---



ENERGY FUELS
INC.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION
FORM



DATED MARCH 18, 2015

IN RESPECT OF THE FINANCIAL YEARENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014

---

|TABLE OF CONTENTS
|-----------------

|CHANGE OF FINANCIAL YEAR END                                                                                    | 1  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---
|                                                                                                                |    
|CURRENCY                                                                                                        | 1  
|                                                                                                                |    
|SHARE CONSOLIDATION                                                                                             | 1  
|                                                                                                                |    
|BASIS OF PRESENTATION                                                                                           | 1  
|                                                                                                                |    
|CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING
      INFORMATION                                                     | 2  
|                                                                                                                |    
|CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS
      CONCERNING ESTIMATES OF MINERAL RESERVES AND MINERAL ESTIMATES | 5  
|                                                                                                                |    
|INCORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                                                                                  | 6  
|                                                                                                                |    
|GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS                                                                             | 8  
|                                                                                                                |    
|ENERGY FUELS BUSINESS                                                                                          | 15 
|Mineral Projects                                                                                                | 26 
|Summary of
      Mineral Reserves and Resources                                                                 | 26 
|The
      Henry Mountains Complex                                                                               | 32 
|Roca Honda Project                                                                                              | 40 
|The
      Arizona Strip                                                                                         | 52 
|The Daneros Mine                                                                                                | 66 
|The
      Sheep Mountain Project                                                                                | 75 
|Gas Hills Project                                                                                               | 88 
|La
      Sal Project                                                                                            | 100
|Juniper Ridge Project                                                                                           | 115
|The
      Whirlwind Mine                                                                                        | 125
|The Sage Plain Project                                                                                          | 133
|Copper King Gold/Copper Project                                                                                 | 139
|Non-Material Mineral Properties                                                                                 | 149
|***Other
      New Mexico Projects:***                                                                          | 152
|Exploration
      Properties                                                                                    | 155
|Quality Assurance
      and Quality Control Procedures and Protocols                                            | 158
|Environmental and Safety
      Matters                                                                          | 161
|White Mesa Mill                                                                                                 | 161
|Mines                                                                                                           | 163
|Employees                                                                                                       | 163
|Government Regulation                                                                                           | 163
|U.S. Uranium Industry                                                                                           | 163
|Land Tenure                                                                                                     | 164
|                                                                                                                |    
|RISK FACTORS                                                                                                    | 166
|                                                                                                                |    
|DIVIDENDS                                                                                                       | 179
|                                                                                                                |    
|DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE                                                                                | 179
|                                                                                                                |    
|MARKET FOR SECURITIES                                                                                           | 180
|                                                                                                                |    
|DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS                                                                                          | 183

|THE AUDIT COMMITTEE                                            | 190
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | ---
|                                                               |    
|LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS                       | 192
|                                                               |    
|INTEREST OF MANAGEMENT & OTHERS IN
      MATERIAL TRANSACTIONS | 193
|                                                               |    
|TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS                                 | 194
|                                                               |    
|MATERIAL CONTRACTS                                             | 194
|                                                               |    
|INTERESTS OF EXPERTS                                           | 195
|                                                               |    
|ADDITIONAL INFORMATION                                         | 196

|EXHIBIT 1: Organizational
    Structure          | E-1
|------------------------------------------------ | ---
|                                                 |    
|APPENDIX A: Charter of the Audit
      Committee | A-1
|                                                 |    
|APPENDIX B: Glossary of Terms                    | B-1

---

CHANGE OFFINANCIALYEAREND


In 2013, Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels or the
Company) changed its fiscal year-end from September 30 to December 31,
to better align the Companys year-end with the year-ends of its major uranium
customers, certain material subsidiaries and industry peers. As a result of this
change, the Companys financial year for 2013 was the fifteen month period
beginning on October 1, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2013 (FY 2013).
The Companys most recent financial year is the twelve month period beginning on
January 1, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2014 (FY 2014). Therefore,
FY 2014 results are not full comparable to FY 2013

CURRENCY


All amounts stated in this Annual Information Form
(AIF) are in United States dollars, unless otherwise indicated.

SHARECONSOLIDATION


Effective November 5, 2013, the Company amended its Articles to
consolidate the issued and outstanding common shares of the Company on the basis
of one post-consolidation common share for every 50 pre-consolidation common
shares (the Share Consolidation). All data for periods prior to
November 5, 2013 relating to numbers of common shares, prices of common shares,
number of stock options and warrants, exercise prices of stock options and
warrants and conversion prices of convertible debentures set forth in this AIF
have been adjusted to give retroactive effect to the Share Consolidation. For
the purpose of giving retroactive effect to the Share Consolidation, the Company
has rounded fractional shares to the nearest whole share and rounded fractional
price information to the nearest cent, with fractions of 0.5 or greater rounded
up and fractions of less than 0.5 rounded down. As a result of such rounding
actual amounts may differ. Unless otherwise indicated, references in this AIF
(but not necessarily the documents incorporated by reference herein) to Common
Share are to the common shares of the Company after giving effect to the Share
Consolidation.

BASIS OFPRESENTATION


Financial information is presented in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International
Accounting Standards Board as Issued by the International Accounting Standards
Board (IFRS).

The definitions of certain terms used in this AIF are set forth
in Appendix B  Glossary.

This AIF is dated March 18, 2015. Except as otherwise
indicated, the information contained in this AIF is stated as at December 31,
2014.

1

---

CAUTIONARYNOTEREGARDINGFORWARD-LOOKINGINFORMATION


This AIF, including the documents incorporated herein by
reference, contains forward looking information and forward looking statements
within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities laws.
Those statements appear in a number of places in this AIF and in the documents
incorporated herein by reference and include, but are not limited to, statements
and information regarding the Companys current intent, belief or expectations
primarily with respect to:

- the Companys business objectives and plans;
- exploration and development plans and expenditures;
- estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves;
- mineral grades;
- the Companys expectations regarding additions to its Mineral Resources
  and Mineral Reserves through acquisitions and development;
- success of the Company's permitting efforts, including receipt of
  regulatory approvals, permits and licenses and treatment under governmental
  regulatory regimes and the expected timeframes for receipt of such approvals,
  permits, licenses and treatments;
- possible impacts of regulatory actions;
- capital expenditures;
- expansion plans;
- success of the Company's mining and/or milling operations;
- availability of equipment and supplies;
- availability of alternate feed materials for processing;
- the Companys processing technologies;
- future production costs, including costs of labor, energy, materials and
  supplies;
- future effective tax rates;
- future benefits costs;
- future royalties payable;
- the outcome and possible impacts of disputes and legal proceedings in
  which the Company is involved;
- the timing and amount of estimated future production, including Energy
  Fuels expectations regarding expected price levels required to support
  production and the Companys ability to increase production as market
  conditions warrant;
- sales volumes and future uranium and vanadium prices and treatment
  charges;
- the Companys expectations with regard to obtaining term sales contracts
  for uranium;
- future trends in the Companys industry;
- global economic growth and industrial demand;
- global growth in and/or attitudes towards nuclear energy;
- changes in global uranium and vanadium and concentrate inventories;
- expected market fundamentals, including the supply and demand for uranium
  and vanadium;
- the Companys and industry expectations relating to future prices of
  uranium and vanadium;
- currency exchange rates;
- environmental risks;
- reclamation costs, including unanticipated reclamation expenses;
- collateral requirements for surety bonds;
- property status, including holding costs, disputes or claims;
- the adequacy of insurance coverage; and

2

---

- legal proceedings and the potential outcomes therefrom.

In certain cases, forward looking statements can be identified
by the use of words such as plans, expects or does not expect, is
expected, is likely, budget, scheduled, estimates, forecasts,
intends, anticipates or does not anticipate, continue, or believes,
and similar expressions, or variations of such words and phrases or statements
that certain actions, events or results may, could, would, might or
will be taken, occur or be achieved.

Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and
estimates of management as of the date such statements are made. Energy Fuels
believes that the expectations reflected in this forward-looking information are
reasonable, but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to
be correct, and such forward-looking information included in, or incorporated by
reference into, this AIF should not be unduly relied upon. This information
speaks only as of the date of this AIF.

Readers are cautioned that it would be unreasonable to rely on
any such forward looking statements and information as creating any legal
rights, and that the statements and information are not guarantees and may
involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and that 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 and operation of mineral properties and processing facilities such
as:

- risks associated with mineral and resource estimates, including the risk
  of errors in assumptions or methodologies
- risks associated with estimating production, forecasting future price
  levels necessary to support production, and the Companys ability to increase
  production in response to any increases in commodity prices or other market
  conditions;
- uncertainties and liabilities inherent in mining operations;
- geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated
  metallurgical difficulties, ground control problems, process upsets and
  equipment malfunctions;
- risks associated with labour costs, labour disturbances and unavailability
  of skilled labour;
- risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of
  raw materials and consumables used in the Company's 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 production
  levels or increases in expected production levels;
- actions taken by regulatory authorities with respect to mining and
  processing activities;
- risks associated with the Companys dependence on third parties in the
  provision of transportation and other critical services;
- title risks;
- risks associated with the ability of the Company to extend or renew
  mineral leases on favorable terms or at all;
- risks associated with the ability of the Company to negotiate access
  rights on certain properties on favorable terms or at all;
- the adequacy of insurance coverage;
- uncertainty as to reclamation and decommissioning liabilities;
- the ability of the Companys bonding companies to require increases in the
  collateral required to secure reclamation obligations;
- the potential for, and outcome of, litigation and other legal proceedings,
  including potential injunctions pending the outcome of such litigation and
  proceedings;

3

---

- the ability of Energy Fuels to meet its obligations to its creditors;
- risks associated with the Companys relationships with its business and
  joint venture partners;
- failure to obtain industry partner, government and other third party
  consents and approvals, when required;
- competition for, among other things, capital, acquisitions of mineral
  reserves, undeveloped lands and skilled personnel;
- failure to complete proposed acquisitions and incorrect assessments of the
  value of completed acquisitions;
- risks posed by fluctuations in exchange rates and interest rates, as well
  as general economic conditions;
- risks inherent in the Companys and industrys forecasts or predictions of
  future uranium and vanadium price levels;
- fluctuations in the market prices of uranium and vanadium, which are
  cyclical and subject to substantial price fluctuations;
- failure to obtain suitable term contracts for the sale of uranium;
- risks associated with asset impairment as a result of decreases in uranium
  prices;
- risks associated with lack of access to markets and the ability to access
  capital;
- the market price of Energy Fuels securities;
- public resistance to nuclear energy or uranium mining;
- risks relating to the timing and ability to consummate the Companys
  pending acquisition of Uranerz Energy Corp.;
- uranium industry competition and international trade restrictions; and
- the other factors discussed under Risk Factors in this AIF.

Actual results and developments are likely to differ, and may
differ materially, from those expressed or implied by the forward looking
statements contained in this AIF.

Such statements are based on a number of assumptions which may
prove to be incorrect, including, but not limited to, the following
assumptions:

- that there is no material deterioration in general business and economic
  conditions;
- that there is no unanticipated fluctuation of interest rates and foreign
  exchange rates;
- that the supply and demand for, deliveries of, and the level and
  volatility of prices of uranium, vanadium and the Companys other primary
  metals and minerals develop as expected;
- that uranium and vanadium prices required to reach, sustain or increase
  expected or forecasted production levels are realized as expected;
- that the Company is able to enter into suitable term contracts for the
  sale of uranium;
- that the Company receives regulatory and governmental approvals for the
  Companys development projects and other operations on a timely basis;
- that the Company is able to operate its mineral properties and processing
  facilities as expected;
- that existing licenses and permits are maintained and renewed as required;
- that existing mineral leases are maintained and renewed as required;
- that access to properties is obtained and maintained as required;
- that the Company is able to obtain financing for the Companys development
  projects on reasonable terms;
- that the Company is able to procure mining equipment and operating
  supplies in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis;

4

---

- that engineering and construction timetables and capital costs for the
  Companys development and expansion projects and restarting projects on
  standby, are not incorrectly estimated or affected by unforeseen
  circumstances;
- that costs of closure of various operations are accurately estimated;
- that there are no unanticipated changes in collateral requirements for
  surety bonds;
- that there are no unanticipated changes to market competition;
- that the Companys reserve and resource estimates are within reasonable
  bounds of accuracy (including with respect to size, grade and recoverability)
  and that the geological, operational and price assumptions on which these are
  based are reasonable;
- that environmental and other administrative and legal proceedings or
  disputes are satisfactorily resolved; and
- that the Company maintains ongoing relations with its employees and with
  its business and joint venture partners.

All written and oral forward looking statements or information
attributable to the Company or persons acting on the Companys behalf are
expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary statements.

Forward looking statements speak only as of the date the
statements are made. You should not put undue reliance on any forward looking
statements.

The Company cautions that the foregoing list of assumptions,
risks and uncertainties is not exhaustive. Additional information on these and
other factors which could affect operations or financial results are included
under the headingRisk Factors. The forward-looking
statements and forward-looking information contained in this AIF and the
documents incorporated by reference herein are expressly qualified by this
cautionary statement. The Company does not undertake any obligation to publicly
update or revise any forward looking statements to reflect actual results,
changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting any forward looking
statements or information except as expressly required by applicable securities
laws. If the Company does update one or more forward looking statements, no
inference should be drawn that the Company will make additional updates with
respect to those or other forward looking statements.

Statements relating to "Mineral Reserves" or "Mineral
Resources" are deemed to be forward-looking information, as they involve the
implied assessment, based on certain estimates and assumptions, that the Mineral
Reserves and Mineral Resources described may be profitably produced in the
future.

CAUTIONARYNOTETOUNITEDSTATESINVESTORSCONCERNINGESTIMATESOFMINERALRESERVES ANDMINERALESTIMATES


This AIF has been prepared in accordance with the requirements
of Canadian securities laws, which differ from the requirements of United
States securities laws. Unless otherwise indicated, all reserve and resource
estimates included in this AIF, and in the documents incorporated by reference
herein, have 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 (the CSA) which establishes standards for all public
disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning
mineral projects.

5

---

Canadian standards, including NI 43-101, differ significantly
from the requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(the SEC), and reserve and resource information contained or
incorporated by reference in this AIF, and in the documents incorporated by
reference herein, may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by
companies reporting under United States standards. In particular, and without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term resource does not equate to
the term reserve under SEC Industry Guide 7. Under United States standards,
mineralization may not be classified as a reserve unless the determination has
been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or
extracted at the time the reserve determination is made.

The SECs disclosure standards under Industry Guide 7 normally
do not permit 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 United States standards in documents filed with the
SEC. 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 prefeasibility 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. Investors are cautioned
not to assume that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource exists or
is economically or legally mineable.

Disclosure of contained pounds or contained ounces in a
resource estimate is permitted disclosure under Canadian regulations; however,
the SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not
constitute reserves by SEC standards as in place tonnage and grade without
reference to unit measures. The requirements of NI 43-101 for identification of
reserves are also not the same as those of the SEC, and reserves reported by
the Company in compliance with NI 43-101 may not qualify as reserves under SEC
standards. Accordingly, information concerning mineral deposits set forth herein
may not be comparable to information made public by companies that report in
accordance with United States standards.

INCORPORATIONANDSUBSIDIARIES


INCORPORATION

Energy Fuels was incorporated on June 24, 1987 in the province
of Alberta under the name Volcanic Metals Exploration Inc. On September 2, 2005,
the Company was continued under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario).
On May 26, 2006, Volcanic Metals Exploration Inc. changed its name to Energy
Fuels Inc. On November 5, 2013, the Company amended its Articles to consolidate
the issued and outstanding Common Shares on the basis of one post-consolidation
Common Share for every 50 pre-consolidation Common Shares.

The registered and head office of Energy Fuels is located at 2
Toronto Street, Suite 500, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 2B6, Canada. Energy Fuels
conducts its business and owns its assets in the United States through its U.S.
subsidiaries, which have their principal place of business and corporate office
at 225 Union Blvd., Suite 600, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, USA. Energy Fuels
website address is www.energyfuels.com.

Energy Fuels is a reporting issuer in all of the Canadian
provinces. Energy Fuels common shares (the Common Shares) are listed
on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the TSX) under the symbol EFR and on the NYSE MKT under the symbol UUUU. In addition, Energy
Fuels convertible debentures are listed on the TSX under the symbol EFR.DB.
SeeMarket for Securities  Debentures. Options on Energy Fuels common
shares are traded on The Chicago Board Options Exchange. The Designated Primary
Market Maker for the options is Group One Trading, LP. KCG Americas LLC is the
Companys Market Maker on the NYSE MKT.

6

---

The Company conducts its business and owns its properties
through a number of subsidiaries. A diagram depicting the organizational
structure of the Company and its active subsidiaries, including the name,
country of incorporation and proportion of ownership interest, is included as
Exhibit 1 to this AIF. Energy Fuels also owns a number of inactive
subsidiaries which have no material liabilities or assets and do not engage in
any material business activities.

SUBSIDIARIES

All of the Companys U.S. assets are held directly or
indirectly through the Companys wholly-owned subsidiaries Energy Fuels Holdings
Corp. (EF Holdings) and Strathmore Minerals Corp.
(Strathmore). SeeExhibit 1. EF Holdings and Strathmore hold
all or a portion of their uranium mining and milling assets through a number of
additional subsidiaries. The principal assets of the Company are held as
follows:

- the White Mesa Mill, a 2,000-ton per day uranium and vanadium processing
  facility located near Blanding, Utah (the White Mesa Millor
  Mill) through EFR White Mesa LLC;
- the Colorado Plateau properties, including the Whirlwind Mine, the La Sal
  Project, the Sage Plain Project, and other exploration and development
  properties in the Colorado Plateau district, through EFR Colorado Plateau LLC
  (EFR Colorado Plateau), and its subsidiaries West Lisbon, LLC and
  Colorado Plateau Partners LLC (CPP);
- the Gas Hills Project, Juniper Ridge Project, and the Companys 60%
  interest in the Roca Honda Project through Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd.
  (Strathmore US);
- the Sheep Mountain Project through Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc. (EF
  Wyoming);
- the Daneros Mine in the White Canyon district of southeastern Utah, and
  other exploration properties in that district through EFR White Canyon Corp
  (EFR White Canyon);
- the Arizona Strip properties, including the Arizona 1 Mine, the Pinenut
  Mine, the Canyon Project, and the Companys 50% interest in the Wate Project,
  through EFR Arizona Strip LLC (EFR Arizona Strip), and its
  subsidiaries Arizona Strip Partners LLC (ASP) and Arizona Strip
  Resources JV, LLC (ASR);
- the Henry Mountains Complex in southern Utah and other exploration
  properties through EFR Henry Mountains LLC (EFR Henry Mountains);
- the Copper King Project through Wyoming Gold Mining Company Inc.
  (Wyoming Gold); and
- miscellaneous properties through EFR Properties LLC.

