	1,060	890	1,343
Burke Hollow Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	3,647	1,446	1,130
Goliad Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	240	237	190
Anderson Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	108	79	71
Workman Creek Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	33	33	33
Reno Creek Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	821	672	597
Christensen Ranch Mine [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	1,257	0	0
Ludeman Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	219	0	0
Antelope Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	70	0	0
Moore Ranch Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	143	0	0
Barge Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	37	0	0
Yuty Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	86	31	66
Oviedo Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	619	372	350
Alto Parana Titanium Project [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	574	199	230
Other Property Acquisitions [Member]
Mineral Property Expenditures	$ 1,240	$ 520	$ 572

XML

Note 7 - Property, Plant and Equipment (Details Textual) - U1A Acquisition [Member] $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($)
Business Combination, Recognized Identifiable Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed, Property, Plant, and Equipment, Total	$ 13,004	[1]
Minimum [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	3 years
Maximum [Member]
Property, Plant and Equipment, Useful Life (Year)	21 years

[1] The fair value of property, plant and equipment was determined using a replacement cost approach.

XML

Note 7 - Property, Plant and Equipment - Summary of Property, Plant and Equipment (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Cost	$ 26,335	$ 12,811
Accumulated Depreciation	(6,101)	(5,453)
Net Book Value	20,234	7,358
Plant and Processing Facilities [Member]
Cost	18,964	6,643
Accumulated Depreciation	(1,306)	(851)
Net Book Value	17,658	5,792
Mining Equipment [Member]
Cost	2,777	2,355
Accumulated Depreciation	(2,382)	(2,313)
Net Book Value	395	42
Logging Equipment and Vehicles [Member]
Cost	2,666	1,924
Accumulated Depreciation	(1,851)	(1,775)
Net Book Value	815	149
Computer Equipment [Member]
Cost	360	326
Accumulated Depreciation	(313)	(284)
Net Book Value	47	42
Furniture and Fixtures [Member]
Cost	190	185
Accumulated Depreciation	(177)	(172)
Net Book Value	13	13
Buildings [Member]
Cost	298	298
Accumulated Depreciation	(72)	(58)
Net Book Value	226	240
Land [Member]
Cost	1,080	1,080
Accumulated Depreciation	0	0
Net Book Value	$ 1,080	$ 1,080

XML

Note 8 - Restricted Cash (Details Textual) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($)
Proceeds From Release of Surety Bond Collateral	$ 8,550

XML

Note 8 - Restricted Cash - Restricted Cash (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$ 2,038	$ 1,839
Restricted cash received from U1A Acquisition	13,755	0
(Release) addition of surety bond collateral	(8,550)	199
Interest received	8	0
Balance, end of year	$ 7,251	$ 2,038

XML

Note 8 - Restricted Cash - Cash, Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 32,536	$ 44,313	$ 5,149
Restricted cash	7,251	2,038	1,839
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash	$ 39,787	$ 46,351	$ 6,988

XML

Note 9 - Equity-Accounted Investment (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Payments to Acquire Equity Method Investments	$ (0)	$ 3,397	$ (0)
Gain on Dilution of Ownership Interest	3,973	4,473	3,057
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Foreign Currency Transaction and Translation Adjustment, Net of Tax, Total	$ (679)	$ 613	$ (133)
Uranium Royalty Corp [Member]
Equity Method Investment, Shares Owned (in shares)	15,000,000
Equity Method Investment, Ownership Percentage	15.50%	18.10%
Ownership Interest Percentage, Contingent, Outstanding Options and Warrants Fully Exercised	13.00%
Equity Method Investments, Fair Value Disclosure	$ 43,700
Equity Method Investment, Additional Shares Acquired (in shares)		1,000,000
Equity Method Investment, Additional Shares Acquired, Price Per Share (in dollars per share)		$ 4.10
Payments to Acquire Equity Method Investments		$ 3,397

XML

Note 9 - Equity-Accounted Investment - Equity-accounted Investment (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Balance	$ 20,730
Addition	(0)	$ 3,397	$ (0)
Balance	24,177	20,730
Uranium Royalty Corp [Member]
Balance	20,730	11,515	8,680
Share of income (loss) from URC	153	732	(89)
Gain on dilution of ownership interest	3,973	4,473	3,057
Translation gain (loss)	(679)	613	(133)
Addition		3,397
Share of income (loss) from URC	153	732	(89)
Balance	$ 24,177	$ 20,730	$ 11,515

XML

Note 10 - Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Trade payables	$ 2,019	$ 1,301
Accrued purchases	1,497	459
Accrued payroll liabilities	3,946	418
Liabilities assumed from prior acquisitions	700	586
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities, Current, Total	$ 8,162	$ 2,764

XML

Note 11 - Long-term Debt (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Repayments of Long-Term Debt, Total	$ 10,000	$ 10,000
Amortization of Debt Discount (Premium)	525	1,376	$ 1,670
Interest Paid, Including Capitalized Interest, Operating and Investing Activities, Total	409	1,255	$ 1,627
Credit Agreement [Member]
Repayments of Long-Term Debt, Total		10,000
Long-Term Debt, Gross	$ 0	$ 10,000
Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement [Member]
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, Credit Facility (in shares)	161,594	1,249,039	1,743,462
Stock Issued During Period, Value, Credit Facility	$ 600	$ 1,170	$ 1,400