All of the U.S. properties are operated by Energy Fuels
Resources (USA) Inc. (EFUSA), a wholly-owned subsidiary of EF Holdings.

In addition, the Company holds a 16.5% equity interest in
Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (Virginia Energy) (TSX.V:VUI;
OTCQX:VEGYF).

7

---

GENERALDEVELOPMENTOFTHEBUSINESS


THREEYEARHISTORY

Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

During the year ended September 30, 2012 (FY 2012),
the Company and Titan Uranium Inc. (Titan) entered into a business
combination agreement dated December 5, 2011, whereby Energy Fuels agreed to
acquire, by way of a plan of arrangement, all of the outstanding common shares
of Titan. The acquisition was completed on February 29, 2012. Titans principal
asset was the Sheep Mountain Project in Wyoming. The Company issued an aggregate
of 1,781,280 Common Shares in connection with the acquisition of Titan.

On March 1, 2012, Energy Fuels completed the Updated
Preliminary Feasibility Study dated April 13, 2012 for the Sheep Mountain
Project (2012 PFS), which reported the Probable Mineral Reserve for the
Sheep Mountain Project at 18.4million lbs. U3O8contained
in 7.5 million tons at an average grade of 0.123% eU3O8.
Total Indicated Resources are 12.9 million tons containing 30.3 million lbs.
U3O8 at an average grade of 0.117% e
U3O8, which includes the Probable Mineral Reserve number
described above. See Mineral Projects  Sheep Mountain Projectbelow.

On June 21, 2012, the Company completed a private placement of
710,010 subscription receipts at a price of Cdn$11.50 per subscription receipt
for gross total proceeds of $8.01 million. Each subscription receipt was
exchangeable upon completion of the acquisition of Denisons US Mining Division
described below for one Common Share and one-half of one warrant. Each whole
warrant entitles the holder to purchase one additional Common Share at a price
of Cdn$13.25 until June 22, 2015. The Company used the net proceeds of $7.11
million for working capital and general corporate purposes related to operations
of the US Mining Division, defined below.

On June 29, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of all
of the mining assets and operations located in the United States (the US
Mining Division) of Denison Mines Corp. (Denison). The Company
acquired the US Mining Division through the acquisition of all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Denisons subsidiaries, Denison Mines Holdings Corp.
(DMHC) and White Canyon Uranium Limited (WCUL), and the
assignment of all amounts owing to Denison or any affiliate of Denison (other
than DHMC, WCUL or any direct or indirect subsidiary of DMHC), in exchange for
the issuance of an aggregate of 8,508,817 Common Shares. Upon completion of the
acquisition, two additional directors were appointed to the Board of Directors
of Energy Fuels. After completion of the acquisition, Energy Fuels changed the
name of DMHC to Energy Fuels Holdings Corp. (EF Holdings). The
transaction was accounted for as a business combination with the Company
identified as the acquirer, owing to the fact that post-transaction Energy Fuels
now met the criteria of a business. WCUL was wound up in 2014.

As a result of the Denison acquisition, the Company acquired
the White Mesa Mill (the Mill), an operating mill central to its
existing Colorado, Utah and Arizona holdings, as well as significant producing,
developmental and exploration properties in the same area, including the Henry
Mountains Complex, the Daneros Mine, the La Sal Project and the Arizona Strip
Properties. See Mineral Projectsbelow. The Mill, along with the
properties in the proximate area, represents the Companys White Mesa Mill  cash
generating unit.

8

---

On July 3, 2012, the Company entered into an underwriting
agreement with a syndicate of underwriters whereby the underwriters agreed to
purchase, on a bought deal basis, 22,000 floating-rate convertible unsecured
subordinated debentures (Debentures) at a price per Debenture of
Cdn$1,000 for total gross proceeds of $21.55 million. The transaction closed on
July 24, 2012, and the Company received net proceeds of $19.19 million, net of
the underwriters fees and expenses. The principal amount of the Debentures are
convertible into Common Shares at the option of the holder at a conversion price
of Cdn$15.00 per share. The Company used the net proceeds of the offering for
sustaining capital for the Company's existing mine operations, mine permitting
and development of the Company's existing properties, repayment of certain
indebtedness, and for working capital and general corporate purposes. The
Debentures mature on June 30, 2017 and are convertible into Common Shares at any
time prior to maturity at a conversion price of Cdn$15.00 per Common Share.

As a result of the acquisition of the US Mining Division from
Denison on June 29, 2012, Energy Fuels became a producing company. Energy Fuels
uranium production in the period from the acquisition (June 29, 2012) through
September 30, 2012 was 310,480 pounds of U3O8. During this
same period, uranium sales totaled 447,000 pounds of U3O8
at an average realized price of $55.83 per pound of U3O8.
There was no vanadium produced or sold during this same period.

At the time of the acquisition by the Company, the US Mining
Division was producing uranium ore at its Arizona 1 Mine in Arizona and Daneros
Mine in Utah, and was producing uranium and vanadium ore at its La Sal Project
in Utah, which includes the Beaver and Pandora mines. Also at the time of the
acquisition, the US Mining Division was developing and refurbishing its Pinenut
mine in Arizona.

Period from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013

During the period from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013
(FY 2013), the Company acquired the interests of Aldershot Resources
Ltd. (Aldershot) in the Sage Plain Project for $0.75 million in cash,
the cancellation of debt owed by Aldershot to Energy Fuels, and 70,551 Common
Shares. In the transaction, Energy Fuels acquired Aldershots ownership interest
in CPP and ASP, two 50/50 joint ventures between subsidiaries of Energy Fuels
and Aldershot. CPP holds a portion of the properties in the Sage Plain Project
area, including the Calliham lease, the Crain lease, and three SITLA Leases. As
a result of the acquisition, Energy Fuels then owned 100% of the Sage Plain
Project, which is located about 15-miles northeast of Monticello, Utah and about
54 road miles from the Mill. In addition, Energy Fuels acquired Aldershots
interest in ASP which holds several prospective exploration properties in
northern Arizona. During FY 2014, the Company sold the Sage mine portion of the
Sage Plain Project, retaining the Calliham mine. See  Energy Fuels Business
- Mineral Projects  The Sage Plain Projectbelow.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2012, the Company placed
the Daneros Mine and the Beaver and Pandora mines in the La Sal Project on
standby status due to lower uranium spot market prices.

On January 28, 2013, Energy Fuels acquired a 16.5% interest in
Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (Virginia Energy) (TSX.V:VUI;
OTCQX:VEGYF) as part of a non-brokered private placement financing. Energy Fuels
acquired 9,439,857 common shares of Virginia Energy at a price of Cdn$0.42 per
share, for an aggregate subscription price of $4.16 million. The subscription
price was satisfied by a combination of $0.25 million of cash and the issuance
of 437,028 common shares of Energy Fuels.

Shaft sinking operations at the Companys Canyon Project in
Arizona commenced in early April 2013, and were placed on standby in November
2013, due to market conditions and to simplify and lessen the expense of
litigation. Up to that point, the shaft had been sunk to a depth of 280 feet,
and all surface development on the project had been completed, including the
head-frame, the hoist, the evaporation ponds, environmental monitoring
facilities and all buildings. By stipulation agreement, the Company agreed to maintain such activities on standby until the earlier of a decision by the
Arizona District Court on the merits of the current litigation at the Canyon
Project or December 31, 2014 (later extended to April 15, 2015). See Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Actions  Canyon
Project below.

9

---

On June 11, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive
arrangement agreement to acquire by way of a plan of arrangement all of the
issued and outstanding shares of Strathmore Minerals Corp. (Strathmore). The
transaction was completed on August 30, 2014.

On June 13, 2013, the Company completed a bought deal private
placement of units of the Company (Units) pursuant to an underwriting
agreement with Dundee Securities Ltd., Haywood Securities Inc. and Cantor
Fitzgerald Canada Corporation. A total of 947,616 Units were issued at a price
of Cdn$7.00 per Unit for total gross proceeds of $6.52 million. Each Unit
consisted of one Common Share and one-half of one common share purchase warrant.
Each whole warrant entitles the holder thereof to acquire one Common Share at a
price of Cdn$9.50 at any time until June 15, 2015.

On June 26, 2013, Energy Fuels Common Shares began trading in
the United States on the OTCQX under the symbol EFRFF. The Companys Common
Shares traded on the OTCQX until they commenced trading on the NYSE MKT. See
below for discussion of NYSE MKT listing.

On October 16, 2013, the Company completed a public offering of
625,000 common shares at a price of Cdn$8.00 per share for aggregate gross
proceeds of $4.83 million. The offering was conducted by way of a short form
prospectus dated October 9, 2013 through a syndicate of underwriters comprised
of Dundee Securities Ltd., Cantor Fitzgerald Canada Corporation and Haywood
Securities Inc. An aggregate of 30,963 compensation warrants were issued to the
Underwriters. Each compensation warrant entitles the holder to purchase one
Common Share at a price of Cdn$8.00 per share until October 16, 2015.

During FY 2013, the Company changed its fiscal year-end from
September 30 to December 31, to better align the Companys year-end with the
year-ends of its major uranium customers, certain material subsidiaries and
industry peers. As a result of this change, the Companys prior financial year
is the 15-month period beginning on October 1, 2012 and ending on December 31,
2013.

In order to facilitate a listing of the Companys Common Shares
on the NYSE MKT, effective November 5, 2013, the Company completed a
consolidation of its common shares on the basis of 50 pre-consolidation common
shares for each one post-consolidation Common Share. The Share Consolidation was
approved by the shareholders of the Company at a special meeting of shareholders
held on October 30, 2013 The Common Shares of Energy Fuels began trading on the
Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) on a post-consolidated basis on November
5, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, Energy Fuels Common Shares began trading
on the NYSE MKT stock exchange, under the ticker symbol UUUU.

On December 17, 2013, Energy Fuels announced that it had
entered into a Strategic Relationship Agreement (the SRA) with Korea
Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). KEPCO is the largest electric
utility in South Korea, responsible for 93% of South Koreas electricity
generation and the development of nuclear projects worldwide. The key objectives
of the SRA are to establish a long-term and strategic collaborative relationship
and to promote the development of each companys businesses. The SRA addresses a
number of areas of interest for both Energy Fuels and KEPCO, including the
development of Energy Fuels Wyoming projects, KEPCOs seat on the board of
directors of Energy Fuels, visitation and secondment rights, and future
qualified bidding by Energy Fuels on uranium concentrate supply contracts for
KEPCO and its affiliates.

10

---

Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2014

On March 3, 2014, the Company completed the replacement of its
$28.17 million regulatory bonding portfolio, utilizing two different qualified
sureties. As a result of the bond replacement program, $12.34 million of
previously restricted cash was released for use by the Company. Prior bonding
arrangements, covering all of the Companys mines and mills, required the
Company to post 100% cash collateral to back the currently outstanding $26.72
million undiscounted decommissioning liability.

On March 28, 2014, the Company filed on SEDAR an updated
mineral resource estimate on its La Sal Project, titled Technical Report on
La Sal District Project (including the Pandora, Beaver, and Energy Queen
Projects), San Juan County, Utah, U.S.A., increasing the Companys measured
and indicated uranium and vanadium resources by about 2.7 million and 15.5
million pounds, respectively, and an updated mineral resource estimate and
preliminary economic assessment on its Juniper Ridge Project, titled Juniper
Ridge Uranium Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, U.S.A., increasing the
Companys indicated mineral resources by nearly 1 million pounds.

On March 28, 2014, the Company announced that it had filed a
preliminary short form base shelf prospectus with the securities commissions in
each of the provinces and territories of Canada, except Quebec, for an aggregate
offering of up to US$100 million. The final prospectus was receipted on April 9,
2014 and the corresponding registration statement on Form F-10 went effective on
April 10, 2014. Under the base shelf prospectus, the Company may issue common
shares, warrants, subscription receipts, preferred shares, debt securities, or
any combination of such securities as units, in amounts, at prices, and on terms
to be determined based on market conditions at the time of sale, and as set
forth in an accompanying prospectus supplement, during the 25-month period that
the base shelf prospectus remains effective. The Company has not issued any
securities under this prospectus to date.

On July 2, 2014, Energy Fuels announced the creation of a joint
venture to facilitate the future development or sale of the Copper King
copper/gold project in Wyoming. The Company contributed the Copper King Project
to CK Mining Corp. (CK Mining), a newly formed private company, in
consideration of $1.50 million in cash and newly issued common shares of CK
Mining, representing 50% of its issued and outstanding shares after giving
effect to such issuance. A private investor group with experience in developing
gold projects and building mining companies holds the other 50% of CK Mining.

On August 20, 2014, the Company announced the completion of a
sale of certain non-core uranium assets to Piñon Ridge Mining, LLC, a company
owned by a private investor group led by Baobab Asset Management LLC and George
Glasier, the former President and CEO of Energy Fuels. The transaction involved
certain mining assets located along the Colorado-Utah border including the
Sunday Mines Complex, the Willhunt project, the San Rafael project, the Sage
mine (comprising a portion of the Sage Plain Project), the Van 4 mine, the
Farmer Girl project, the Dunn project, and the Yellow Cat project. The Company
received cash and other consideration totaling $1.50 million, plus another $0.15
million of cash to reimburse the Company for certain pre-closing expenses. The
Company also retained a 1% production royalty on all of the properties and
received an additional $0.23 million cash from the return of bond collateral. In
addition, the Company entered into a toll milling agreement with Piñon Ridge
Mining, LLC, under which Piñon Ridge Mining, LLC has the right to mill any ore
produced from those properties at the Mill.

On November 7, 2014, the Company announced the completion of
the sale of the radioactive materials license for the proposed Piñon Ridge mill
and related assets (the Piñon Ridge Project) through the sale of the
Companys wholly owned subsidiary, Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, to Piñon
Ridge Corporation, a company owned by a private investor group led by Baobab
Asset Management LLC and George Glasier. The Piñon Ridge Project was the only asset held
by Energy Fuels Resources Corporation at the time of the sale.

11

---

Events Subsequent to December 31, 2014

On January 4, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Uranerz Energy Corporation
(Uranerz), a Nevada corporation, and EFR Nevada Corp., a Nevada corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (Merger Sub). The Merger Agreement
provides for a business combination between Uranerz and Merger Sub whereby the
Company will acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Uranerz. See
Proposed Acquisition of Uranerz Energy Corporation below.

On February 17, 2015, the Company announced that it had
acquired a 50% interest in the Wate uranium deposit (the Wate Project)
from VANE Minerals (US) LLC (VANE). The Wate Project is held in the
Wate Mining Company, LLC joint venture (WMCL). The other 50% of WMCL is
held by Uranium One Americas, Inc. As consideration for the 50% interest in
WMCL, the Company paid VANE $0.25 million cash at closing, along with a $0.50
million non-interest-bearing promissory note, payable in two equal installments
of $0.25 million each on the first and second anniversaries of the note, and a
2% production royalty on the 50% interest in the Wate Project being acquired.
The royalty can be purchased by Energy Fuels upon payment to VANE of an
additional $0.75 million. In addition, upon the satisfaction of certain
permitting milestones and other conditions, the amounts due under the note will
be accelerated, and the Company will pay to VANE an additional $0.25 million
cash. If Energy Fuels elects not to make the payments under the note, it will be
required to transfer the WMCL interest back to VANE.

PROPOSEDACQUISITION OFURANERZENERGYCORPORATION

Merger Agreement

On January 4, 2015, the Company entered into the Merger
Agreement with Uranerz and Merger Sub. The Merger Agreement provides for a
business combination whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into Uranerz (the
Merger), and as a result Uranerz will continue as the surviving
operating corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the
Merger, each issued and outstanding share of Uranerz (Uranerz Common
Stock)will be canceled and extinguished and automatically converted into
the right to receive 0.255 common shares of the Company (the Exchange
Ratio).

The completion of the Merger will be subject to the approval of
at least a majority of the holders of the outstanding Common Shares of the
Company voted at a special meeting of the shareholders of the Company to be
called later in 2015 to consider the Merger, as well as the approval of at least
a majority of the holders of the outstanding Uranerz Common Stock and at least a
majority of the votes cast by Uranerzs shareholders, excluding directors and
officers of Uranerz, at a special meeting to be called later this year to
consider the Merger.

The Merger Agreement provides that, upon consummation of the
Merger, the Company shall cause three nominees of Uranerz to be appointed to the
board of directors of the Company.

In addition to the approval of the shareholders of each of the
Company and Uranerz, as described above, the completion of the Merger will be
subject to satisfaction of other customary closing conditions, including, among
others:

12

---

- The declaration by the SEC of the effectiveness of the Registration
  Statement on Form F-4 to be filed by the Company with the SEC in connection
  with the Merger,
- The Common Shares of the Company to be issued in connection with the
  Merger, and to be issued upon exercise of the assumed Uranerz options and
  Uranerz warrants, will have been approved (or conditionally approved, as
  applicable) for listing on the NYSE MKT and the TSX, and
- The receipt of all regulatory approvals necessary for completion of the
  Merger.

Each of the Company and Uranerz has agreed to customary and
generally reciprocal representations, warranties and covenants in the Merger
Agreement. Among these covenants, both the Company and Uranerz have agreed to
conduct their respective businesses in the ordinary course during the period
between the execution of the Merger Agreement and the closing of the Merger.

The Merger Agreement contains customary deal support
provisions, including a reciprocal break fee of $5.00 million payable if the
Merger is not completed under certain circumstances. In addition, the Merger
Agreement includes customary and reciprocal non-solicitation covenants, as well
as a reciprocal right to match any superior proposal that may arise.

The foregoing description of the Merger Agreement does not
purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full
text of the Merger Agreement, a copy of which has been filed with the SEC and
can be found at www.sec.gov and with the Canadian Securities Administrators on
SEDAR and can be found under the Companys profile at www.sedar.com.

Support Agreements

Concurrent with the execution of the Merger Agreement:

- The Company entered into support agreements with directors and certain
  officers of Uranerz, pursuant to which each securityholder agreed, upon the
  terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, (a) to vote their
  Uranerz Common Stock in favor of the Merger, and (b) to not sell or otherwise
  transfer their shares pending completion of the Merger. The securityholders of
  Uranerz entering into the voting agreements collectively hold approximately
  4.0% of the outstanding shares of Uranerz.
- Uranerz entered into support agreements with certain directors and officers
  of the Company, pursuant to which each securityholder agreed upon the terms
  and subject to the conditions set forth therein, (a) to vote their shares of
  Common Shares of the Company for the Merger, and (b) to not sell or otherwise
  transfer their common shares of the Company pending completion of the Merger.
  The shareholders of the Company entering into voting agreements collectively
  hold approximately 0.4% of the outstanding shares of the Company.

Additional Important Information for Investors and
Stockholders Related to the Merger

On January 5, 2015, the Company announced a transaction whereby
it would acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Uranerz Energy
Corp. This annual information form is for informational purposes only and does
not constitute an offer to purchase, a solicitation of an offer to sell the
shares of common stock of Uranerz or a solicitation of any proxy, vote or
approval. Energy Fuels will file with the SEC a registration statement on Form F-4 that will include a proxy
statement of Uranerz that also constitutes a prospectus of Energy Fuels. Energy
Fuels and Uranerz also plan to file with or furnish other documents to
securities regulatory authorities in Canada and the United States regarding the
proposed transaction.

13

---

INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF URANERZ ARE URGED TO READ THE
PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC
CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL
CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION.

Anyone may obtain free copies of these documents when available
free of charge under Energy Fuels profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com or EDGAR at
www.sec.gov, or by accessing Energy Fuels website at www.energyfuels.com under
the heading Investors and from Energy Fuels directly by contacting Curtis
Moore, Investor Relations: (303) 974-2140. Documents will also be available free
of charge under Uranerz profile on EDGAR at www.sec.gov or on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com, or by accessing Uranerz website at www.uranerz.com under the
heading Investors and from Uranerz directly by contacting Derek Iwanaka,
Investor Relations: (800) 689-1659. Energy Fuels, Uranerz, their respective
directors and certain of their executive officers may be deemed to be
participants in the solicitation of proxies from the shareholders of Uranerz in
connection with the proposed transaction. Information about the directors and
executive officers of Uranerz is set forth in its proxy statement for its 2014
annual meeting of shareholders, which was filed with the SEC on April 29, 2014
and in Uranerz Annual Report on Form 10-K which was filed with the SEC on March
16, 2015. Information about the directors and executive officers of the Company
can be found in this annual information form and in the Companys 2014
management information circular dated March 26, 2014, which is available at
www.sedar.com and www.sec.gov. Other information regarding the participants in
the proxy solicitation and a description of their direct and indirect interests,
by security holdings or otherwise, will be contained in the proxy
statement/prospectus and other relevant materials to be filed with the SEC when
they become available.

14

---

ENERGYFUELS
      BUSINESS


OVERVIEW

Energy Fuels is engaged in uranium mining, milling,
development, permitting and exploration. The Company owns an operating uranium
mine, uranium and uranium/vanadium mines on standby, projects in permitting and
development, and exploration properties located in the United States. Energy
Fuels also owns the White Mesa Mill in Utah, which is the only operating uranium
mill in the United States. Energy Fuels also produces vanadium as a co-product
from some of its mines in Colorado and Utah. In addition, Energy Fuels recycles
other uranium-bearing materials, not derived from conventional ore, referred to
as "alternate feed materials", for the recovery of uranium, alone or in
combination with other metals, at its White Mesa Mill.

The Companys principal assets as of December 31, 2014 include
the following:

- the White Mesa Mill, a 2,000 ton per day uranium and vanadium processing
  facility located near Blanding, Utah;
- the Arizona Strip uranium properties, in north central Arizona, including
  the Pinenut mine (the Pinenut Mine), a producing uranium mine, the
  Arizona 1 mine (the Arizona 1 Mine), a recently producing
  uranium mine which was placed on standby due to the depletion of its economic
  mineral resource, the Canyon Project (the Canyon Project), which is a
  permitted and partially developed mining project, and a 50% interest in the
  Wate Project (the Wate Project), which is a breccia pipe deposit in
  the permitting stage;
- the La Sal Project, Whirlwind Mine, Sage Plain Project and other Colorado
  Plateau uranium/vanadium properties, straddling the southwestern Colorado and
  southeastern Utah border (the Colorado Plateau), in addition to
  nearby exploration properties;
- the Daneros Mine in the White Canyon district in southeastern Utah , in
  addition to nearby exploration properties;
- the Henry Mountains Complex uranium properties, in south central Utah near
  the town of Ticaboo (the Henry Mountains Complex);
- a 60% interest in the Roca Honda property, in New Mexico, near the town of
  Grants (the Roca Honda Project);
- the Sheep Mountain Project (the Sheep Mountain Project), located
  near Jeffrey City, Wyoming, which includes a proposed open pit mine, an
  underground mine, and the operation of a uranium processing facility utilizing
  heap leach recovery;
- the Gas Hills and Juniper Ridge projects in Wyoming; and
- uranium sales contracts, alternate feed processing contracts, and joint
  venture agreements.

Company Strategy

Energy Fuels intends to continue to strengthen its position as
the leading  uranium mining company focused on the United States. The Company
expects to accomplish this through:

| | 1) | Pursuing completion of the Company's acquisition of Uranerz.                                                                                                                                                
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2) | Continuing the current Mill campaign to process alternate
      feed materials into mid-2015.                                                                                                               
| | 3) | Continuing mining at the Pinenut Mine until the economic
      resource is depleted, which is expected to occur in mid-2015. Pinenut ore
      is expected to be shipped to the Mill and, processed in 2016.
| | 4) | Resuming development on the Canyon Mine in the second
      quarter of 2015.                                                                                                                                

15

---

| | 5) | After mid-2015, continuing activities at the White Mesa
      Mill (except for mineral processing), and maintaining the facility in a
      state of readiness for the purpose of restarting mineral processing
      operations in 2016, or earlier as market conditions and contract delivery
      requirements may warrant.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 6) | Maintaining standby mines in a state of readiness for
      the purpose of restarting ore production as market conditions may
      warrant.                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 7) | Continuing ongoing business development activities,
      including permitting and development of existing projects.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 8) | Evaluating the potential to further acquire uranium
      properties in the United States.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

In response to current market uncertainty, the Company expects
to continue cash conservation efforts until additional sustained improvement in
uranium market conditions is observed. In addition, the Company is continuing to
manage its operations and assets conservatively, maintaining its substantial
uranium resource base, and scheduling uranium production at the White Mesa Mill
as market conditions warrant.

Production and Operations

The White Mesa Mill has historically operated on a campaign
basis, whereby mineral processing occurs as mill feed, contract requirements,
and market conditions warrant.

The Company expects the current mineral processing campaign at
the White Mesa Mill to conclude in the first half of 2015, resulting in the
production of approximately 200,000 pounds of finished goods. Once the current
campaign concludes at the White Mesa Mill, the Company expects to continue to
receive and stockpile ore from the Pinenut mine and alternate feed materials. In
addition, the Company expects to continue making U3O8
deliveries, as required by the Companys existing long-term contracts. At this
time, the Company does not expect to schedule a mineral processing campaign
during the remainder of FY-2015, though the Company is maintaining the
flexibility to resume processing stockpiled or other materials at the White Mesa
Mill should market conditions warrant.

The Company plans to continue mining at the Pinenut mine until
the economic resources are depleted, which is now estimated to occur in the
second quarter of 2015, due to higher estimates of resources at the mine. The
ore mined at the Pinenut mine is being shipped to the White Mesa Mill and
stockpiled for processing in a planned 2016 campaign.

The Company has three existing long-term contracts, which
require future deliveries of 800,000 pounds in FY-2015, 450,000 pounds in
FY-2016 and 420,000 pounds in FY-2017. Of these amounts, a total of 770,000
pounds is required to be produced by the Company, while Energy Fuels has the
option to fulfill the remaining 900,000 pounds from production and/or purchase.
At December 31, 2014, the Company has approximately 800,000 pounds of produced
finished goods inventory, of which 770,000 pounds will be held for delivery into
the contracts that require produced pounds.

For the 800,000 pounds of FY-2015 deliveries, the Company
anticipates
utilizing 500,000 pounds of produced material on hand and has contracted for the
purchase of 300,000 pounds of U3O8. Additionally,
asdiscussed above, the Company expects to produce approximately 200,000 pounds
in the final months of its present campaign.

For the FY-2016 and FY-2017 contractual deliveries, the Company
plans to utilize the 500,000 pounds of finished goods inventory expected to be
on hand at the end of FY-2015 and to produce a minimum of 370,000 pounds of
U3O8in a future mill campaign at the White Mesa Mill,
from ore mined from the Pinenut mine and the expected receipt of alternate feed
materials, both as discussed above. While the Company expects to produce the 370,000 pounds required, the
Company may elect to purchase all or a portion of this material in the spot
market. This flexibility will allow the Company to monitor market conditions to
determine the most favorable and economic approach to fulfilling these remaining
deliveries.

16

---

The Company also plans to continue to maintain, and update as
necessary, all permits on its other existing mines. These mines will remain on
standby until market conditions improve or the material can be sold into
long-term contracts at pricing that supports production. As previously
announced, expenditures for permitting activities for new mines have been
adjusted to coincide with expected dates of production based on price forecasts.
The Company plans to spend $1.10 million on permitting in FY-2015. The Company
is continuing to monitor corporate and field overhead to coincide with these
lower levels of activity.

Sales

The Company forecasts FY-2015 sales to be approximately 800,000
pounds of U3O8, all of which will be sold into its three
existing long-term contracts discussed above. Energy Fuels expects to receive an
average realized price of $57.45 per pound of U3O8 sold
during FY-2015 across all of its contracts. The average expected realized price
per pound is not subject to any decrease resulting from declines in future
U3O8 spot and/or term prices, due to the minimum floor
prices now in effect in each of the Companys contracts. The Company does not
expect to make any sales into the spot market during FY-2015, it will continue
to monitor market conditions for opportunistic sales if economically justified.

One of the Companys three existing long-term contracts is
expected to expire after the 2015 deliveries are completed in the 3rd quarter of
2015. The Company is currently seeking to extend this contract if suitable
pricing can be obtained. While the Company also continues to pursue new sources of
revenue, including new uranium sales contracts and expansion of its alternate
feed business.

MARKETING

Energy Fuels utilizes a number of resources to assess uranium
market conditions, including two independent market consultants, Ux Consulting
Company (Ux) and TradeTech (TradeTech). Uranium is a commodity
that trades on the spot and term markets, typically on privately negotiated
transactions between buyers and sellers. Spot uranium transactions typically
involve deliveries that occur immediately and up to 12 months in the future.
Term uranium transactions typically involve deliveries that occur more than 12
months in the future, with long-term transactions involving delivery terms of at
least three years.

According to data from TradeTech, uranium prices during 2014
were generally flat. Spot prices began the year at $34.50per pound of
U3O8 and ended the year at $35.50 per year, reaching a
high of $44.00 per pound for the week of November 14, 2014 and a low of $28.10
per pound for the week of June 20, 2014. Long-term U3O8 prices began and ended
2014 at $50.00 per pound, reaching a low price of $44.00 per pound in June, July
and August. The high long-term price for 2014 was $50.00 per pound. Uranium
markets in 2014 were generally weak, which the Company believes was the result
of excess uranium supplies in the market caused by large quantities of secondary
supplies, the availability of low-priced spot material, the delayed restart of
Japanese reactors, insufficient producer cut-backs and generally weak demand.

The Companys marketing strategy is to seek a base of earnings
and cash flow through sales of a portion of its production into term contracts,
with market-related formulas when available, and to gain further exposure to
increasing uranium prices through future spot sales for the remainder of the
Companys production. In addition, the Company has the ability to bring
additional production online in the future in response to increasing prices, which production can be sold on
a spot or term basis. The Companys current existing term contracts utilize
market-related formulas with base, floor and ceiling prices, some of which are
escalated at the rate of inflation. During 2014, the pricing on all three of the
Companys term contracts were at their floors. The Company sold 800,000 pounds
of U3O8 at a weighted- average price of $57.19. In 2015,
the Company expects to sell a total of 800,000 pounds of
U3O8 into these same three contracts at pricing expected
to average approximately $57.45 based on current forecasts of price inflation.

17

---

World demand for clean, reliable, and affordable baseload
electricity is growing. As a result of the expected growth of nuclear energy,
the Company believes the long-term fundamentals of the uranium industry are very
positive. The Company believes prices must rise to higher levels to support the
new primary production that will be required to meet the increasing demand we
expect to see as more nuclear units are constructed around the world. Currently,
world demand exceeds primary uranium mine production, with the gap being bridged
by secondary supplies, or uranium stockpiles in various forms that have already
been mined. As these stockpiles are drawn down, more primary mine production is
expected to be required to meet demand over the long-term. The Company believes
uranium prices will need to rise to levels that cover development costs and the
costs of production. Even if prices rise to these levels, it may be difficult
for suppliers to respond in a timely manner, as it typically requires many years
to bring new mines into production. This is expected to put further pressure on
prices to increase.

However in the short- and medium-terms, challenges remain, and
the world is oversupplied with uranium, mainly due to large quantities of
secondary and other inelastic supplies (including enricher underfeeding),
insufficient producer cut-backs, premature reactors shutdowns, delays in new
reactor construction, and decreased demand due to Japanese reactors remaining
offline for longer than expected. In addition, there is a great deal of
uncertainty in uranium prices regarding the timing and level of the recovery, as
fundamental, political, technical and other factors could cause prices to be
significantly above or below currently expected ranges. This has generally
resulted in depressed prices, which has resulted in reductions in production
from a number of uranium producers.

Nevertheless, the Company believes market fundamentals are
correcting, which may have begun when spot prices increased during the second
half of 2014 and are continuing into 2015. The Company believes utilities have
significant uncovered reactor requirements beginning in about 2017, which will
be a new source of fundamental demand expected to increase levels of market
activity in the short- and medium-terms.

OPERATIONS

White Mesa Mill

The White Mesa Mill is a fully licensed uranium and  vanadium processing facility located in southeastern Utah, near the Colorado  Plateau District, the Henry Mountains Complex, the Grants District, the Arizona  Strip and the White Canyon district, and is approximately six miles south of  the city of Blanding, Utah. The  Mill is the only fully operational and licensed conventional uranium mill in  the US, and is capable of functioning independent of off-site support except  for commercial power from Rocky Mountain Power and supplemental water supply  from the City of Blanding, Utah, and the San Juan Water Conservancy  District.

Off-site  infrastructure includes paved highway access from State Highway 191, and  right-of-ways for commercial power and a water supply pipeline from Recapture  Reservoir, which brings up to 1,000 acre- feet of water per year to the mill  site. The Mill also has four deep  (2,000+ ft) water supply wells which supply process water during normal  operations. In addition to the Mill  processing equipment, which includes the grinding and leaching circuits, CCD  (liquid–solid separation), solvent extraction, and precipitation and drying  circuits, the Mill has several days reagent storage for sulfuric acid, ammonia,  salt, soda ash, caustic soda, ammonium sulfate, flocculants, kerosene, amines,  and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The  on-site infrastructure also includes an ore stockpile area capable of storing  up to 450,000 tons of ore, and existing tailings capacity of approximately 3.5  million tons of solids. In addition, the  mill has approximately 90 acres of evaporation capacity.

Construction of the Mill began in 1979, and  conventionally-mined uranium/vanadium ore was first processed in May 1980. The Mill has been operated on a campaign  basis since its initial start-up due to variable uranium market conditions.

In addition to the conventional ore circuit, the Mill  has a separate vanadium co-product recovery circuit. The Mill also has a third circuit for  processing certain types of alternate feed materials, which was built in  2009. This circuit enables the Mill to  process both conventional ore and alternate feed materials simultaneously. See “Operations  – White Mesa Mill – Alternate Feed Materials” below.

The Mill is licensed to process an average  of 2,000 tons of ore per day and to produce over 8.0 million pounds of U3O8  per year. In full operation, the Mill  employs approximately 150 people.

18

---

Current Condition and Operating Status

In late 2006, Denison, the previous owner of the White Mesa
Mill, began a program to refurbish the mill. The refurbishment program included
the purchase of mobile equipment, restoration of the vanadium roasting, fusion
and packaging circuits, replacement of major pumps and component drives,
modernization of the Mills instrumentation and process control systems, and
completion of relining tailings Cell 4A. The total cost of the refurbishment
program was approximately $31.0 million and was completed in 2008.

In April 2008, the Mill began processing uranium/vanadium
conventional ore and producing uranium concentrate in the form of
U3O8. Production of vanadium began in July 2008 after
completion of the refurbishment of the vanadium circuit. Processing of
conventional ore continued through the end of March 2009 when the Mill was shut
down for approximately thirty days for relining of the semi-autogenous grinding
Mill and other maintenance activities. Processing of conventional ore
recommenced near the end of April 2009, but was discontinued near the end of May
for the remainder of 2009 due to a decline in uranium prices at the time. The
Mill began processing conventional ore again in March 2010 and continued through
June 2011. Conventional ore processing recommenced in November 2011 and
continued until early March 2012, at which time it ceased for routine
maintenance at the Mill. Conventional ore processing recommenced at the Mill in
August 2012 and continued until early June 2013. Processing conventional ore
began again in May 2014 and continued through August 2014. The alternate feed
circuit processed materials from January through December 2014, and is expected
to continue processing alternate feed materials through August 2015.