XML

Note 11 - Long-term Debt - Long-term Debt (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Balance, beginning of year	$ 10,075	$ 19,869
Amortization of discount and accrued fees	525	1,376	$ 1,670
Payment of anniversary fees	(600)	(1,170)
Principal repayment	(10,000)	(10,000)
Balance, end of year	$ 0	$ 10,075	$ 19,869

XML

Note 12 - Asset Retirement Obligations (Details Textual) - U1A Acquisition [Member] $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($)
Asset Retirement Obligation, Obligation Assumed From Acquisition	$ 12,707
Minimum [Member]
Cash Flow Timing of Remediation and Decommissioning Activities (Year)	1 year
Maximum [Member]
Cash Flow Timing of Remediation and Decommissioning Activities (Year)	23 years

XML

Note 12 - Asset Retirement Obligations - Change in Asset Retirement Obligation (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Balance, beginning of year	$ 3,939	$ 3,735
Accretion	630	204
Assumed from U1A Acquisition	12,707	0
Balance, end of year	$ 17,276	$ 3,939

XML

Note 12 - Asset Retirement Obligations - Estimated Amounts and Timing of Cash Flows and Assumptions Used for ARO Estimates (Details)	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Measurement Input, Expected Term [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Asset retirement obligations, measurement input	1	9
Measurement Input, Expected Term [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Asset retirement obligations, measurement input	23	21
Measurement Input, Inflation Rate [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Asset retirement obligations, measurement input	0.0156	0.0156
Measurement Input, Inflation Rate [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Asset retirement obligations, measurement input	0.0532	0.0217
Measurement Input, Discount Rate [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Asset retirement obligations, measurement input	0.0372	0.0550
Measurement Input, Discount Rate [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Asset retirement obligations, measurement input	0.0635	0.0596

XML

Note 12 - Asset Retirement Obligations - Undiscounted Amounts of Estimated Cash Flows for the Next Five Fiscal Years and Beyond (Details) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($)
Fiscal 2023	$ 214
Fiscal 2024	1,300
Fiscal 2025	1,472
Fiscal 2026	2,489
Fiscal 2027	2,509
Remaining balance	20,755
Undiscounted Amount of Estimated Cash Flows	$ 28,739

XML

Note 13 - Lease Liabilities (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Operating Lease, Weighted Average Remaining Lease Term (Year)	16 years 6 months	17 years
Operating Lease, Weighted Average Discount Rate, Percent	4.52%	4.74%
Operating Lease, Payments	$ 472	$ 252	$ 176
Minimum [Member]
Lessee, Operating Lease, Remaining Lease Term (Year)	1 year
Maximum [Member]
Lessee, Operating Lease, Remaining Lease Term (Year)	21 years 10 months 24 days

XML

Note 13 - Lease Liabilities - Lease Expenses (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Operating Leases	$ 274	$ 220	$ 230
Short-term Leases	1,401	607	445
Total Lease Expenses	$ 1,675	$ 827	$ 675

XML

Note 13 - Lease Liabilities - Minimum Future Lease Payments (Details) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($)
Fiscal 2023	$ 291
Fiscal 2024	113
Fiscal 2025	104
Fiscal 2026	104
Fiscal 2027	69
Thereafter	975
Total lease payments	1,656
Less: imputed interest	(472)
Other Liabilities [Member]
Present value of lease liabilities	1,184
Other Current Liabilities [Member]
Current portion of lease liabilities	244
Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Member]
Non-current portion of lease liabilities	$ 940

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands				2 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Apr. 08, 2021	Mar. 19, 2021	Sep. 23, 2020	Sep. 28, 2022	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020	Jul. 31, 2019
Class of Warrant or Right, Exercise Price of Warrants or Rights (in CAD per share)					$ 1.92	$ 1.90	$ 2.03	$ 1.94
Share Price (in dollars per share)			$ 0.96
Class of Warrant or Right, Fair Value Per Share (in dollars per share)			$ 0.23
Proceeds from Warrant Exercises					$ 3,325	$ 3,589	$ 0
Subsequent Event [Member]
Proceeds from Warrant Exercises				$ 6,141
Warrant Issued with September 2020 Offering [Member]
Class of Warrant or Right, Number of Securities Called by Each Warrant or Right (in shares)			1
Class of Warrant or Right, Exercise Price of Warrants or Rights (in CAD per share)			$ 1.80
Warrants and Rights Outstanding, Term (Month)			24 months
Warrant Issued to Agents [Member]
Class of Warrant or Right, Exercise Price of Warrants or Rights (in CAD per share)	$ 4.125		$ 1.80
Warrants and Rights Outstanding, Term (Month)	5 years		24 months
Class of Warrant or Right, Number of Securities Called by Warrants or Rights (in shares)	181,818		583,333
Class of Warrant or Right, Fair Value Per Share (in dollars per share)					$ 1.80
September 2020 Offering [Member]
Number of Units Issued During Period (in shares)			12,500,000
Shares Issued, Price Per Share (in dollars per share)			$ 1.20
Proceeds from Issuance or Sale of Equity, Total			$ 15,000
Number of Shares per Unit Issued (in shares)			1
Number of Warrants per Unit (in shares)			0.5
The 2020 At-the-market Offering [Member]
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, New Issues (in shares)						13,668,906
Proceeds from Issuance of Common Stock, Net						$ 29,321
Direct Offering [Member]
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, New Issues (in shares)	3,636,364	10,000,000
Proceeds from Issuance of Common Stock, Net	$ 11,316	$ 29,084
The 2021 At-the-market Offerings [Member]
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, New Issues (in shares)					47,507,536	2,265,700
Proceeds from Issuance of Common Stock, Net					$ 163,814	$ 6,157
The 2021 At-the-market Offerings [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, New Issues (in shares)				3,510,100
Proceeds from Issuance of Common Stock, Net				$ 14,808