Energy Fuels acquired the Mill on June 29, 2012. All production
after that date has been for the account of Energy Fuels. From June 30, 2012
through December 2012, the Mill processed approximately 16,016 tons of ore from
the Arizona 1 Mine, 25,543 tons from the Daneros Mine, 16,046 tons from the
Pandora Mine (La Sal Project), and 32,122 tons from the Beaver Mine (La Sal
Project).

During calendar 2013 the Mill processed 18,370 tons of Arizona
1 ore, 2,052 tons of Pinenut ore, 11,181 tons of Daneros ore, 41,782 tons of
Pandora ore, 40,669 tons of Beaver ore, and 8,894 tons of purchased ore.

During calendar year 2014 the Mill processed 11,517 tons of ore
from the Arizona 1 Mine, and 37,751 tons of ore from the Pinenut Mine. See
Operations  White Mesa Mill  Ore Purchase and Toll Millingbelow.

Since June 29, 2012, the Mill has processed five different
alternate feed materials, plus one campaign of off specification yellowcake
material, using the separate alternate feed circuit built in 2008, as well as
the main Mill circuit after conventional ore processing was completed in August
of 2014.

Production at the Mill over the past five years is shown below.
(Note, only production since June 30, 2012 has been for the account of Energy
Fuels).

19

---

2014
    2013(2)
    2012
    2011(1)
    2010(1)Alternate Feed Materials Milled (tons)
    1,154
    3,492
    6,998
    12,040
    310Conventional Ore Milled (tons)
    49,268
    126,342
    125,485
    172,000
    194,440Uranium Production (000s pounds U3O8)·    Alternate Feed and other
      processing
    390
    351
    433
    200
    299·    Conventional Ore
    552
    655
    836
    811
    754Total Uranium Production
    942
    1,007
    1,269
    1,011
    1,053Vanadium Production (000s pounds V2O5)
    --
    1,303
    235
    1,290
    2,347Year-end Ore Stockpile (tons)
    1,083
    16,722
    114,997
    91,430
    92,821Tolled Ore Milled (tons)
    --
    --
    --
    --
    39,289


> Notes:

|(1) | Production since June 30, 2012 has been for the account
      of Energy Fuels. Production prior to that date was for the account of the
      previous owner. Of the 943 thousand pounds of production in 2014, 85
      thousand lbs. were for the account of a third party.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | 2013 figures represent the 15 month period between
      October 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013.                                                                                                                                                                              

Mill License

The Mill operates under a Radioactive Materials License issued
by the State of Utah (the Mill License). The Mill License came up for
renewal on March 31, 2007. A License Renewal Application was submitted to the
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Division of Radiation
Control (the DRC) on February 28, 2007. The Mill License renewal
process remains underway. The Mill License remains in effect in its current form
during the renewal process.

Tailings Disposal & Evaporation Ponds

Synthetic lined cells are used to contain tailings and
solutions for evaporation. The Company operates two tailings cells during normal
operations. As each tailings cell is filled, the water is drawn off and pumped
to an evaporation pond and the tailings solids are allowed to dry. As each
tailings cell reaches final capacity, reclamation begins with the placement of
interim cover over the tailings. Additional cells are excavated, and the
overburden is used to reclaim previous cells. In this way, there is an ongoing
reclamation process.

In June 2007, refurbishment of Cell 4A, which was originally
built in 1989, commenced. The refurbishment was completed in August 2008, and an
operating permit from the DRC was issued in September 2008. The cell has been in
operation since that time and provides approximately 2.0 million tons of
tailings capacity.

The licensing process for tailings Cell 4B was commenced in
2009. In late October 2009, UDEQ issued its approval to commence the earthwork
for Cell 4B. Approval to complete the earthwork and commence placement of the
cell liners was received in June 2010. Construction of the cell was completed in
December 2010 and final approval to begin use of the cell was received in
January 2011. Cell 4B is currently only being used for additional evaporation
capacity, and is not being used for tailings disposal.

20

---

Upon commencement of tailings disposal, Cell 4B will provide
approximately 2.0 million tons of tailings capacity.

Environmental

In 1999, some chloroform contamination was detected in the
groundwater at the White Mesa Mill site that appears to have resulted from the
operation of a temporary laboratory facility located at the site prior to and
during the construction of the Mill and from septic drain fields that were used
for laboratory and sanitary wastes prior to construction of the Mills tailings
cells. Elevated concentrations of nitrate and chloride were also observed in
some monitoring wells at the Mill site in 2008, a number of which were
up-gradient of the mills tailings cells. In addition, the Mill has reported
consecutive exceedances of Groundwater Compliance Limits (GWCLs) under
the Mills Groundwater Discharge Permit (GWDP) for several constituents
in several wells, and there is a decreasing trend in pH in a number of wells
across the Mill site that have caused the pH in a number of compliance
monitoring wells to have dropped below their GWCLs. These exceedances and pH
trends include wells that are upgradient of the Mill facilities and are
currently being evaluated. See Mineral Projects  Environmental and Safety
Matters in the United Statesbelow.

Alternate Feed Materials

The Mill License gives the Company the right to process other
uranium-bearing materials known as alternate feed materials pursuant to an
Alternate Feed Guidance adopted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). Alternate feed materials are uranium-bearing materials, which
usually are classified as waste products by the generators of the materials. All
alternate feed materials processed by the Mill involve the recovery of natural
uranium. The Mill License does not permit the processing of uranium-bearing
materials that have gone through enrichment. Requiring a routine amendment to
the Mill License for each different alternate feed material, the Company can
process these uranium-bearing materials and recover uranium, in some cases, at a
fraction of the cost of processing conventional ore. In other cases, the
generators of the alternate feed materials are willing to pay a recycling fee to
the Company to process these materials to recover uranium and then dispose of
the remaining by-product in the Mills licensed tailings cells, rather than
directly disposing of the materials at a disposal site. By working with the
Company and taking the recycling approach, the suppliers of alternate feed
materials can significantly reduce their remediation costs, as there are only a
limited number of disposal sites for uranium-bearing materials in the United
States. Alternate feed materials are particularly attractive to Energy Fuels
because they carry no associated mining costs.

To date, the Mill has received 16 license amendments,
authorizing the Mill to process 19 different alternate feed materials. Of these
amendments, ten involve the processing of feeds provided by nuclear fuel cycle
facilities and private industry, and one has involved the processing of material
from the United States Department of Energy (DOE). These ten feed
materials have been relatively high in uranium content and relatively low in
volume. The remaining five amendments have been to allow the Mill to process
uranium-bearing soils from former defense sites, known as FUSRAP sites, which
were being remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These materials are
typically relatively low in uranium content but relatively high in volume.

21

---

Energy Fuels Mines & Projects



Energy Fuels is involved primarily in eight mining districts in
the United States: the Henry Mountains, Grants, Arizona Strip, White Canyon,
Crooks Gap, Gas Hills, Colorado Plateau, and Poison Basin Districts. The mineral
properties that are currently material to the Company are:

- the Tony M Mine and the Bullfrog property (both in the Henry Mountains
  Complex), in the Henry Mountains District of southern Utah;
- a 60% interests in the Roca Honda Project, in the Grants District of
  northwest New Mexico;
- the Pinenut Mine, the Canyon Mine, the Arizona 1 Mine, a 50% interest in
  the Wate Project, and the EZ1 and EZ2 properties, in the Arizona Strip
  District of northern Arizona;
- the Daneros Mine, in the White Canyon District of southern Utah;
- the Sheep Mountain Project in the Crooks Gap District of central Wyoming;
- the Gas Hills Project in the Gas Hills District of central Wyoming;
- the La Sal Project (Energy Queen, Beaver, and Pandora Mines) the Whirlwind
  Mine, and Sage Plain Project, in the Colorado Plateau District of southeast
  Utah and southwest Colorado; and
- the Juniper Ridge Project in the Poison Basin District of south central
  Wyoming.

These mines and projects are shown on the map and are described
in further detail below.

Henry Mountains

The Tony M mine commenced mining in 2007 and continued through
March 2009, at which time the mine was placed on standby, due to market
conditions. During that period, mined ore, as well as ore from historic
stockpiles at the site, was shipped to the White Mesa Mill. The mine remains on
care and maintenance at this time. The adjacent Bullfrog property is currently
in the permitting stage. See Mineral Projects  Henry Mountains Complex
below.

Roca Honda

No ore has been produced from the Roca Honda Project in New
Mexico since the Companys acquisition in August 2013 No commercial mining has
ever occurred on the property. The property is currently in the permitting
stage. See Mineral Projects  Roca Honda Project below.

22

---

Arizona Strip

Mining at the Companys Pinenut Mine commenced in July of 2013
and is expected to continue through the first half of 2015, at which time the
economic resources are expected to be depleted. Development at the Canyon
Project recommenced in early 2013 and was temporarily suspended in November of
2013. On February 6, 2015, the Company announced plans to restart development at
the Canyon Project. To complete the mine, the Company expects to sink an
additional 1,200 feet of shaft, install a ventilation shaft, and complete
underground development. Mining of the Companys Arizona 1 Mine commenced in
December 2009, and continued until the mine was placed on standby in February
2014 due to the depletion of the currently identified resource. The Wate Project
and EZ1 and EZ2 properties are in the permitting stage. See Mineral Projects
 Arizona Strip below.

Daneros

The first ore from the Daneros Mine in the White Canyon
District was delivered to the White Mesa Mill in December 2009, when the project
was owned by Utah Energy Corp. and a toll milling campaign was conducted in the
second half of 2010. In June 2011, Denison acquired Utah Energy Corp. and
continued to operate the mine, with ore from the mine being processed at the
White Mesa Mill. The Daneros Mine is now owned by the Company. The mine was
placed on standby in October 2012. See Mineral Projects  Daneros Mine
below.

Sheep Mountain

No ore has been mined at the Sheep Mountain Project in Wyoming
since the Companys acquisition in February 2012. The last mining on the
property occurred in the 1980s. The property is currently in the permitting
stage. See  Mineral Projects  Sheep Mountain Project below.

Gas Hills

No ore has been mined at the Gas Hills Project in Wyoming since
the Companys acquisition in August 2013. The last mining on the property
occurred in the 1980s. See Mineral Projects  Gas Hills Project below.

Colorado Plateau

In June 2006, Denison, the previous owner and operator of some
mines on the Colorado Plateau, announced that it was restarting mining activity
in the United States with the re-opening of several mines in the Colorado
Plateau District. Over a twelve month period, Denison re-opened five mines in
the Colorado Plateau District. In late 2008, Denison began rehabilitation of the
Beaver mine, which began shipping ore to the White Mesa Mill in February 2009.
As a result of declining uranium prices, Denison placed the Rim mine on standby
in March 2009. In October 2012, Energy Fuels placed the Beaver mine on standby,
due to decreases in commodity prices. The Pandora mine was placed on standby in
December 2012. All of the mines are maintained so that they can be restarted
with little relative effort or development costs. The Whirlwind Project was
refurbished by the Company in 2008, and remains on standby status. The Energy
Queen and Sage Plain Projects have not operated in recent years. See Mineral
Projects - Whirlwind, Mineral Projects  La Sal Project, Mineral Projects 
Sage Plain Project,below.

23

---

Juniper Ridge

No ore has been mined at the Juniper Ridge Project in Wyoming
since the Companys acquisition in August 2013. The last mining on the property
occurred in the 1970s. See Mineral Projects  Juniper Ridge Projectbelow.

Mine Production

The following table shows ore production from the mines
currently(1)owned by the Company from 2010 to December 31, 2014:

Mine
    2014
    2013
    2012
    2011
    2010Beaver (2)Tons
    -
    -
    38,843
    48,176
    42,941% U3O8
    -
    -
    0.23%
    0.23%
    0.21%% V2O5
    -
    -
    1.22%
    1.22%
    1.11%Pandora(2)Tons
    -
    -
    36,536
    41,254
    48,099% U3O8
    -
    -
    0.21%
    0.22%
    0.21%% V2O5
    -
    -
    1.18%
    1.18%
    1.15%Arizona 1(3)Tons
    3,893
    16,280
    30,311
    39,900
    21,500% U3O8
    0.56%
    0.58%
    0.62%
    0.66%
    0.56%PinenutTons
    43,030
    7,597
    120
    -
    -% U3O8
    0.55%
    0.53%
    0.48%
    -
    -DanerosTons
    -
    -
    42,532
    34,368
    46,150% U3O8
    -
    -
    0.27%
    0.28%
    0.31%


Notes:

|(1) | All properties reported in this table are owned by the
      Company on December 31, 2014, but were acquired by the Company in June
      2012 as part of the acquisition of the Denison US Mining Division.
      Properties sold or otherwise disposed of during 2014 have not had any
      production since 2010 and, therefore, are not included in this
    table.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The Beaver and Pandora mines are mineral properties
      within the La Sal Project.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|(3) | The Arizona 1 Mine was placed on standby in February 2014
      due to the depletion of the currently identified
  resources.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Ore Purchase and Toll Milling

In July 2007, an ore purchase program was initiated to provide
additional mill feed for the White Mesa Mill, including a schedule listing the
price to be paid per ton and adjusted periodically in response to changing
factors such as uranium and vanadium prices, milling cost, and uranium and
vanadium recoveries. The Company expects to continue this program, as market
conditions warrant.

110 tons of ore were received under the Companys ore purchase
program in 2010, and 589 tons were received in 2011. 1,602 tons of ore were
received under this program in FY-2012, with the ore lots closed out and paid
for in October 2012, at an average grade of 0.265% U3O8.
In FY-2013, the Company purchased 8,500 tons of ore at an average grade of 0.23%
U3O8from two sources in Colorado and Utah. No ore was
purchased from any independent miners in 2014.

24

---

Mineral Exploration

Energy Fuels holds a number of exploration properties in the
Colorado Plateau, White Canyon, Gas Hills, Grants, and Arizona Strip Districts.
Exploration drilling has been conducted in the Colorado Plateau and Wyoming
Districts in recent years, with the majority of the work directed toward
brownfield drilling to extend active mining areas.

Energy Fuels has conducted intermittent exploration drilling on
numerous projects in the period from February 2007 through December 2013.
Several of those projects have been abandoned or sold; therefore, will no longer
be discussed. No exploration drilling was performed in 2014. The projects
currently held by the Company where exploration drilling has been conducted
include: the Whirlwind Mine; Energy Queen Mine, Torbyn property (on Tenderfoot
Mesa); HC claims; and DOE Lease C-G-26 (on Calamity Mesa)  New Verde Mine; and
the Sage Plain Project (which includes drilling on the Calliham lease, Crain
lease, and Skidmore lease). In addition, prior to Energy Fuels acquisition of
these projects, Denison performed exploration drilling on a number of the
properties in the US Mining Division, including the Sunday Complex and La Sal
Project and underground core drilling at the Arizona 1 Mine. The Companys
predecessors conducted exploration drilling at several additional properties,
including Sheep Mountain (by Titan) and Roca Honda Juniper Ridge and Gas Hills
(by Strathmore).

In 2014, limited exploration drilling was completed at the
Arizona 1 Mine and Pinenut Mine (underground core drilling). In the Arizona
Strip District, Energy Fuels holds a 100% interest in several claims blocks, all
of which host confirmed breccia pipes features. Mineralization has been
encountered in past drilling on a number of these features, and additional deep
drilling is required to confirm mineral resources. Energy Fuels plans to drill
six deep exploration holes in the future, to confirm a known discovery and to
support mineral resource estimation, on a breccia pipe known as DB-1, although
no drilling is planned for FY-2015. See Mineral Projects  Non-Material
Mineral Properties  Exploration Properties below.

Other Projects

In addition to the foregoing, the Company has conducted
permitting operations on the following three projects:

Sheep Mountain Project:

The Company is permitting the Sheep Mountain Project, an
underground and open pit uranium development project located in Wyoming. In
FY-2013, the Company submitted a revised Plan of Operations (PO) to the
BLM, which included redesign of the heap leach processing area and potential
transportation of the ore to an off-site processing facility. The revision is
expected to give the Company more flexibility in processing the resource. The
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project is being prepared
by the BLM and a third-party contractor. A revision to the Wyoming mine permit
was submitted to the Wyoming Land Quality Division in January 2014 and is
currently being reviewed by the agency. Baseline studies and design of the
processing and heap leach facility have been completed for the NRC license
application. Submittal of the license application has been temporarily deferred
as the Company evaluates alternatives for processing the ore. The Company is
also conducting care and maintenance activities on the Sheep Mountain Project
site. See Mineral Projects  Sheep Mountain Project below.

25

---

Roca Honda Project:

The Roca Honda project is at an advanced stage of permitting.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed by the
USFS in February 2013, and the Company expects the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) to be published by years end 2016. Other major
permits required for Roca Honda include a Permit to Mine to be issued by the New
Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, a Discharge Permit to be issued by the New
Mexico Environment Department, and a Mine Dewatering Permit issued by the New
Mexico State Engineers Office. The Mine Dewatering Permit was approved in
December 2013 but appealed by the Acoma Pueblo in January 2014. RHR subsequently
proposed a new alternative for discharging treated mine water that would benefit
a number of downstream users including the Acoma Pueblo. As a result, the Acoma
Pueblo agreed to withdraw the dewatering permit appeal in February 2015.

The two other major permits are in the agency review stage with
a draft Discharge Permit expected in mid-to late-2015, and the Permit to Mine
expected in mid-2017 following approval of the FEIS. Permit approvals from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are
also required for discharge of treated mine water associated with mine
development and operation. Applications for these two permits are also presently
undergoing agency review. See Mineral Projects  Roca Honda Project
below.

Henry Mountains Project:

The Company is currently completing environmental baseline
studies and preparing mine plans for permitting purposes for the Bullfrog
portion of the Henry Mountains Complex. The approved permitting schedule is
based on having the BLM Plan of Operations (PO), the UDOGM Large Mine
Notice of Intention (NOI), and other required state and federal permit
applications submitted in mid-2015. The Company is also conducting care and
maintenance activities on the Henry Mountains Project site. See Mineral
Projects  Henry Mountains Project below.

MINERALPROJECTS

Richard White, CPG#08792, the Companys Chief Geologist, is a Qualified
Person in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101, and is responsible for
the disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning mineral
projects in this AIF.

Summary of Mineral Reserves and Resources

The following tables show the Company's estimate of Mineral
Reserves and Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2014. NI 43-101 requires
mining companies to disclose Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources using the
subcategories of Proven Mineral Reserves, Probable Mineral Reserves, Measured
Mineral Resources, Indicated Mineral Resources and Inferred Mineral Resources.
Energy Fuels reports Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources separately.
Properties sold or otherwise disposed of during 2014 have been removed from the
tables. Removed properties include: San Rafael, Willhunt, Farmer Girl, Dunn,
Dalton Pass, Sky, and the Sage mine claims portion of Sage Plain.

26

---

Probable Mineral Reserve Estimates -- Uranium

Deposit
    Tons 
      (,000)
    Grade % 
      U3O8
    Pounds U3O8
      (,000)Sheep Mountain  Congo Pit Probable Reserve
    3,955
    0.115
    9,117Sheep Mountain  Underground Probable Reserve
    3,498
    0.132
    9,248White Mesa - Ore Stockpile(1)
    1
    0.60
    13Total Mineral Reserves (klbs.
      eU3O8)
    7,454
    
    18,378


Mineral Resource Estimate --Uranium(2)(3)(4)

|                                                 | Measured Mineral Resources | Indicated Mineral Resources | Inferred Mineral Resources
|------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | --------------------------
|                                                 | Tons (,000)                | Grade %
      eU3O8         | Lbs. eU3O8(,000)          
|La Sal(5)                                        | 1,010                      | 0.18%                       | 3,733                     
|Whirlwind                                        |                            |                             |                           
|Sage Plain(6)                                    | 444                        | 0.17%                       | 1,540                     
|Sheep Mountain(7)                                |                            |                             |                           
|Gas Hills                                        |                            |                             |                           
|Juniper Ridge                                    |                            |                             |                           
|Henry Mountains                                  |                            |                             |                           
|Arizona 1(8)                                     |                            |                             |                           
|Canyon                                           |                            |                             |                           
|Pinenut(9)                                       |                            |                             |                           
|Wate(11)                                         |                            |                             |                           
|EZ Complex                                       |                            |                             |                           
|Roca Honda(10)                                   | 208                        | 0.477%                      | 1,984                     
|Nose Rock                                        | 310                        | 0.15%                       | 906                       
|Marquez                                          | 999                        | 0.13%                       | 2,512                     
|Daneros                                          |                            |                             |                           
|Torbyn                                           |                            |                             |                           
|Total Mineral
      Resources (Lbs.
      eU3O8) |                            |                             | 10,675                    

Mineral Resource Estimate  Vanadium(2)(3)(4)

|                            | Measured Mineral Resources | Indicated Mineral Resources | Inferred Mineral Resources
|--------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | --------------------------
|                            | Tons 
    (,000)           | Grade                       | Lbs. V2O5
    (,000)      
|La Sal(5)                   | 1,010                      | 0.97%                       | 19,596                    
|Whirlwind                   |                            |                             |                           
|Sage Plain(6)               | 444                        | 1.43%                       | 12,714                    
|Torbyn                      |                            |                             |                           
|Total Mineral               |                            |                             |                           
|Resources (Lbs.
      V2O5) |                            |                             | 32,310                    

27

---

Mineral Resource Estimate  Gold and Copper

Copper King Project-Measured and Indicated
Resources(2(12))

|Au-equiv. Cutoff | Tons (millions) | Tonnes (millions) | oz Au /ton | g Au /t | oz Au | % Cu    | lbs Cu (millions)
|---------------- | --------------- | ----------------- | ---------- | ------- | ----- | ------- | -----------------
|oz AuEq/ton      | g AuEq/t       
|0.015            | 0.51            | 59.8              | 54.2       | 0.015   | 0.53  | 926,000 | 0.187            

Copper King Project-Inferred Resources(2(12))

|Au-equiv. Cutoff | Tons (millions) | Tonnes (millions) | oz Au /ton | g Au /t | oz Au | % Cu    | lbs Cu (millions)
|---------------- | --------------- | ----------------- | ---------- | ------- | ----- | ------- | -----------------
|oz AuEq/ton      | g AuEq/t       
|0.015            | 0.51            | 15.6              | 14.2       | 0.011   | 0.38  | 174,000 | 0.200            

> Notes:

(1) White Mesa  Ore Stockpile
includes stockpiled uranium ore which has been mined from the Pinenut Mine,
where mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates have been prepared in
accordance with NI 43-101. (2) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral
Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. (3) The Measured and
Indicated Mineral Resources were estimated at various block cut-off grades
specifically appropriate to the deposit type. (4) The Inferred Mineral
Resources were estimated at various block cut-off grades specifically
appropriate to the deposit type. (5) La Sal includes Energy Queen, Redd
Block, Beaver, and Pandora(6) Sage Plain includes the Calliham, Skidmore,
and Crain leases. The Sage mine claims have been sold, and therefore have been
removed from this table.(7) The Sheep Mountain Indicated Mineral Resource
includes Probable Mineral Reserves of 18,365,000 lbs.
eU3O8 in 7,453,000 tons at a grade of 0.123% . (8) The
Arizona 1 Mine was placed on standby in February 2014 due to the depletion of
the economic resources. (9) The Pinenut quantity includes Mineral Resources
remaining in-place (12,200 tons at a grade of 0.52% U3O8containing 126,500 lbs) as well as the on-site surface stockpile of broken
material. (10) The number shown represents the total mineral resources for
the Roca Honda Project. Energy Fuels owns 60% of the project. (11) The
number shown represents the total mineral resources for the Wate Project. Energy
Fuels owns 50% of the project. (12) The number shown represent the total
mineral resources for the Copper King Project. The Company hold a 50% interest
in the project.

Except as stated below, the Mineral Reserve and Mineral
Resource information shown above is as reported in the various technical reports
prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Technical Reports) by
qualified persons employed by Peter Geosciences, BRS Engineering, Chlumsky,
Armbrust, and Meyer, Alinco GeoServices, Mine Development Associates, SRK
Consulting (US) Inc., and Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. See Mineral
Projects below.

The White Mesa Ore Stockpile  All ore previously stockpiled at
White Mesa was fed to process in mid-2014. Following completion of that mill run
a new Ore Stockpile began. The White Mesa Ore Stockpile reported in the table
above consists of ore mined after August 2014 from the Pinenut Mine and shipped
in December 2014 to the White Mesa Mill. Mineral Reserve and Resource
information in the Technical Reports has been adjusted to reflect ore mined into
Ore Stockpile and updated, in the case of the Arizona 1 and Pinenut Mines, by
Company personnel.

The reconciliations shown below detail the changes from the
Companys Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimates reported as of December
31, 2013.

28

---

Reconciliation of Energy Fuels Uranium Mineral Reserves

Dec.
      31, 2013
    2014
    
    Net
      Reserve
    Dec. 31, 2014EFI
    Reserves
    Production(2)/
    Throughput(1)
    Change
    ReservesOwnership
    (,000 Lbs.
    Received(2)(,000
    (,000 Lbs.
    (,000 Lbs.
    (,000
      Lbs.Reserve
    %
    U3O8)
    Lbs. U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)Sheep Mountain - Congo Pit Probable Reserve
    100
    9,117
    ---
    ---
    ---
    9,117Sheep Mountain - Underground Probable Reserve
    100
    9,248
    ---
    ---
    ---
    9,248White Mesa Mill Ore Stockpile(3)
    100
    177
    408
    572
    13
    13Total Reserves
    
    18,542
    
    
    
    18,378


Notes:

|(1) | Corresponds to mill feed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | Additions or deletions of Reserves include ore mined to
      stockpile and adjustments provided from mining and milling
  results.                                                                                                                                            
|(3) | White Mesa  Ore Stockpile does not include stockpiled
      U3O8or V2O5 which has been
      mined from deposits in the Colorado Plateau or White Canyon where no
      Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimates have been prepared in
      accordance with NI 43-101

Reconciliation of Energy Fuels Uranium Mineral Resources

Dec.
      31,
    
    Exploration /
    Acquired/
    Net2013
    Production(1)
    Engineering
    Disposed
    Resource
    2014Resources
    / Depletion
    Change
    Resources
    Change
    Resource(,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000
      lbs.Operation / Project
    EFI
      Ownership %
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)WYOMINGGas Hills
    100%Indicated
    
    5,400
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    5,400Inferred
    
    5,500
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    5,500Sheep Mountain
    100%Indicated
    
    30,285
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    30,285Juniper Ridge
    100%Indicated
    
    6,120
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    6,120Inferred
    
    182
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    182Sky
    100%Indicated
    
    948
    ---
    ---
    (948)
    (948)
    ---Inferred
    
    54
    ---
    ---
    (54)
    (54)
    ---UTAHLa
      Sal(2)
    100%Measured
    
    3,733
    ---
    
    ---
    
    3,733Indicated
    
    368
    ---
    
    ---
    
    368Inferred
    
    362
    ---
    
    ---
    
    362Whirlwind
    100%Indicated
    
    1,095
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    1,095Inferred
    
    2,000
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    2,000Sage Plain(3)
    100%Measured
    
    2,657
    ---
    (666)
    (451)
    (1,117)
    1,540Indicated
    
    176
    ---
    (97)
    (8)
    (105)
    71


29

---

Dec.
      31,
    
    Exploration /
    Acquired/
    Net2013
    Production(1)
    Engineering
    Disposed
    Resource
    2014Resources
    / Depletion
    Change
    Resources
    Change
    Resource(,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000 lbs.
    (,000
      lbs.Operation / Project
    EFI
      Ownership %
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)
    U3O8)Inferred
    
    181
    ---
    (21)
    (122)
    (143)
    38San Rafael
    100%Indicated
    
    3,405
    ---
    ---
    (3,405)
    (3,405)
    ---Inferred
    
    1,860
    ---
    ---
    (1,860)
    (1,860)
    ---Henry Mountains
    100%Indicated
    
    12,800
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    12,800Inferred
    
    8,080
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    8,080Daneros
    100%Inferred
    
    661
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    661ARIZONAArizona 1(4)
    100%Inferred
    
    39
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    39Canyon
    100%Inferred
    
    1,629
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    1,629Pinenut
    100%Inferred
    
    612
    (335)
    90/(-98)
    ---
    (343)
    269Wate (6)
    50%Inferred
    
    --
    --
    --
    1,118
    1,118
    1,118EZ
      Complex
    100%Inferred
    
    2,105
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    2,105NEW MEXICORoca Honda
    60%Measured
    
    2,247
    ---
    (236)
    ---
    (236)
    1,984Indicated
    
    14,536
    ---
    (1,956)
    ---
    (1,956)
    12,580Inferred
    
    11,894
    ---
    (688)
    ---
    (688)
    11,206Dalton Pass
    100%Measured
    
    839
    ---
    ---
    (839)
    (839)
    ---Indicated
    
    2,232
    ---
    ---
    (2,232)
    (2,232)
    ---Inferred
    
    1,530
    ---
    ---
    (1,530)
    (1,530)
    ---Nose Rock
    100%Measured
    
    906
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    906Indicated
    
    1,688
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    1,688Inferred
    
    452
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    452Marquez
    100%Measured
    
    2,512
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    2,512Indicated
    
    6,618
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    6,618Inferred
    
    4,907
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    4,907OTHER(5)
    100%Measured
    
    275
    ---
    ---
    (275)
    (275)
    ---Indicated
    
    367
    ---
    ---
    (283)
    (283)
    84Inferred
    
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---
    ---


Notes:

| | (1) | Includes all ore mined and shipped to the White Mesa Mill
      for calendar year 2014. Ore mined at the Pinenut mine but remaining in a
      stockpile on-site is not included in the Production/Depletion column. It
      is included in the 2014 Resource column.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2) | LaSal consists of the Redd Block, Energy Queen, Beaver
      Shaft and Pandora deposits, all of which are noneconomic/unrecoverable at
  market conditions prevalent at Dec. 31, 2014. Resources added in the March 25, 2014 La Sal  Technical Report were reported as
      an Exploration/Engineering Change in the 2013 AIF, because the Technical Report was filed at the same time as the 2013  AIF. Therefore, those resources are not  repeated as Changes in the 2014 AIF.
| | (3) | The Sage Plain project includes the Calliham, Skidmore
      and Crane deposits. The 2014 Resource reflects the sale of the Sage Mine
      Property.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (4) | The Arizona 1 Mine was placed on standby in February 2014
      due to the depletion of the economic resources.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | (5) | Other now includes only the non-material Mineral
      Resource at Torbyn. Willhunt and Farmer Girl were sold during 2014.
      Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated
      economic viability.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (6) | A 50% interest in the Wate Project was acquired by the Company in
      February, 2015.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

30

---

Reconciliation of Energy Fuels Vanadium Mineral
Resources(4)

Operation 
      / Project
    EFI 
      Ownership %
    2013 AIF 
      Resources 
        (,000 lbs.
      
      V2O5)
    2014 
      Production / Depletion 
        (,000
      lbs. 
      V2O5)
    Exploration(1)/ 
      Engineering
      Change (,000 lbs. V2O5)
    Acquired/ 
      Disposed Resources
      (,000 lbs. V2O5)
    Net Resource 
      Change (,000 lbs.
      V2O5)
    2014 AIF 
      Resources (,000 lbs.
      V2O5)La Sal (5)
    100%Measured
    
    19,596
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    19,596Indicated
    
    1,930
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    1,930Inferred
    
    1,901
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    1,901Whirlwind
    100%Indicated
    
    3,598
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    3,598Inferred
    
    6,472
    ---
    ---
    
    ---
    6,472SagePlain(2)
    100%Measured
    
    16,724
    ---
    (711)
    (3,299)
    (4,010)
    12,714Indicated
    
    1,105
    ---
    (507)
    (51)
    (558)
    547Inferred
    
    1,854
    ---
    (85)
    (1,485)
    (1,570)
    284San Rafael
    100%Indicated
    
    4,596
    
    
    (4,596)
    (4,596)
    ---Inferred
    
    2,511
    
    
    (2,511)
    (2,511)
    ---Other(3)
    100%Measured
    
    1,376
    ---
    (1,376)
    
    (1,376)
    __Indicated
    
    1,729
    ---
    (1,406)
    
    (1,406)
    323


Notes:

|(1) | Additions or deletions of Mineral Resources include
      acquisitions, dispositions, reassessment of geological data and new or
      updated technical reports.                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The Sage Plain project is held by Colorado Plateau
      Partners LLC. On October 1, 2012, the Company acquired Aldershots 50%
      interest in CPP, thereby acquiring 100% of such Mineral Resources. See
      Mineral Projects Sage Plain Project. In August 2014, the
      Company sold the Sage mine claims portion of the Sage Plain
    property.                                  
|(3) | Other includes only defined resources at Torbyn. The
      Company sold the Willhunt and Farmer Girl exploration projects in August
      2014.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|(4) | Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
      have demonstrated economic viability.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|(5) | La Sal includes Energy Queen, Redd Block, Beaver, and
      Pandora mineral resources. Resources added in the March 25, 2014 La Sal
      Technical Report were reported as an Exploration/Engineering Change in the
      2013 AIF, because the Technical Report was filed at the same time as the
      2013AIF. Therefore, those resources are not repeated as Changes in the
      2014 AIF.

31

---

The Henry Mountains Complex



The Henry Mountains Complex is 100% owned by Energy Fuels. It
is comprised of the Bullfrog property, hosting the Indian Bench and the Copper
Bench deposits, and the Tony M property, hosting the Southwest deposit and the
Tony M deposit and mine. Except as noted, the following description of the Henry
Mountains Complex is based on the technical report dated June 27, 2012 titled
Technical Report on the Henry Mountains Complex Uranium Property, Utah,
U.S.A., prepared by William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng., Douglas H. Underhill,
Ph.D., C.P.G. and Thomas C. Pool, P.E. of Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
(RPA) in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Henry Mountains Technical
Report). Each of the authors of the Henry Mountains Technical Report is
independent of Energy Fuels and a qualified person for purposes of NI
43-101. The report contains mineral resource estimates for the Indian Bench,
Copper Bench, Southwest and Tony M deposits. The Henry Mountains Technical
Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

Property Description and Location

Henry Mountains

The property comprising Energy Fuels Henry Mountains Complex
Property is located in eastern Garfield County, Utah. The Property consists of
one Utah State Mineral Lease for Section 16, Township 35 South, Range 11 East
(T35S R11E), Salt Lake Meridian (SLM), and 202 unpatented Federal lode mining
claims. The latter consist of 137 B.F., 19 Bull, 19 Star, two Frog (comprising
the Bullfrog property), 17 TIC and eight Ticaboo claims (including fractions);
the TIC and Ticaboo claims being associated with the Tony M deposit. The claims
and state lease comprise one contiguous property located in T34S, R11E and T35S,
R11E, SLM. The Utah State Section 16 includes 638.54 acres, and the 202
unpatented lode mining claims consist of about (3,667.18 acres not specified in
the Technical Report, for a total land holding of 4,305.72 acres). The surface
rights are owned by the federal government, administered by the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), with the exception of the state lease which has
associated state surface rights.

There is no royalty burden for the 185 claims that comprise the
Bullfrog property, as well as for the Ticaboo claims. All unpatented mining
claims are subject to an annual federal mining claim maintenance fee of
$140/claim (BLM raised the fee to $155/claim in 2014) plus approximately
$10/claim for county filing fees. Energy Fuels also indicated that there are no
outstanding environmental liabilities for the properties. The 17 TIC claims are
held by Energy Fuels, subject to an annual advance minimum royalty. The uranium production royalty burden is 4%
yellowcake gross value less taxes and certain other deductions. The vanadium
production royalty burden is 2% gross value less certain deductions. The Utah
State Lease has an annual rental of $640, plus an escalating annual advance
minimum royalty based on the uranium spot price. The uranium royalty is 8% of
gross value less certain deductions. The vanadium royalty is 4% of gross value
less certain deductions.