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock - Warrants Assumptions (Details)	Jul. 31, 2022 yr	Apr. 08, 2021 yr
Warrant Issued with September 2020 Offering [Member] | Measurement Input, Risk Free Interest Rate [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	0.0014
Warrant Issued with September 2020 Offering [Member] | Measurement Input, Price Volatility [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	0.7681
Warrant Issued with September 2020 Offering [Member] | Measurement Input, Expected Term [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	2.00
Warrant Issued with September 2020 Offering [Member] | Measurement Input, Expected Dividend Rate [Member]
Warrants, measurement input	0.0000
Warrant Issued to Agents [Member] | Measurement Input, Risk Free Interest Rate [Member]
Warrants, measurement input		0.0085
Warrant Issued to Agents [Member] | Measurement Input, Price Volatility [Member]
Warrants, measurement input		0.7217
Warrant Issued to Agents [Member] | Measurement Input, Expected Term [Member]
Warrants, measurement input		5.00
Warrant Issued to Agents [Member] | Measurement Input, Expected Dividend Rate [Member]
Warrants, measurement input		0.0000

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock - Net Proceeds Allocation (Details) - September 2020 Offering [Member] $ in Thousands	Sep. 23, 2020 USD ($)
Fair Value of Shares	$ 13,446
Proceeds from Issuance or Sale of Equity, Total	15,000
Share Issuance Costs - Cash	(878)
Net Cash Proceeds Received	14,122
Proceeds from Issuance or Sale of Equity, Net	14,122
Warrant Issued with September 2020 Offering [Member]
Fair Value of Share Purchase Warrants	1,446
Share Purchase Warrants	1,519
Common Stock [Member]
Fair Value of Shares	12,000
Shares	$ 12,603

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock - Continuity Schedule of Outstanding Share Purchase Warrants (Details) - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Balance, Number of Warrants (in shares)	5,387,323	7,721,981	19,443,910
Balance, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.90	$ 2.03	$ 1.94
Issued, Number of Warrants (in shares)			300,000
Issued, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)			$ 1.38
Expired, Number of Warrants (in shares)		(1,109,304)	(12,021,929)
Expired, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)		$ 1.87	$ 1.87
Exercised, Number of Warrants (in shares)	(1,771,869)	(8,240,505)
Exercised, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.88	$ 1.99
Balance, Number of Warrants (in shares)	3,615,454	5,387,323	7,721,981
Balance, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.92	$ 1.90	$ 2.03
September 2020 Offering [Member]
Issued, Number of Warrants (in shares)		6,833,333
Issued, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)		$ 1.80
April 2021 Offering [Member]
Issued, Number of Warrants (in shares)		181,818
Issued, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)		$ 4.13

XML

Note 14 - Capital Stock - Warrants Outstanding and Exercisable (Details) - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020	Jul. 31, 2019
Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.92	$ 1.90	$ 2.03	$ 1.94
Number of Warrants Outstanding (in shares)	3,615,454	5,387,323	7,721,981	19,443,910
Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Year)	3 months 29 days
Warrants 1 [Member]
Number of Warrants Outstanding (in shares)	3,408,636
Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Year)	1 month 24 days
Warrants 2 [Member]
Number of Warrants Outstanding (in shares)	25,000
Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Year)	9 months 18 days
Warrants 3 [Member]
Number of Warrants Outstanding (in shares)	181,818
Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Year)	3 years 8 months 4 days

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020	Jul. 31, 2019
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Options, Grants in Period, Gross (in shares)	1,279,692	959,588	6,163,900
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Options, Outstanding, Intrinsic Value	$ 23,292
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Options, Vested and Expected to Vest, Outstanding, Aggregate Intrinsic Value	20,469
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Options, Unvested in Period, Intrinsic Value	2,823
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Nonvested Award, Cost Not yet Recognized, Amount, Total	$ 3,196
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Nonvested Award, Cost Not yet Recognized, Period for Recognition (Year)	1 year 2 months 1 day
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option [Member]
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Options, Grants in Period, Gross (in shares)	1,279,692	959,588	4,838,900
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Period (Month)		24 months
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option [Member] | Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Tranche One [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Period (Month)		3 months
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Rights, Percentage		12.50%
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option [Member] | Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Tranche Two [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Period (Month)		6 months
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option [Member] | Share-based Compensation Award, Tranche Five [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Period (Month)	12 months	18 months	24 months
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option [Member] | Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Tranche Three [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Rights, Percentage	25.00%
Performance Stock Option [Member]
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Options, Grants in Period, Gross (in shares)	1,325,000
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Period (Month)	3 years
Performance Stock Option [Member] | Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Tranche One [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Rights, Percentage	33.33%
Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Period (Month)	3 years	3 years		3 years
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Nonvested Award, Cost Not yet Recognized, Amount, Total	$ 1,749
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Nonvested Award, Cost Not yet Recognized, Period for Recognition (Year)	1 year 10 months 6 days
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Expense	$ 780	$ 1,060	$ 309
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Grants in Period (in shares)	346,790	407,617	1,305,000
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Vested in Period (in shares)	508,368	1,025,005	155,000
Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) [Member] | Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Tranche One [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Rights, Percentage	33.33%	33.33%		50.00%
Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) [Member] | Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Tranche Two [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Award Vesting Rights, Percentage				16.67%
Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member]
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Nonvested Award, Cost Not yet Recognized, Amount, Total	$ 981
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Nonvested Award, Cost Not yet Recognized, Period for Recognition (Year)	2 years 4 months 28 days
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Expense	$ 293	$ 156	$ 274
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Grants in Period (in shares)	241,632	492,950
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Vested in Period (in shares)	445,000	222,500	90,001
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Expiration Period (Year)	3 years
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Settled in Period (in shares)	757,501
Shares Issued, Shares, Share-Based Payment Arrangement, after Forfeiture, Total (in shares)	361,122
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Forfeited in Period (in shares)	396,379		132,499
Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member] | Global X Uranium ETF [Member]
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Settled in Period (in shares)	757,501
Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement By Share-based Payment Award, Percentage Eligible to Vest	0.00%
Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement By Share-based Payment Award, Percentage Eligible to Vest	200.00%
The 2020 Stock Incentive Plan [Member]
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award, Number of Shares Available for Grant (in shares)		0
The 2020 Stock Incentive Plan [Member] | Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member]
Share-Based Compensation Arrangement by Share-Based Payment Award, Equity Instruments Other than Options, Grants in Period (in shares)	120,816	246,475

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Summary of Stock Options Assumptions (Details) - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Granted, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.45	$ 1.30	$ 0.45
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Option [Member]
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.73%	0.70%	0.40%
Expected Volatility	78.75%	72.57%	60.48%
Expected Life in Years (Year)	4 years 11 months 15 days	5 years	4 years 11 months 4 days
Expected Dividend Yield	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Granted, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.45	$ 1.30	$ 0.45

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Schedule of Outstanding Stock Options (Details) - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Balance, number of stock options (in shares)	10,404,333	15,514,750	15,738,350
Balance, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.21	$ 1.13	$ 1.30
Granted, number of stock options (in shares)	1,279,692	959,588	6,163,900
Granted, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 3.80	$ 2.21	$ 0.95
Cancelled/Forfeited, number of stock options (in shares)			(179,344)
Cancelled/Forfeited, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)			$ 1.02
Expired, number of stock options (in shares)	(75,000)	(1,365,000)	(6,208,156)
Expired, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 2.50	$ 1.48	$ 1.39
Exercised, number of stock options (in shares)	(2,728,498)	(4,705,005)	0
Exercised Options, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.17	$ 1.09
Exercised, number of stock options (in shares)	(2,728,498)	(4,705,005)	0
Balance, number of stock options (in shares)	8,880,527	10,404,333	15,514,750
Balance, Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.58	$ 1.21	$ 1.13

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Number of Shares Issued and Cash Received upon Exercise of the Stock Options (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Number of Options Exercised on Cash Basis (in shares)	872,580	1,734,127	0
Number of Options Exercised on Forfeiture Basis (in shares)	1,855,918	2,970,878	0
Total Number of Options Exercised (in shares)	2,728,498	4,705,005	0
Number of Shares Issued on Cash Exercise (in shares)	872,580	1,734,127	0
Number of Shares Issued on Forfeiture Basis (in shares)	1,279,515	1,592,128	0
Total Number of Shares Issued Upon Exercise of Options (in shares)	2,152,095	3,326,255	0
Cash Received from Exercise of Stock Options	$ 934	$ 1,916	$ 0
Total Intrinsic Value of Options Exercised	$ 8,336	$ 6,882	$ 0