32

---

Denison received the necessary permits to restart the Tony M
Mine in September 2007. Major permits for the operation include an approved Plan
of Operations and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the BLM, a Large
Mine permit with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM), and an
approved ground water discharge permit with the Utah Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). A reclamation bond of $708,537 is in place.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography

Road access to the property is by paved Highway 276, running
between Hanksville and Bullfrog Basin Marina, Utah. An unimproved gravel road
maintained by Garfield County extends west from Highway 276, passes by the
portal of the Tony M Mine, and extends northerly across the property, the
northern end of which is crossed by another county road. The property is located
in a relatively remote area of Utah, and the infrastructure is limited. The town
site of Ticaboo, Utah, is located approximately five miles south of Energy
Fuels mineral property. It is used by Energy Fuels to provide housing and
municipal services for the Tony M Mine staff. The next closest community is
Hanksville, Utah, a small town of a few hundred people, located about 40 miles
north of the Property. During operation of the Tony M Mine, electricity was
generated locally, as is the case for Ticaboo. Materials and supplies are
transported to the site by truck about 275 miles from Salt Lake City, and about
190 miles from Grand Junction, Colorado. The distance to the Energy Fuels White
Mesa Uranium-Vanadium Processing Facility near Blanding, Utah, is 117 miles.

The climate is distinctly arid, with an average annual
precipitation of approximately 8 in. including about 12 in. of snow. The
vegetation consists primarily of small plants including some of the major
varieties of blackbrush, sagebrush, and rabbit brush. A few small junipers are
also present. Relief over the combined Henry Mountains Property is approximately
2,250 ft. (the Technical Report erroneously reported  800ft.). The elevation on
the property ranges from 4,550 ft. above sea level (asl) at the portal of the
Tony M Mine, near the southern end of the property, to 6,800 ft. asl over the
northern end of the Property. The terrain is typical canyon lands topography,
with some areas deeply dissected by gullies and headwalls of canyons and the
rest consisting of gently undulating gravel benches covering the northern part
of the project area. The terrain in several parts of the Property is
particularly rugged and inaccessible and is the primary reason for the irregular
pattern of surface drill holes in parts of the Property.

History

In 1970 and 1971, Rioamex Corporation conducted a 40 hole
drilling program in an east-west zone extending across the southerly end of the
Bullfrog property and the northerly end of the Tony MFrank M property. Some of
these holes intercepted significant uranium mineralization. 2005. The Bullfrog
properties were initially explored by Exxon Minerals Company (Exxon), while the
Tony M deposit was explored and developed by Plateau, a subsidiary of Consumers
Power Company (Consumers) of Michigan. Following the discovery of the Tony M
uranium deposit in 1977, Plateau Resources Ltd. (Plateau) developed the Tony M
Mine from September 1, 1977, to about May 1984, when development was suspended.
By January 31, 1983, over 18 miles of mine workings were developed, and a total
of approximately 237,000 tons of muck was extracted with an average chemically
adjusted grade of 0.121% U3O8 containing about 573,500
pounds U3O8.The Tony M Mine is accessed via two
parallel declines extending about 10,200 ft. into the deposit. The mine was
allowed to flood after development was suspended in 1984. The southern one-half of the mine remained
dry, as it is located above the static water table.

33

---

Denison acquired the Bullfrog properties when it purchased most
of the assets of Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. (EFNI) in 1997. In February 2005,
Denison acquired the former Plateau properties bringing them under common
ownership with the Bullfrog properties. Following rehabilitation work at the
Tony M Mine and re-establishment of surface facilities in 2006, Denison received
operational permits, reopened the mine and commenced mining in September 2007.
In November 2008, Denison announced that the operations at the Tony M Mine would
be suspended due to uranium and economic market conditions. During its September
2007 to December 2008 reactivation, cleanup and mining, Denison extracted
162,384 tons at radiometric grade of 0.131% containing 429,112 pounds
U3O8 from within existingworkings and from the
previously stockpiled material. This material was trucked to Denisons White
Mesa Mill for processing. In June 2012, Energy Fuels acquired all of Denison
Mines Corp.s (Denison) mining assets and operations in the United States.

No pre-production mine development has been conducted on the
Southwest portion of the Tony M-Southwest deposit or on the Copper Bench-Indian
Bench deposit located further north.

Geologic Setting

Exposed rocks in the project area are Jurassic and Cretaceous
in age. Host rocks for the Copper Bench-Indian Bench and Tony M-Southwest
uranium-vanadium deposits are Upper Jurassic sandstones of the Salt Wash Member
of the Morrison Formation. This formation is located within the Colorado
Plateau. Early Tertiary fluvial and lacustrine sedimentation within the deeper
parts of local basins was followed in mid-Tertiary time by laccolithic intrusion
and extensive volcanism. Intrusions of diorite and monazite porphyry penetrated
the sediments at several sites to form the laccolithic mountains of the central
Colorado Plateau.

The Morrison Formation is a complex fluvial deposit of Late
Jurassic age. In outcrop, the Salt Wash is exposed as one or more massive,
ledge-forming sandstones, generally interbedded with laterally persistent
siltstones or mudstones. The lower Salt Wash is approximately 150 ft. thick in
the Property area, thinning and becoming less sandy northward from the project
area. Sandstones comprise 80% of the sequence, with siltstones and mudstones
making up the remainder. Significant uranium mineralization occurs only in this
lower unit.

Exploration

Surface drilling using rotary tricone technology, together with
radiometric gamma logging, was the primary exploration method used to discover
and delineate uranium on the Henry Mountains Complex Property. With receipt of
all permits in September 2007, Denison commenced work underground in the Tony M
Mine as is described in Section 6 History. This work includes a long-hole
drilling program to discover and delineate mineralization within about 100 ft.
of underground workings. Energy Fuels has carried out no (exploration) work on
the Property.

Mineralization

Uranium mineralization in the Henry Mountains Complex property
is hosted by favourable sandstone horizons containing detrital organic debris.
Mineralization primarily consists of coffinite, with minor uraninite which
usually occurs in close association with vanadium mineralization. Mineralization
occurs as intergranular disseminations, as well as coatings and/or cement on and
between sand grains and organic debris. Vanadium occurs as montroseite (hydrous
vanadium oxide) and vanadium chlorite in primary mineralized zones located below
the water table (i.e., the northern portion of the Tony M deposit). Historic production records from the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission for the South Henry Mountains district suggest that the
vanadium content of the district is relatively low. Based on the review of the
available analyses, RRA is of the opinion that the V2O5:U3O8 ratio ranges from
1.3:1 to about 2.0:1 in the Henry Mountains Complex deposits, and that the
concentration of vanadium is therefore too low to be economic at current prices.

34

---

The Henry Mountains Complex vanadium-uranium deposits consist
of two extensive elongate, tabular zones containing a large concentration of
mineralization. The Tony MSouthwest deposit extends for a distance of
approximately 2.5 miles along a north-south trend and has a maximum width of
about 3,000 ft. The larger Copper Bench-Indian Bench deposit extends
approximately 3.5 miles along a northwesterly trend to the northeast of the Tony
MSouthwest deposit.

Drilling

The Southwest and Copper Bench deposits are delineated by
drilling on approximately100 ft. centers. The Indian Bench deposit is delineated
by drilling on approximately 200 ft. centers. In some areas, the rugged terrain
made access difficult, resulting in an irregular drill pattern.

Exxon commenced drilling on the Bullfrog property in 1977.
Before it sold the property to Atlas in July 1982, Exxon had drilled 1,782
holes. From July 1982 to July 1983, Atlas completed 112 drill holes delineating
the Southwest and Copper Bench deposits on approximately 100 ft. centers. After
July 1983, Atlas completed an additional 49 core hole drilling program
throughout the Bullfrog property, as well as a 133 rotary drill hole program to
delineate the Indian Bench deposit on approximately 200 ft. centers. A total of
2,232 drill holes were completed on the Bullfrog property. In February 1977,
drilling commenced in what was to become the Tony M deposit. Subsequently,
Plateau drilled more than 2,000 rotary drill holes totaling about 1,000,000ft.
Over 1,200 holes were drilled in the Tony M area.

Records indicate that a total of 81 core holes were drilled in
the Southwest, Copper Bench, and Indian Bench deposits, while 25 core holes were
drilled in the vicinity of the Tony M deposit. The core holes provided samples
of the mineralized zone for chemical and amenability testing.

Energy Fuels carried out no surface drilling on the properties.

Sampling and Analysis

The original downhole gamma logging of surface holes was done
on the Bullfrog property by Century Geophysical Corp. (Century) and Professional
Logging Services, Inc. (PLS) under contract to Exxon. Atlas also contracted
Century for this service. Standard logging suites included radiometric gamma,
resistivity and self-potential measurements, supplemented by neutron-neutron
surveys for dry holes. Deviation surveys were conducted for most of the holes.
Century used its CompuLog system consisting of truck-mounted radiometric logging
equipment, including a digital computer.

Assays of samples from core drilling were collected by company
geologists and submitted to various commercial labs for analysis. Results of
these analyses were compared to eU3O8 values from gamma
logs to evaluate radiometric equilibrium, logging tool performance, and validity
of gamma logging. Testing done includes leach amenability studies, settling, and
filtration tests.

Plateau had developed written procedures for the analysis of
core to define such factors as carbonate content, and gamma probe versus
chemical uranium content. Exxon found that the radioactive disequilibrium of
potentially economic grade intercepts in cores, measured as the ratio of
chemical U3O8 to log radiometric equivalent
(eU3O8), varied from 0.80 to 1.35 and averaged 1.06, close
to the equilibrium value of 1.0. Milne (1990) reported that, while the
investigation by Atlas of samples from core from an additional 40 drill holes
was incomplete at the time, Atlas had identified no significant disequilibrium
problem.

35

---

RPA is of the opinion that, based on the information available,
the original gamma log data and subsequent conversion to
eU3O8% values are reliable but slightly conservative
estimates of the uranium U3O8grade. Furthermore, there is
no evidence that radiometric disequilibrium would be expected to negatively
affect the uranium resource estimates of the Tony M-Southwest and Copper
Bench-Indian Bench deposits. RPA is also of the opinion that the disequilibrium
should be taken into consideration when mining is conducted in the Tony M Mine
in areas that are above the static water table.

Security of Samples

Procedures followed by Exxon, Atlas, and Plateau, together with
their contractors Century and PLS, were well documented and at the time followed
best practices and standards of companies participating in uranium exploration
and development. Onsite collection of the downhole gamma data and onsite data
conversion limit the possibility of sample contamination or tampering.

Mineral Resource Estimates

Mineral Resources of the Tony M-Southwest deposit were
estimated in 2009 by Denison using the GT contour method and audited by Scott
Wilson RPA in the 2009 Technical Report. Mineral Resources of the Copper
Bench-Indian Bench deposit were estimated in 1993 by ENFI using the polygonal
block method and audited by Scott Wilson RPA in the 2006 Technical Report.

The Mineral Resources were classified as Indicated and Inferred
categories. They are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.10%
eU3O8 over a minimum thickness of 2 ft. and minimum GT
(grade times thickness product) of 0.2 ft.% eU3O8for the
Tony M- Southwest deposit and at a cut-off grade of 0.20%
eU3O8over a minimum thickness of 4 ft. and minimum GT
(grade times thickness product) of 0.8ft.% eU3O8 for the
Copper Bench-Indian Bench deposit. Total Indicated Resources are 2.41 million
tons at an average grade of 0.27% eU3O8containing 12.80
million pounds eU3O8. Additional Inferred Resources total
1.61 million tons at an average grade of 0.25% eU3O8
containing 8.08 million pounds eU3O8.

36

---

Henry Mountains Complex Mineral Resource
Estimates(1) (2) (3)

|Deposit      | Category(1) | Tons (million) | Grade
      eU3O8 (%) | Contained
      eU3O8(million pounds)
|------------ | ----------- | -------------- | --------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Tony M (2)   | Indicated   | 1.03           | 0.24                  | 4.83                                 
|Southwest(2) | Indicated   | 0.66           | 0.25                  | 3.30                                 
|Indian       |             |                |                       |                                      
|Bench(3)     | Indicated   | 0.22           | 0.40                  | 1.74                                 
|Copper       |             |                |                       |                                      
|Bench(3)     | Indicated   | 0.50           | 0.29                  | 2.93                                 
|Total        |             | 2.41           | 0.27                  | 12.80                                
|             |             |                |                       |                                      
|Tony M       | Inferred    | 0.65           | 0.17                  | 2.17                                 
|Southwest    | Inferred    | 0.21           | 0.14                  | 0.58                                 
|Indian Bench | Inferred    | 0.25           | 0.42                  | 2.09                                 
|Copper       |             |                |                       |                                      
|Bench        | Inferred    | 0.50           | 0.32                  | 3.24                                 
|Total        |             | 1.61           | 0.25                  | 8.08                                 

Notes:

|(1) | The Mineral Resource estimates comply with the
      requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM
      definition standards.                                                                                                                               
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The Tony M and Southwest Mineral Resources were estimated
      at a cut-off grade of 0.10% eU3O8over a minimum
      thickness of 2 feet and a minimum GT of 0.2 feet-%.                                                                                                        
|(3) | The Indian Bench and Copper Bench Mineral Resources were
      estimated at a cut-off grade of 0.20% eU3O8, a
      minimum thickness of 4 feet and a minimum GT of 0.8 feet-% that does not
      include any intervals with less than a 0.5 foot intercept of 0.08%
      U3O8.

The basis for resource estimation of the Tony M part of the
Tony M-Southwest deposit was the gamma logs from 1,082 rotary drill holes
located on the properties comprising the Tony M deposit. A total of 24 core
holes were drilled to recover samples for chemical and geologic analysis and to
establish stratigraphic relationships. The basis for resource estimation on the
Southwest part of the Tony M-Southwest deposit was the gamma logs from 589
rotary drill holes located on the properties comprising the Southwest deposit
(Table 14-2). A total of 32 core holes were drilled to recover samples for
chemical and geologic analysis and to establish stratigraphic relationships.

Mineral Resources of the Tony M-Southwest deposit have been
estimated using the contour method. A tonnage factor of 15 ft.3/ton
was applied to give a tonnage for each lens. A cut-off grade of 0.10%
eU3O8was applied to the indicated and inferred blocks.
Only those blocks with grades above this cut-off were included in the resources.

The basis for resource estimation on the Copper Bench-Indian
Bench deposit is the gamma logs from 1,193 rotary drill holes (Table 14-5). A
total of 49 core holes were drilled to recover samples for chemical and geologic
analysis and to establish stratigraphic relationships.

EFNI estimated the Copper Bench-Indian Bench mineral resources
using circles of influence on plans of each of the three deposits. Where the
circles of influence overlapped, polygons were drawn. The volume determination
is based on circles of influence drawn about the drill hole intercept meeting
the cut-off. A radius of 100 ft. was used in estimating resources for the Copper
Bench deposit, while a radius of 125 ft. was used to estimate resources for the
Indian Bench deposit. EFNI used a density factor of 15.0 ft.3/ton to
convert volumes in cubic feet to short tons for the Copper Bench-Indian Bench
resource estimate.

37

---

The EFNI resource estimate was audited by RPA and accepted as a
current Mineral Resource estimate for Energy Fuels.

Mining Operations

The following  section has been prepared by the Company and is not
based on the Henry Mountains Technical Report

The Tony M Mine was developed from 1977 to 1983 with a double
entry system by two parallel declines spaced 50 ft. apart. The declines measure
9 ft. by 12 ft. in cross- section, have crosscuts on 50 ft. centers, have a
minus 3% grade, serve as the primary fresh air intake, and are 10,200 ft. in
length.

Access to the individual mining areas is through 8 ft. by 10
ft. laterals driven at right angles to the mine entries. The laterals also
provide access for long-hole drilling and detailed information for mine planning
and stope development. The mine was planned as a random room and pillar
operation with pillar extraction by a retreat system.

Mining equipment consisted of slushers and rubber-tired, five-
to ten-ton capacity load- haul-dump (LHD) units. Exhaust ventilation was
provided by five bored ventilation shafts, six feet in diameter, each with a
75-HP exhaust fan mounted at the shaft collar.

By early 2007, work on reactivating the Tony M Mine was carried
out by Denison, and surface and underground rehabilitation and repairs were
conducted. Surface facilities to support mine operations were constructed,
including administration and maintenance facilities, site power and
communications, an evaporation pond for disposal of mine water. Worker housing
was established in the town of Ticaboo, Utah. As rehabilitation work advanced in
the mine, ventilation was re-established. The water level in the mine had risen
to historic pre-mine levels, and upon reaching the flooded workings, mine
dewatering was also initiated. During the rehabilitation work, limited amounts
of cleanup ore were removed. As areas of the mine were made ready for mining,
production increased steadily. Dewatering continued at an average rate of 125
gpm during operation. Denison placed the Tony M Mine on temporary closure status
at the end of November 2008. The mine is being maintained in a state ready to
resume operations when uranium prices improve. Mine supervisory staff have been
retained at the site to keep the mine in a ready state.

The White Mesa Mill is located six miles south of Blanding in
southeastern Utah. The mill was designed to treat 2,000 tons of ore per day. The
basic mill process is a sulfuric acid leach with solvent extraction recovery of
uranium and vanadium. Run-of-mine ore is reduced to minus 28 mesh in a six-foot
by 18-ft. diameter semiautogenous grinding (SAG) mill. Leaching of the ore is
accomplished in two stages: a pre-leach and a hot acid leach. The first, or
pre-leach, circuit, consisting of two mechanically agitated tanks, utilizes
pregnant (high-grade) strong acid solution from the countercurrent decantation
(CCD) circuit which serves both to initiate the leaching process and to
neutralize excess acid. The pre-leach circuit discharges to a 125-ft. thickener
where the underflow solids are pumped to the second stage leach and the overflow
solution is pumped to clarification, filtration, and solvent extraction
circuits. A hot strong acid leach is used in the second stage leach unit, which
consists of seven mechanically agitated tanks having a retention time of 24
hours. Free acid is controlled at 70 grams per litre and the temperature is
maintained at 75°C. Leached pulp is washed and thickened in the CCD circuit,
which consists of eight high capacity thickeners. Underflow from the final
thickener at 50% solids is discharged to the tailings area. Overflow from the
first thickener (pregnant solution) is returned to the pre-leach tanks. The
solvent extraction (SX) circuit consists of four extraction stages in which
uranium in pregnant solution is transferred to the organic phase, a mixture
consisting of 2.5% amine, 2.5% isodeconal, and 95% kerosene. Loaded organic is
pumped to six stages of stripping by a 1.5 molar sodium chloride solution, and
thence to a continuous ammonia precipitation circuit. Precipitated uranium is
settled, thickened, centrifuged, and dried at 1,200F. The final product at about
95% U3O8 is packed into 55-gallon drums for shipment.