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Schedule of Outstanding Unvested Stock Options (Details) - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Nonvested balance (in shares)	3,891,207	6,797,471	3,310,600
Nonvested, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.66	$ 0.46	$ 0.59
Granted, number of stock options (in shares)	1,279,692	959,588	6,163,900
Granted, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.45	$ 1.30	$ 0.45
Vested (in shares)	(2,984,745)	(3,865,852)	(2,590,154)
Vested, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.59	$ 0.47	$ 0.60
Cancelled/Forfeited (in shares)			(86,875)
Cancelled/Forfeited, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)			$ 0.43
Nonvested balance (in shares)	2,186,154	3,891,207	6,797,471
Nonvested, Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 1.79	$ 0.66	$ 0.46

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Summary of Stock Options Outstanding and Exercisable (Details) - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020	Jul. 31, 2019
Options Outstanding Outstanding (in shares)	8,880,527	10,404,333	15,514,750	15,738,350
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.58	$ 1.21	$ 1.13	$ 1.30
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	6 years 11 months 23 days
Options Exercisable (in shares)	6,694,373
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.14
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	6 years 3 months
Exercise Price Range 1 [Member]
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 0.80
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 0.99
Options Outstanding Outstanding (in shares)	3,968,499
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 0.92
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	7 years 6 months 18 days
Options Exercisable (in shares)	3,968,499
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 0.92
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	7 years 6 months 18 days
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 0.80
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	0.99
Exercise Price Range 2 [Member]
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	1.00
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 1.99
Options Outstanding Outstanding (in shares)	2,738,875
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.29
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	4 years 2 months 23 days
Options Exercisable (in shares)	2,297,207
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 1.32
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	3 years 6 months 7 days
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 1.00
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	1.99
Exercise Price Range 3 [Member]
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	2.00
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 2.99
Options Outstanding Outstanding (in shares)	903,461
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 2.22
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	8 years 11 months 12 days
Options Exercisable (in shares)	416,167
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 2.22
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	8 years 11 months 8 days
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 2.00
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	2.99
Exercise Price Range 4 [Member]
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	3.00
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 3.98
Options Outstanding Outstanding (in shares)	1,269,692
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 3.80
Options Outstanding Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	9 years 9 months
Options Exercisable (in shares)	12,500
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Exercise Price (in dollars per share)	$ 3.18
Options Exercisable Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Year)	4 years 10 months 28 days
Range of Exercise Prices, Lower Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 3.00
Range of Exercise Prices, Upper Limit (in dollars per share)	$ 3.98

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Schedule of Outstanding RSUs (Details) - Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) [Member] - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Balance, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	997,612	1,615,000	465,000
Balance, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 1.42	$ 0.92	$ 0.94
Granted, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	346,790	407,617	1,305,000
Granted, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 4.03	$ 2.15	$ 0.91
Vested, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	(508,368)	(1,025,005)	(155,000)
Vested, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 1.25	$ 0.91	$ 0.94
Balance, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	836,034	997,612	1,615,000
Balance, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.61	$ 1.42	$ 0.92

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Summary of Outstanding Unvested RSUs (Details) - Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) [Member] - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020	Jul. 31, 2019
Number of Restricted Stock Units (in shares)	836,034	997,612	1,615,000	465,000
Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.61	$ 1.42	$ 0.92	$ 0.94
Remaining Life (Year)	2 years 1 month 13 days
Aggregate Intrinsic Value	$ 3,510
July 16, 2020 [Member]
Number of Restricted Stock Units (in shares)	217,498
Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.91
Remaining Life (Year)	11 months 15 days
Aggregate Intrinsic Value	$ 913
July 21, 2021 [Member]
Number of Restricted Stock Units (in shares)	271,746
Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 2.15
Remaining Life (Year)	1 year 11 months 23 days
Aggregate Intrinsic Value	$ 1,141
May 01, 2022 [Member]
Number of Restricted Stock Units (in shares)	58,824
Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 4.25
Remaining Life (Year)	2 years 9 months
Aggregate Intrinsic Value	$ 247
July 29, 2022 [Member]
Number of Restricted Stock Units (in shares)	287,966
Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 3.98
Remaining Life (Year)	3 years
Aggregate Intrinsic Value	$ 1,209

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Forfeited as Payment of Tax Withhold (Details) - Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) [Member] - shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Number of RSUs vested (in shares)	508,368	1,025,005	155,000
Number of net RSU shares issued (in shares)	267,681	536,361	105,844
Number of RSU shares forfeited as payments of withholding amount (in shares)	240,687	488,644	49,156

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Performance Based Restricted Stock Units Assumptions (Details) - Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member] - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Expected Risk Free Interest Rate	2.80%	0.39%
Expected Volatility	90.90%	78.03%
Expected Dividend Yield	0.00%	0.00%
Expected Life in Years (Year)	3 years	3 years
Correlation	76.89%	66.02%
Grant Price (in dollars per share)	$ 3.98	$ 2.15
Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 4.80	$ 2.48

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Schedule of Unvested Performance Restricted Stock Options (Details) - Performance-based Restriced Stock Units [Member] - $ / shares	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Balance, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	1,250,451	757,501	890,000
Balance, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 1.67	$ 1.15	$ 1.15
Forfeited, number of unvested PRSUs (in shares)	(396,379)		(132,499)
Forfeited, Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)			$ 1.15
Granted, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	241,632	492,950
Granted, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 4.80	$ 2.48
Granted, Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value (in dollars per share)	$ 4.80	$ 2.48
Vested, number of unvested PRSUs (in shares)	(757,501)
Vested, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 1.15
Balance, number of restricted stock units (in shares)	734,582	1,250,451	757,501
Balance, weighted average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 3.24	$ 1.67	$ 1.15

XML

Note 15 - Stock-based Compensation - Summary of Stock-based Compensation Expense (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Noncash Expense, Total	$ 4,681	$ 5,471	$ 3,493
Common stock issued	1,478	1,594	1,123
Settlement of share issuance obligation	0	0	(15)
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Employee [Member]
Amortization of expenses	960	982	640
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Noncash Expense, Total	2,185	2,182	1,275
Common stock issued	1,187	1,200	635
Amortization of RSU expenses	38	0	0
Consultants [Member]
Common stock issued to consultants	770	877	540
Amortization of expenses	220	288	240
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Noncash Expense, Total	990	1,165	780
Management [Member]
Amortization of expenses	471	774	645
Share-Based Payment Arrangement, Noncash Expense, Total	1,506	2,124	1,453
Common stock issued	0	135	225
Management [Member] | Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and Performance Restricted Stock Units (PRSUs) [Member]
Amortization of expenses	$ 1,035	$ 1,215	$ 583

XML

Note 16 - Sales and Service Revenue and Cost of Sales and Services (Details Textual) GT in Thousands, $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($) lb	Jul. 31, 2021 USD ($) GT	Jul. 31, 2020 USD ($) GT
Revenues, Total	$ 23,161	$ 0	$ 0
Sale of Inventory [Member]
Revenues, Total	$ 22,946	$ 0	$ 0
Revenue Benchmark [Member] | Customer Concentration Risk [Member] | Sale of Inventory [Member] | Customer A [Member]
Concentration Risk, Percentage	57.00%
Revenue Benchmark [Member] | Customer Concentration Risk [Member] | Sale of Inventory [Member] | Customer B [Member]
Concentration Risk, Percentage	43.00%
Uranium Inventory [Member]
Revenues, Total	$ 22,946
Inventory, Sold During Period, Mass (Pound) | lb	500,000
Toll Processing Services [Member]
Revenues, Total	$ 215
Inventory, Sold During Period, Mass (Pound) | GT		0	0

XML

Note 16 - Sales and Service Revenue and Cost of Sales and Services - Sales and Service Revenue and Cost of Sales and Service Renue (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE	$ 23,161	$ 0	$ 0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	(15,868)	0	0
Sale of Inventory [Member]
SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE	22,946	0	0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	(15,689)	0	0
Toll Processing Services [Member]
SALES AND SERVICE REVENUE	215	0	0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	$ (179)	$ 0	$ 0

XML

Note 17 - Unrealized Loss on Equity Securities - Black-Sholes Valuation Model (Details)	Jul. 31, 2022
Measurement Input, Risk Free Interest Rate [Member]
Equity securities, measurement input	0.0259
Measurement Input, Price Volatility [Member]
Equity securities, measurement input	0.6476
Measurement Input, Expected Term [Member]
Equity securities, measurement input	0.0478
Measurement Input, Discount Rate [Member]
Equity securities, measurement input	0

XML

Note 17 - Unrealized Loss on Equity Securities - Unrealized loss (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Unrealized gain (loss) from investment	$ (1,898)	$ 0	$ 0
Anfield Common Shares [Member]
Unrealized gain (loss) from investment	(1,925)
Anfield Warrant [Member]
Unrealized gain (loss) from investment	(1,105)
UEX Shares [Member]
Unrealized gain (loss) from investment	$ 1,132

XML

Note 18 - Income (Loss) Per Share - Weighted Average Number of Shares Used in the Calculation of the Basic and Diluted Loss Per Share (Details) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Net Income (Loss) for the Year	$ 5,252	$ (14,813)	$ (14,610)
Basic Weighted Average Number of Shares (in shares)	271,019,472	210,295,992	183,041,766
Dilutive Effect of Stock Awards and Warrants (in shares)	9,082,601	0	0
Diluted Weighted Average Number of Shares (in shares)	280,102,073	210,295,992	183,041,766
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic (in dollars per share)	$ 0.02	$ (0.07)	$ (0.08)
Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted (in dollars per share)	$ 0.02	$ (0.07)	$ (0.08)

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes (Details Textual) $ in Thousands, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($)	Jul. 31, 2022 CAD ($)	Jul. 31, 2021 USD ($)	Jul. 31, 2021 CAD ($)
Current Tax Expense (Benefit)	$ 0
Percentage of Valuation Allowance Recorded from Income Taxes	100.00%
Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Operating Loss Carryforwards	$ 199,000	$ 4.5	$ 95,900	$ 5.5