38

---

Permitting

Bullfrog Property:

The Company is currently completing environmental baseline
studies and preparing mine plans for permitting purposes. The approved
permitting schedule is based on having the BLM Plan of Operations (PO), the
UDOGM Large Mine Notice of Intention (NOI), and other required state and
federal permit applications submitted in mid-2015.

Tony M Property:

The original Tony M mine permit was allowed to lapse.
Subsequently, the previous operator filed for exploration permits with UDOGM and
the BLM. These permits were granted by UDOGM and the BLM on December 2, 2005 and
March 6, 2006, respectively, which enabled the previous operator to regain
access, inspect and begin rehabilitation of the Tony M underground workings. The
previous operator also began the permitting process for the Tony M mine. The
permit application was submitted in November 2006 and a Record of Decision
(RoD) and approved Plan of Operations were received in September 2007.

The PO was challenged by the Center for Water Advocacy and the
Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, which requested a Utah State BLM Director
Review and a stay of the decision approving the Final PO for the Tony M mine. On
November 21, 2007, the BLM State Director issued a decision vacating the
previously issued permit and remanded the case to the Field Office in order that
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Tony M Mine PO could be
amended and a new RoD issued. As a result of this decision to vacate and renew,
the request for stay was considered moot. The new decision was issued by the BLM
on November 23, 2007 approving the PO for the mine. The new decision was once
again appealed by the Center for Water Advocacy and the Utah Chapter of the
Sierra Club. The Utah State Director issued a decision denying the appeal and
upholding the PO on February 19, 2008.

Permit applications for a Phase 2 expansion were submitted to
the BLM and UDOGM in 2008. The expansion was approved by the UDOGM in 2009, but
the previous operator subsequently requested that BLM review of the application
be deferred given the market conditions at that time. The Company is currently
evaluating plans to re-submit the application to the BLM at a future date in
2014, but for a much smaller expansion plan consisting of additional ventilation
shafts, associated access roads, and expansion of the evaporation pond.

39

---

Roca Honda Project



Except as noted, the following description of the Roca Honda
Project is based on a technical report titled "Technical Report on the Roca
Honda Project, McKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A." dated February 27, 2015,
prepared by Barton G. Stone, C.P.G., Robert Michaud, P.Eng., Stuart E. Collins,
P.E., and Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., all of Roscoe Postle Associates
(RPA) in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Roca Honda Technical
Report). The technical report includes an updated mineral resource estimate
and the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") for the
uranium resources outlined to date at the Roca Honda Project in New Mexico. Each
of the authors of the Roca Honda Technical Report is a qualified person and is
independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. Harold R. Roberts,
P.E., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company is a
coauthor of the PEA; however, the independent authors of the Report have assumed
overall responsibility for all items of the technical report, and the Report is
therefore an independent technical report under NI 43-101.

The Roca Honda Project was acquired by the Company on August
29, 2013 as a result of the acquisition of Strathmore by Energy Fuels. See
General Development of the Business above.

Property Description and Location

The Roca Honda uranium project is located approximately three
miles northwest of the community of San Mateo, New Mexico, near the southern
boundary of McKinley County and north of the Cibola County boundary, and
approximately 22 miles by road northeast of Grants, New Mexico. The property is
located in the east part of the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict of the Grants Mineral
Belt in northwest New Mexico and comprises nearly all of Sections 9, 10, and a
narrow strip of Section 11, and a New Mexico State Lease, consisting of Section
16, all in Township 13 North  Range 8 West (T13N-R8W), New Mexico Principal
Meridian.

The White Mesa Mill, where the ore from the project is expected
to be milled, is located on 4,816 acres of private land owned by Energy Fuels.
This land is located in Township 37S and 38S Range 22E Salt Lake Principal
Meridian. The mill is located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah
along US Highway 191. Energy Fuels also holds 253 acres of mill site claims and
a 320 acre Utah state lease. No facilities are planned on the mill site claims
or leased land, which will be used as a buffer to the operations.

40

---

Land Tenure

The Roca Honda property is held by RHR, which is jointly owned
by Energy Fuels wholly- owned subsidiary Strathmore Resources, U.S. Ltd. (60%)
and Sumitomos subsidiaries SC Clean Energy and Summit New Energy Holding, LLC
(40%). RHR was established on July 26, 2007, when Strathmore formed a limited
liability company with Sumitomo and transferred the property to RHR.

The Roca Honda property covers an area of 1,886.5 acres, and
includes 63 unpatented lode mining claims in Sections 9 and 10, and one
adjoining New Mexico State General Mining Lease in Section 16. The mining claims
also extend onto a 9.4 acre narrow strip of Section 11. Strathmore acquired the
mining claims on March 12, 2004, from Rio Algom Mining LLC (Rio Algom), a
successor to Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which had staked the claims in
1965 and had continuously maintained them. The New Mexico State Lease was
acquired by David Miller (former Strathmore CEO) on November 30, 2004, and
subsequently transferred to Strathmore.

The Roca Honda State Lease (No. HG-0036-002) is located on
Section 16 and covers an area of 638 acres. The surface of Section 16 is leased
to Fernandez Company, Ltd. (Fernandez) as rangeland for grazing. The
area covered by the Fernandez lease is also referred to as Lee Ranch. The
lease has a primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary term, each with rentals
to be paid in advance. The lease is currently in the quaternary term of five
years (expiring on November 29, 2019) and for so long thereafter as minerals are
produced or mined in paying quantities. The lease will therefore expire on
November 29, 2019 and have to be renewed, unless minerals are being produced or
mined in paying quantities at that time. New Mexico law provides a preferential
right of a lessee of a mineral lease to renew a lease on state lands.

There is a New Mexico mining royalty payable on the value of
mineral production for New Mexico state leases. The royalty is based upon the
operating cash flow less a development allowance, depreciation, and a processing
allowance. New Mexico mining and private royalties on value of minerals
extracted are shown below:

- Section 9 Gross Royalty (1%); and
- Section 16 New Mexico State Lease Royalty (5%).

The White Mesa Mill is located approximately six miles south of
Blanding, Utah on a parcel of land encompassing all or part of Sections 21, 22,
27, 28, 29, 32, and 33 of T37S, R22E, and Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 16 of
Township 38 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. Additional land
is controlled by 46 mill site claims. Total White Mesa Mill land holdings are
approximately 5,375 acres.

Roca Honda Existing Infrastructure

Old drill roads were previously established across the
property, and an electrical line transects the northern half of Section 16 in
the Project area. The line continues on the west side of the Project area into
Section 17, where it terminates, and on the east side of Section 16 through the
northwest quarter of Section 15 and along the southern section boundary of
Section 10. Three monitor water wells were drilled by RHR in 2007, and are
located on Section 16. Other items installed by RHR include a permanent
electrical weather station and a high volume TSP and PM10air
samplers. Three, dry man-made impoundments are also located on Section 16. More
than 400 historic drill exploration holes were completed on the property from
the late 1960s to the early 1980s. As the mine has not yet been developed or
operated, there are no mine workings, existing tailings ponds, waste deposits or
other improvements or facilities at the site.

41

---

White Mesa Mill Infrastructure

See “Energy Fuels’ Business –  Operations”  above.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources and Physiography

The Roca Honda Project is currently accessed by public roads,
highways and across private land held by Fernandez. It is located approximately
17 air miles and 22 road miles northeast of Grants, New Mexico. The southern
portion of the project, on Section 16, can be reached by traveling north from
Milan on New Mexico State Highway 605 toward the town of San Mateo to mile
marker 18 and then north on a public gravel road. Access rights from Highway 605
onto Section 16 are subject to negotiations with the surface lease-holder,
Fernandez. A temporary access agreement across the Fernandez properties, which
allows access on a limited basis, is currently in place and will expire on
January 1, 2016. RHR and the landowner are currently in the process of
negotiating a long-term access agreement across the Fernandez properties, which
will be required before mine development can commence.

The north part of the project can be reached by traveling 23.5
miles from Milan, New Mexico, on paved public Highway 605, and then west on US
Forest Service roads to the southeast corner of Section 10. There are numerous
drill roads that provide access to different portions of Sections 9 and 10, many
of which will require maintenance. Old drill roads were previously established
across the property, and an electrical line transects the northern half of
Section 16 in the project area. The line continues on the west side of the
project area into Section 17, where it terminates, and on the east side of
Section 16 through the northwest quarter of Section 15 and along the southern
section boundary of Section 10. Surface rights held are sufficient for expected
mining operations and waste disposal areas. No milling operations are expected
to occur on the site. Therefore, no areas for tailings storage, heap leach pads
or processing plants are expected to be required.

The climate in the Roca Honda project area may be classified as
arid to semi-arid continental, characterized by cool, dry winters, and warm, dry
summers. On average, the Roca Honda property receives approximately 11 inches of
precipitation annually, most of which occurs during thunderstorms in July and
August. Winter is the driest season with an average of approximately 13 inches
of snow falling annually, mostly during December through February. Grants, New
Mexico has an annual average temperature of 50°F, with an average summer high of
87°F and low of 52°F, and average winter high of 47°F and low of 18°F.
Year-round operations are expected.

The community of Grants, New Mexico, located in Cibola County,
is the largest community near the Roca Honda Project. As of the 2010 census,
there are 8,772 people residing in Grants, where supplies can be obtained and personnel experienced in open pit and
underground mining, construction and mineral processing are available.

42

---

The Roca Honda Project area is sparsely populated, rural and
largely undeveloped. The predominant land uses include low density grazing and
cultivation, and recreational activities such as hiking, sightseeing, and
seasonal hunting. The Roca Honda property has moderately rough topography in
Sections 9 and 10 and consists of shaly slopes below ledge-forming sandstone
beds, as mesas, that dip 7° to 11° northeast. Elevations range from 7,100 feet
to 7,800 feet. Section 9 consists mostly of steep slopes in the west and south,
with a large sandstone mesa in the north central part. Section 10 consists
mostly of the dip-slope of a sandstone bed that dips from 8° to 11° east.
Section 16 has less topographic relief, with elevations ranging from 7,100 to
7,300 feet and easterly dipping slopes. Vegetation in the Roca Honda project
area consists of grasses, piñon pine and juniper trees.

History

Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc. (Kerr-McGee) staked the Roca
Honda unpatented mining claims in Sections 9 and 10 in June 1965. Kerr-McGee,
its subsidiaries, and successor in interest Rio Algom had held the claims until
the property was acquired by Strathmore on March 12, 2004. Energy Fuels acquired
a 100% interest in Strathmore in September 2013, assuming Strathmores 60%
ownership interest in RHR and becoming the Project operator.

Drilling on the property began in 1966. Kerr-McGee performed a
number of rotary drill hole exploration programs from 1966 to 1985. In Section
9, the first drill hole was completed in July 1966. Discovery was made in drill
hole number 7 completed on August 2, 1970, which encountered mineralization at a
depth of 1,900 ft. From 1966 to 1982, a total of 187 drill holes were completed
for a total of 388,374 ft.

In Section 10, the first hole was drilled in October 1967.
Discovery was made in drill hole number 6 completed on March 19, 1974, which
encountered mineralization at a depth of 2,318 ft. From 1967 to 1985, a total of
175 drill holes were completed for a total of 459,535 ft.

In Section 16, the first drilling was in the 1950s by Rare
Metals, which drilled 13 holes, including two that intercepted high-grade
uranium mineralization at depths of 1,531 ft. and 1,566 ft. No records of the
total drilled footage were located. Subsequently, Western Nuclear acquired a
mining lease for Section 16 from the State and began drilling in 1968, with the
first drill hole completed on August 17, 1968. The second drill hole intercepted
high- grade uranium mineralization at a depth of 1,587 ft. From 1968 through
September 1970, Western Nuclear drilled 63 holes totalling 121,164 ft., not
including six abandoned holes totaling 7,835 ft. Two of the drill holes reported
cored intervals, but the cores and analyses were not available.

From the mid 1960s to 2011, a total of 444 drill holes totaling
over 971,300 ft. were completed on the three Sections of the Roca Honda
property.

There have been several historical mineral resource estimates
prepared for the property, all of which predated NI 43-101. In 2012, RPA
prepared a Mineral Resource estimate and reported it in a NI 43-101 Technical
Report prepared for Strathmore. That estimate is superseded by the Mineral
Resource estimate in Table 1-1.

No historic production has occurred on the property.

43

---

Geological Setting and Mineralization

The Roca Honda Project area is located in the southeast part of
the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict of the Grants uranium district and is near the
boundary between the Chaco slope and the Acoma sag tectonic features. This
subdistrict is in the southeastern part of the Colorado Plateau physiographic
province and is mostly on the south flank (referred to as the Chaco slope) of
the San Juan Basin.

Rocks exposed in the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict of the Grants
Mineral Belt, which includes the Roca Honda area, comprise marine and non-marine
sediments of Late Cretaceous age, unconformably overlying the uranium-bearing
Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. The uppermost sequence of conformable strata
consists of the Mesaverde Group, Mancos Shale, and Dakota Sandstone. All rocks
that outcrop at the Roca Honda Project area are of Late Cretaceous age.

The uranium found in the Roca Honda Project area is contained
within five sandstone units of the Westwater Canyon Member. Zones of
mineralization vary from approximately one foot to 32 ft. thick, 100 ft. to 600
ft. wide, and 200 ft. to 2,000 ft. long. Uranium mineralization in the Project
area trends west-northwest, consistent with trends of the fluvial sedimentary
structures of the Westwater Canyon Member, and the general trend of
mineralization across the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict.

Core recovery from the 2007 drilling program indicates that
uranium occurs in sandstones with large amounts of organic/high carbon material.
Non-mineralized host rock is much lighter (light brown to light grey) and has
background to slightly elevated radiometric readings.

Uranium mineralization consists of unidentifiable
organic-uranium oxide complexes. The uranium in the Project area is dark grey to
black in color, and is found between depths of approximately 1,650 ft. and 2,600
ft. below the surface.

Primary mineralization pre-dates, and is not related to,
present structural features. There is a possibility of some redistribution and
stack mineralization along faults; however, it appears that most of the Roca
Honda mineralization is primary.

Paleochannels that contain quartz-rich, arkosic, fluvial
sandstones are the primary mineralization control associated with this trend.
Previous mining operations within the immediate area suggest that faults in the
Roca Honda area associated with the San Mateo fault zone post-date the
emplacement of uranium, therefore, it may be expected that mineralized zones in
the Roca Honda area are offset by faults.

The mineralization is typically confined to sandstones in the
Westwater Canyon Member, although there is some overlap into the shales that
divide the sandstones, and also some minor extension (less than 10 ft) into the
underlying Recapture Member. The mineralization is contained in the Westwater
Canyon Member sandstones across the Project area, but in Sections 9 and 16, the
mineralization is typically found in the upper sandstones (A, B1, and B2). In
Section 10, the A and B1 sandstones pinch out in some areas due to thickening of
the overlying Brushy Basin Member. Mineralization in the middle and western
portions of Section 10, and it is typically in the lower sandstones (sands C and
D).

Sedimentary features may exhibit control on a small scale. At
the nearby Johnny M mine, a sandstone scour feature truncates underlying black
mineralization, indicating nearly syngenetic deposition of uranium
mineralization with the sandstone beds.

44

---

Exploration

No additional exploration work or activities have been
conducted on the Roca Honda property since November 2011, when a core drill hole
was completed in Section 16 for geotechnical studies.

A few widely spaced holes that were previously drilled in the
central part of Section 16 intersected mineralization in the A and B1 sands
grading over 0.10% U3O8 across a minimum thickness of six
feet. Based on this drilling, an exploration potential of 600,000 tons to
800,000 tons at 0.30% U3O8 to 0.40%
U3O8was identified, containing four million pounds of
uranium. RPA notes that the potential quantity and grade identified are
conceptual in nature and additional exploration is required to define a Mineral
Resource.

Drilling

Drilling on the Roca Honda project has been conducted in phases
by Rare Metals, Kerr-McGee, Western Nuclear and RHR from 1966 to 2011, and
consists of 443 drill holes totaling 970,954 feet. A drill summary table by
section is included below.

- Section 9: Kerr-McGee (1966 to 1982), 187 holes, 388,849 feet
- Section 10: Kerr-McGee (1967 to 1985), 175 holes, 450,838 feet
- Section 16: Western Nuclear (1968 to 1970), 63 holes, 121,164 feet
- Section 16: Rare Metals (1950s), 13 holes, unknown footage
- Section 16: RHR (2007), 4 holes, 8,050 feet
- Section 16: RHR (2011), 1 hole, 2,053 feet

Previous drilling on the Roca Honda property was performed by
Kerr-McGee on Sections 9 and 10, and by Rare Metals and Western Nuclear on
Section 16 using rotary mud drilling with truck-mounted drills contracted by
local drilling companies. Kerr-McGee files contain detailed records of drilling
results. Drill logs are available for three holes completed by Rare Metals in
the 1950s. For the Western Nuclear drilling, complete files of drill summary
sheets containing intercepted grade, thickness, zone, and alteration (oxidation)
for each mineralized interval is available.

RHR drilled four pilot holes, on Section 16, of which three
were completed as monitor wells totaling 8,050 ft for environmental baseline and
monitoring purposes in Section 16 from June through November 2007. One drill
hole was located outside of known mineralization and three holes were located
within mineralized areas.

The entire thickness of the Westwater Sandstone, except for
zones with no recovery, was cored in the pilot holes for these wells. The cores
are PQ diameter (3.345 in.) and were taken principally for laboratory testing of
hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, density, and chemical analysis.

The four pilot holes were probed by Jet West Geophysical
Services, LLC (Jet West), Farmington, New Mexico, for gamma, resistivity,
deviation, standard potential, and temperature.

In November 2011, a core hole (S14-Jmw-CH-11) was drilled at
the Section 16 shaft location (Figure 10-2). The hole was drilled to a depth of
2,053 ft. Core was tested at Advanced Terra Testing for numerous geotechnical
properties and a geotechnical report was issued in June 2012.