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes - Reconciliation of Income Tax (Details)	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Federal income tax provision rate	21.00%	21.00%	21.00%
State income tax provision rate, net of federal income tax effect	2.95%	0.83%	0.72%
Total income tax provision rate	23.95%	21.83%	21.72%

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes - Components of Income Tax Provision (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Income (Loss) before income taxes	$ 5,247	$ (14,817)	$ (14,616)
Corporate tax rate	23.95%	21.83%	21.72%
Expected tax expense (recovery)	$ 1,257	$ (3,235)	$ (3,175)
Foreign tax rate differences	158	77	86
Permanent differences	(326)	(217)	170
Prior year true-up	6	(270)	118
Change in state tax rate	(460)	(406)	(553)
Foreign exchange rate differences	(4)	(56)	17
Other	188	163	72
Change in valuation allowance	(824)	3,940	3,233
Tax adjustment from operations	(5)	(4)	(32)
Unrealized loss, other comprehensive loss	0	0	26
Deferred tax benefits	$ (5)	$ (4)	$ (6)

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes - Components of Income (Loss) from Operations Before Income Taxes, by Tax Jurisdiction (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes	$ 5,247	$ (14,817)	$ (14,616)
Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes	6,054	(14,297)	(13,962)
Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes	268	94	54
Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Tax Administration of Paraguay [Member]
Income (loss) from operations before income taxes	$ (1,075)	$ (614)	$ (708)

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes - Deferred Tax Assets (Liabilities) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Mineral properties	$ 1,401	$ 1,277
Exploration costs	1,875	6,547
Stock option expense	4,651	4,623
Depreciable property	1,078	(1,163)
Inventories	(3,955)	(3,608)
Asset retirement obligations	2,924	107
Other	654	81
Section 163(j) interest expense carry forwards	2,040	1,061
Loss carry forwards	70,162	49,988
Deferred Tax Assets, Gross, Total	80,830	58,913
Valuation allowance	(80,454)	(58,913)
Deferred tax assets	0	0
Deferred tax assets, other comprehensive loss	0	0
Mineral properties	(536)	(541)
Net deferred tax liabilities	$ (536)	$ (541)

XML

Note 19 - Income Taxes - Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Expirations (Details) - Jul. 31, 2022 $ in Thousands, $ in Thousands	USD ($)	CAD ($)
Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	$ 199,030
Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		$ 4,532
Tax Year 2023 [Member] | Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	1,887
Tax Year 2027 [Member] | Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	6,807
Tax Year 2027 [Member] | Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		183
Tax Year 2024 [Member] | Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	2,035
Tax Year 2028 [Member] | Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		630
Tax Year 2025 [Member] | Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	2,398
Tax Year 2029 [Member] | Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		769
Tax Year 2026 [Member] | Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	8,461
Tax Year 2030 [Member] | Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		764
Tax Year 2031 [Member] | Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		1,206
Remaining [Member] | Domestic Tax Authority [Member] | Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration	$ 177,442
Remaining [Member] | Foreign Tax Authority [Member] | Canada Revenue Agency [Member]
Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards Subject to Expiration		$ 980

XML

Note 20 - Segmented Information (Details Textual) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021
Long-Lived Assets	$ 252,056	$ 94,496
UNITED STATES
Long-Lived Assets	$ 196,137
Percentage of Long Term Assets	78.00%

XML

Note 20 - Segmented Information - Long-term Assets by Geographic Segments (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Mineral Rights and Properties	$ 181,948	$ 63,784
Property, Plant and Equipment	20,234	7,358
Restricted Cash	7,251	2,038	$ 1,839
Equity-Accounted Investment	24,177	20,730
Investment in Equity Securities	14,834	0
Other Non-Current Assets	3,612	586
Total Long-Term Assets	252,056	94,496
United States Texas [Member]
Mineral Rights and Properties	12,420	12,421
Property, Plant and Equipment	7,068	6,646
Restricted Cash	1,949	1,949
Equity-Accounted Investment	0	0
Investment in Equity Securities	0
Other Non-Current Assets	1,447	522
Total Long-Term Assets	22,884	21,538
United States Arizona [Member]
Mineral Rights and Properties	4,727	4,627
Property, Plant and Equipment	0	0
Restricted Cash	15	15
Equity-Accounted Investment	0	0
Investment in Equity Securities	0
Other Non-Current Assets	0	0
Total Long-Term Assets	4,742	4,642
United States Wyoming [Member]
Mineral Rights and Properties	148,720	31,528
Property, Plant and Equipment	12,773	313
Restricted Cash	5,287	74
Equity-Accounted Investment	0	0
Investment in Equity Securities	0
Other Non-Current Assets	1,646	16
Total Long-Term Assets	168,426	31,931
United States Other States [Member]
Mineral Rights and Properties	85	147
Property, Plant and Equipment	0	0
Restricted Cash	0	0
Equity-Accounted Investment	0	0
Investment in Equity Securities	0
Other Non-Current Assets	0	0
Total Long-Term Assets	85	147
CANADA
Mineral Rights and Properties	982	547
Property, Plant and Equipment	26	34
Restricted Cash	0	0
Equity-Accounted Investment	24,177	20,730
Investment in Equity Securities	14,834
Other Non-Current Assets	519	48
Total Long-Term Assets	40,538	21,359
PARAGUAY
Mineral Rights and Properties	15,014	14,514
Property, Plant and Equipment	367	365
Restricted Cash	0	0
Equity-Accounted Investment	0	0
Investment in Equity Securities	0
Other Non-Current Assets	0	0
Total Long-Term Assets	$ 15,381	$ 14,879

XML

Note 20 - Segmented Information - Operating Results by Geographic Segments (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Jul. 31, 2022	Jul. 31, 2021	Jul. 31, 2020
Sales and service revenue	$ 23,161	$ 0	$ 0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	(15,868)	0	0
Gross profit	7,293	0	0
Mineral Property Expenditures	10,154	4,479	4,582
General and administrative	15,026	12,640	9,442
Acquisition-related costs	3,444	0	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	1,379	393	310
Total operating costs	30,003	17,512	14,334
Income (loss) from operations	(22,710)	(17,512)	(14,334)
Other income (expenses)	27,957	2,695	(282)
Income (loss) before income taxes	5,247	(14,817)	(14,616)
United States Texas [Member]
Sales and service revenue	0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	0
Gross profit	0
Mineral Property Expenditures	5,525	3,002	3,166
General and administrative	9,817	9,596	6,983
Acquisition-related costs	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	375	358	274
Total operating costs	15,717	12,956	10,423
Income (loss) from operations	(15,717)	(12,956)	(10,423)
Other income (expenses)	(1,096)	(2,542)	(3,418)
Income (loss) before income taxes	(16,813)	(15,498)	(13,841)
United States Arizona [Member]
Sales and service revenue	0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	0
Gross profit	0
Mineral Property Expenditures	156	125	104
General and administrative	15	15	14
Acquisition-related costs	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	0	0	0
Total operating costs	171	140	118
Income (loss) from operations	(171)	(140)	(118)
Other income (expenses)	(19)	(19)	(19)
Income (loss) before income taxes	(190)	(159)	(137)
United States Wyoming [Member]
Sales and service revenue	215
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	(179)
Gross profit	36
Mineral Property Expenditures	3,117	672	597
General and administrative	922	86	112
Acquisition-related costs	3,444
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	983	15	15
Total operating costs	8,466	773	724
Income (loss) from operations	(8,430)	(773)	(724)
Other income (expenses)	6,074	(10)	2
Income (loss) before income taxes	(2,356)	(783)	(722)
United States Other States [Member]
Sales and service revenue	22,946
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	(15,689)
Gross profit	7,257
Mineral Property Expenditures	72	69	70
General and administrative	1	2	2
Acquisition-related costs	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	0	0	1
Total operating costs	73	71	73
Income (loss) from operations	7,184	(71)	(73)
Other income (expenses)	0	0	0
Income (loss) before income taxes	7,184	(71)	(73)
CANADA
Sales and service revenue	0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	0
Gross profit	0
Mineral Property Expenditures	5	8	0
General and administrative	4,226	2,894	2,272
Acquisition-related costs	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	16	17	12
Total operating costs	4,247	2,919	2,284
Income (loss) from operations	(4,247)	(2,919)	(2,284)
Other income (expenses)	22,994	5,259	3,148
Income (loss) before income taxes	18,747	2,340	864
PARAGUAY
Sales and service revenue	0
COST OF SALES AND SERVICES	0
Gross profit	0
Mineral Property Expenditures	1,279	603	645
General and administrative	45	47	59
Acquisition-related costs	0
Depreciation, amortization and accretion	5	3	8
Total operating costs	1,329	653	712
Income (loss) from operations	(1,329)	(653)	(712)
Other income (expenses)	4	7	5
Income (loss) before income taxes	$ (1,325)	$ (646)	$ (707)

XML

Note 21 - Subsequent Event (Details Textual) $ in Thousands		2 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Jun. 21, 2022 USD ($)	Sep. 28, 2022 shares	Jul. 31, 2022 USD ($) shares	Jun. 21, 2022 $ / shares shares
UEX Corporation [Member]
Noncontrolling Interest, Ownership Percentage by Noncontrolling Owners			3.00%
UEX Shares [Member]
Number of Shares Acquired in Investment in Equity Securities (in shares)			18,471,907
Fair Value of Investment in Equity Securities | $			$ 6,914
Equity Securities, FV-NI, Unrealized Gain | $			1,132
UEX Corporation [Member]
Consideration Paid for Investment in Equity Securities | $	$ 3,867		$ 1,914
Number of Shares in Investment in Equity Securities (in shares)			6,844,000
UEX Corporation [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member]
Stock Conversion Rate for An Acquisition		0.09%
Stock Issued During Period, Shares, Acquisitions (in shares)		48,518,745
UEX Corporation [Member] | Private Placement [Member]
Number of Shares Acquired for An Equity Investment (in shares)				11,627,907
Share Price To Acquire Equity Investment (in CAD per share) | $ / shares				$ 0.43