45

---

Sampling and Analysis

All mineralized intercepts used for historical resource
estimates were calculated by Kerr-McGee from gamma-ray logs probed for each
drill hole. Each log consists of gamma-ray, resistivity, and
spontaneous-potential curves plotted by depth. The resistivity and
spontaneous-potential curves provide bed boundaries and are mainly used for
correlation of sandstone units and mineralized zones between drill holes.

The equivalent U3O8(eU3O8) content was calculated by Kerr-McGee
following the industry standard method developed originally by the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (Kerr-McGee manual, undated). For mineralized zones greater
than two feet thick, an upper and lower boundary was initially determined by
choosing a point approximately one-half of the height from background to peak of
the anomaly. The counts per second (cps) were determined for each one-foot
interval and then divided by the number of intervals to calculate an average cps
for the anomaly. The counts per second (cps) were converted to percent eU3O8
using the appropriate Kerr-McGee charts for the specific logging unit used.

Based on Kerr-McGees extensive operating experience in the
Ambrosia Lake sub district of the Grants Mineral Belt there were no historical
concerns regarding disequilibrium for gamma ray results. Additionally, RHR core
showed no major negative disequilibrium. Therefore, based on this information,
no disequilibrium factor has been applied to the Roca Honda eU3O8 gamma logs
and/or assays.

RHR has results of analyses of chemical equilibrium from four
samples from three core holes (totalling 17 ft of mineralized core) located in
Section 16. Results indicate positive average equilibrium
(chemU3O8/eU3O8) for the four
samples.

Based on a review of available reports describing the state of
chemical equilibrium for uranium in the vicinity of the Roca Honda deposit and
in similar deposits with primary-type uranium mineralization, RPA considers it
probable that the Roca Honda deposit taken as a whole, will have an average
state of equilibrium that is slightly favorable with regard to chemical uranium
versus eU3O8.

RPA is of the opinion that there is a low risk of negative
equilibrium (chemical uranium lower than radiometrically determined uranium) in
the Roca Honda deposit. Additional sampling and analyses are recommended to
supplement results of the limited disequilibrium testing conducted by RHR.

RHR completed four pilot holes in 2007 and one geotechnical
hole in 2011 (not included in resource database, because it was completed after
the resource computation) as discussed in detail in Section 10 Drilling. Most of
the Westwater Sandstone was cored at PQ diameter (39/32 in.) and collected for
laboratory testing of hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, density and
chemical analysis.

RHR developed stringent in-house standard operating procedures
for core handling (including collecting, sampling, processing, and archiving
core), and decontamination of small equipment used for sampling. The following
sections summarize RHRs standard operating procedures.

The standard operating procedures provide guidance for proper
and consistent core collection practices, and to ensure that proper core
handling procedures, quality control, and required documentation are undertaken.
The RHR lead geologist was responsible for implementing the core handling and
sampling procedures.

The RHR field geologist was responsible for ensuring that all
standard operating procedures were conducted in accordance with Strathmore
standards, under the direction of the RHR Lead Geologist.

46

---

The field geologist observed the core from the time it was
pulled from the hole until it was transported to a locked storage facility
adjoining RHRs Grant, New Mexico geology office.

Core intervals selected for sampling were split in half
lengthwise with a hydraulic splitter. One half was sent for analysis, with the
other half logged and archived with the remaining core. Core samples were
inserted into sample bags labelled with the well identification, core run
number, date, and core interval. Core intervals sampled for laboratory analysis
were sealed to preserve the natural state of the core.

A sample block is placed in the location of the sampled core
and labelled with the boring or well identification, date, depth intervals,
sample identification, sample type, and the name of the individual or
organization receiving the sample.

Each core box is photographed using a digital camera and
includes a color bar, scale and label containing the borehole designation, box
number, box interval, and the date of the photograph. All photography logs and
photographs are archived by RHR.

Core Box and Custody Record Forms are completed before the core
box is closed and sealed.

All records and forms are reviewed by the field geologist for
accuracy and completeness.

Security of Samples

RHR implemented and followed strict standard operating
procedures as documents in Standard Operation Procedure 006 Sampling handling,
packaging, shipping, and chain of custody The Standard Operating Procedure
outlines the preparation of environmental and waste characterization samples for
shipment to the offsite analytical laboratory, and the chain of custody
procedures to follow from the sample collection stage to the entry of results
into the RHR database.

Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimates

RPA prepared an updated NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource
estimate for the Roca Honda deposit in the Roca Honda Technical Report. The
updated Mineral Resource estimate for the Roca Honda deposit effective as at
February 4, 2015, is summarized in Table 1-1. Mineral Resources are constrained
by wireframes generated around individual mineralized zones within five sand
horizons designated as A, B1, B2, C, and D sands.

|Classification                    | Tons
      (,000) | Grade%eU3O8 | PoundsU3O8(,000)
|--------------------------------- | ----------------- | ----------- | ----------------
|MeasuredResources                 | 208               | 0.477       | 1,984           
|IndicatedResources                | 1,303             | 0.483       | 12,580          
|TotalMeasured&Indicated Resources | 1,511             | 0.482       | 14,564          
|InferredResources                 | 1,198             | 0.468       | 11,206          

Notes:

| | 1. | CIM definitions were followed for Mineral
    Resources.                                                                                   
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2. | Mineral Resources are estimated using a cut-off grade of
  0.19% U3O8.                                                                     
| | 3. | A minimum mining thickness of six feet was used, along
      with $241/ton operating cost and $65/lb U3O8 cut-off grade and 95%
  recovery.
| | 4. | Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not
      have demonstrated economic viability.                                         
| | 5. | Numbers may not add due to
rounding.                                                                                                       

47

---

The Mineral Resource estimate and classification are in
accordance with the CIM definitions. There are no Mineral Reserves on the
property at this time.

RPA noted that it is not aware of any known environmental,
permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or
other relevant factors that could materially affect the current resource
estimate.

Mining Operations

Mining Methods

The PEA includes 2.033 million tons of Measured and Indicated
Mineral Resources at a diluted grade of 0.365% U3O8and
1.400 million tons of Inferred Resources at a diluted grade of 0.355%
U3O8. To arrive at this estimate, RPA used a diluted
cut-off grade of 0.110% U3O8, a minimum mining thickness
of six feet, and the historical mining recovery of 85% for the step
room-and-pillar mining method and 90% recovery for the drift-and-fill mining
method. RPA notes that Inferred Resources are considered too geologically
speculative to have mining and economic considerations applied to them and to be
categorized as Mineral Reserves.

Dilution is estimated to average 17.1% at a grade of 0.030%
U3O8.This includes both low grade and waste material.
Dilution estimates are based on one foot of overbreak in the roof and six inches
in the floor of all single lift stopes. In the case of multi-lift stopes, the
initial cuts include only six inches of dilution from the floor of the drift.
The final cut includes both floor dilution and roof dilution. Average minimum
stope height is six feet.

The mineralization is relatively flat-lying and will be mined
using both step room-and-pillar (SRP) stoping in the lower grade zones and
drift-and-fill (DF) stoping in the higher grade zones. The transition grade has
been calculated at 0.265% U3O8. Stopes with average
diluted grades of less than 0.265% U3O8will be mined using
the SRP method. Stopes with average diluted grades higher than 0.265%
U3O8 will be mined using the DF method. With
the SRP method, permanent pillars will be left in a pre-designed pattern and
low-strength cemented rockfill (CRF) will be placed in mined-out areas as
backfill. For the DF method, a high-strength CRF will be placed in the mined-out
areas. The mineralized zones range in thickness from 6 ft. to 21 ft. Zones in
the 6 ft. to 12 ft. thickness range will be mined in one pass. Mineralized zones
exceeding 12 ft. in thickness will be mined in two sequential overhand cuts with
each cut being approximately one half of the overall zone thickness.

The life of mine schedule (24 hours/day, 7 days per week) is
based on initiating development from the production shaft located in Section 16.
The mining areas in the Southwest mining area will be connected to the Northeast
mining area via a 3,600 ft. double decline. Primary development connecting the
shaft to the various mineralized zones (including the double decline) will be
driven 10 ft. wide by 12 ft. high to allow for infrastructure. Stope access
development connecting the primary development to the individual stopes will be
driven 10 ft. wide by 10 ft. high. The base case for the project has a
production life of approximately nine years at an average rate of 1,085 stpd.

The mining sequence in each area is dependent upon the
development schedule, but in general, prioritizes the mining of the largest and
highest grade zones in each area of the mine. There is also a requirement to
sequence the mining of any stacked zones from top down.

Stope mining begins approximately four years after the start of
construction and the operating mine life spans nine years. The production rate
averages approximately 1,030 stpd during the time that mining occurs in Sections 9 and 16 only, increasing to 1,200 stpd when
mining in Sections 9, 16, and 10 are mined simultaneously then dropping to 1,020
stpd when mining from Section 10 only.

48

---

Depressurization of the three main aquifers in the Project area
will be accomplished by the use of up to 15 depressurization wells and
underground long holes that supply water to eleven underground pumping stations
that ultimately feed water to the Section 16 shaft sump pumps, and three
discharge pump stations located in the shaft. It has been estimated that the
mine will discharge a nominal 2,500 US gpm of water at temperatures between 90oF
and 95oF. An additional 2,000 gpm will be produced by surface wells so the total
discharge rate is anticipated to be up to 4,500 gpm.

The deposit will be developed and mined on the basis of
single-pass ventilation using a series of separate and independent intake and
exhaust networks. The design requires a total of five exhaust ventilation raises
(three in Section 9 and two in Section 10) as well as an intake ventilation
raise in Section 10. Two of the ventilation raises, one in Section 16 and one in
Section 10, will be equipped with emergency evacuation hoisting equipment.
Midway through the mine life, one of the raises in Section 9 will be converted
from exhaust to intake.

Metallurgy and Processing

The White Mesa Mill utilizes agitated hot acid leach and
solvent extraction to recover uranium. Historical metallurgical tests and White
Mesa Mill production records confirm this processing method will recover 95% of
the contained uranium.

The Energy Fuels owned White Mesa Mill is located near
Blanding, Utah, 275 mi from the Roca Honda Project.

Operations at the White Mesa Mill can receive run-of-mine (RoM)
material from the Roca Honda Project and various other mines. Material will be
dumped from trucks on an ore pad area and stockpiled by type to be blended as
needed. Material will be weighed, sampled, and probed for uranium grade. The ore
pad area has an approximate capacity of 450,000 tons.

Material will be withdrawn from the stockpiles by CAT 980 (or
equivalent) front end loader and fed to a SAG mill at a rate of up to 2,500
stpd. The ground material, which will be in slurry with water, will be placed in
agitated storage tanks and fed to the leaching circuit.

The leaching will be conducted in eight, 25 ft. diameter by 26
ft. high agitated leach tanks using sulfuric acid, steam, and sodium chlorate.
After leaching, the slurry proceeds to the CCD washing circuit to recover the
dissolved uranium values. Once the uranium is recovered, the tailings solids are
sent to the tailings cells. The pregnant solution recovered in the CCD circuit
is clarified, and then treated in an SX circuit to increase the concentration of
uranium in solution and remove impurities.

Uranium is precipitated from the SX pregnant strip solution
using ammonia for pH control. Precipitated uranium is sent to a thickener and a
centrifuge for washing and dewatering. The uranium is then dried in a
multi-hearth dryer and the resulting yellowcake is placed in 55- gallon sealed
drums for shipment.

The White Mesa Mill was constructed in 1977-1980 and is
currently fully operational. Additional tailings storage capacity is required to
handle the Roca Honda material, and these tailing cells are designed and
identical to the two most recently approved cells, but the design has not been
submitted to Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for approval. All
other mill infrastructure items are already in place at the White Mesa Mill.

49

---

Capital and Operating Costs

Total production from the project is estimated to be 3.432
million tons of ore, yielding approximately 23.5 million recovered pounds of
U3O8 over the expected nine-year life of the mine.

The following summarizes the capital cost estimate for the
Project.

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE Roca Honda Resources LLC  Roca Honda
Project

Capital Cost Area
    
    Project
    
    
    Preproduction
    
    
    **Production**Capital
    
    
    **(Years -4 to -0)**
    
    
    **(Years 1 to 11)**Totals
    
    
    **(US$000)**
    
    
    (US$000**(US$000)**Underground Mine
    
    127,229
    
    
    127,229
    
    
    -Mill
    
    -
    
    
    -
    
    
    -Surface Infrastructure
    
    46,893
    
    
    46,893
    
    
    -Indirects
    
    29,148
    
    
    27,146
    
    
    2,001Working Capital
    
    -
    
    
    5,075
    
    
    (5,075
    )Exploration
    
    2,517
    
    
    2,517
    
    
    -Sustaining Capital
    
    71,972
    
    
    -
    
    
    71,972Closure &
      Reclamation
    
    3,400
    
    
    
    
    
    3,400Total Capital Before Contingency
    
    281,159
    
    
    208,861
    
    
    72,298Contingency
    
    45,354
    
    
    44,978
    
    
    375Total Capital Cost With
    
    326,512
    
    
    253,839
    
    
    72,673ContingencyTotal Capital Cost per lb.
    
    
    
    
    US$/lb
    
    
    13.88


The average LoM operating costs and the annual estimated
operating costs are shown in Table 1-7. The LoM average operating cost includes
mining, processing at the White Mesa Mill, general and administration, and
freight of the product to a point of sale at the White Mesa Mill located near
Blanding, Utah.

TABLE 1-7 OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Roca Honda Resources LLC 
Roca Honda Project

Operating Cost Summary
    Units
    TotalMining & Development
    US$(000)
    368,136(includes mine maintenance)Transportation Cost
    US$(000)
    149,314Processing (includes
    US$(000)
    167,022Tailings Replacement Cost)Toll Milling Process Cost
    US$(000)
    123,227AverageMaintenance (labor)
    US$(000)
    2,647G&A
    US$(000)
    18,418Total Operating
    US$(000)
    828,763Cost Per Ton
    Units
    TotalMining & Development
    US$/t mined
    86.55Mining & Development
    US$/t milled
    107.25Transportation Cost
    US$/t milled
    43.50Processing (includes Tailings
    US$/t milled
    48.66Replacement Cost)Toll Milling Process Cost
    US$/t milled
    35.90AverageMaintenance
    US$/t milled
    0.77G&A
    US$/t milled
    5.37Total Operating Cost per Ton
    US$/t milled
    241.45Operating Cost Summary Per lb.
    Units
    TotalMining & Development
    US$/lb
    15.65Transportation Cost
    US$/lb
    6.35Processing (includes Tailings
    US$/lb
    7.10Replacement Cost)Toll Milling Process Cost Average
    US$/lb
    5.24Maintenance
    US$/lb
    0.11G&A
    US$/lb
    0.78Total Operating Cost per lb
    US$/lb
    35.23


50

---

Payback is expected to occur early in the fifth year of
production.

Permitting

The Roca Honda project is at an advanced stage of permitting.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed by the
USFS in February 2013, and the company expects the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) to be published by years end 2016. Other major
permits required for Roca Honda include a Permit to Mine to be issued by the New
Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, a Discharge Permit issued by the New Mexico
Environment Department, and a Mine Dewatering Permit issued by the New Mexico
State Engineers Office. The Mine Dewatering Permit was approved in December
2013 but appealed by the Acoma Pueblo in January 2014. RHR subsequently proposed
a new alternative for discharging treated mine water that would benefit a number
of downstream users including the Acoma Pueblo. As a result, the Acoma Pueblo
agreed to withdraw the dewatering permit appeal in February 2015. SeeLegal
Proceedings and Regulatory Actionsbelow for further discussion on the
Acoma Pueblo appeal.

The two other major permits are in the agency review stage with
a draft Discharge Permit expected in mid-to late 2015, and the Permit to Mine
expected in mid-2017 following after approval of the FEIS in mid-2017. Permit
approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency are also required for discharge of treated mine water
associated with mine development and operation. Applications for these two
permits are also presently undergoing agency review.

As the project has not yet been developed or operated, the
Company is not aware of any environmental liabilities of any significance at the
project.

No permitting is required to start milling Roca Honda material
at the White Mesa Mill. The White Mesa Mill is fully permitted with the State of
Utah, and has all the necessary operating licenses for a conventional uranium
mill. As additional tailings storage capacity will eventually be required over
the life of the mine, an Amendment to the White Mesa Mills Radioactive
Materials License issued by the Utah Division of Radiation Control will be
required to construct the next tailing cells. Designs for the next two cells are
complete.

51

---

The Arizona Strip



Except as noted, the following descriptions of the Pinenut
Mine, Arizona 1 Mine, and Canyon Project are based on a technical report titled
Technical Report on the Arizona Strip Uranium Project, Arizona, U.S.A., dated
June 27, 2012, prepared by Thomas C. Pool, P.E and David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo.
of RPA in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Arizona Strip Technical
Report). Each of the authors of the Arizona Strip Technical Report are a
qualified person and is independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. Except as noted, the following
description of the EZ Complex is based on a technical report titled Technical
Report on the EZ1 and EZ2 Breccia Pipes, Arizona Strip District, U.S.A., dated
June 27, 2012, prepared by David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo. and Christopher Moreton,
Ph.D, P.Geo. of RPA in accordance with NI 43-101 (the EZ Technical
Report). Each of the authors of the EZ Technical Report is a qualified
person and is independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101.
Except as noted, the following descriptions of the Wate Project are based on a
technical report titled NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources Wate Uranium
Breccia Pipe-Northern Arizona, USA dated March 10, 2015, prepared by SRK
Consulting (US) Inc., (the Wate Technical Report). Each of the authors
of the Wate Technical Report are a qualified person and is independent of
the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101

Energy Fuels has a 100% interest in a number of breccia pipe
uranium deposits in the Arizona Strip District of northwestern Arizona,
including: Arizona 1, Canyon, Pinenut, EZ 1, EZ 2, WHAT, DB 1, Kanab North,
John, Lisa, Otto, Why and Not. These breccia pipe deposits, in addition to
another deposit in Arizona called Moonshine Springs, were acquired by Denison
from Pathfinder Mines Corp. (Pathfinder) in 2007. Moonshine Springs is
a sandstone hosted deposit near the surface, gradually becoming deeper toward
the north. All of these properties were subsequently acquired by Energy Fuels in
its June 2012 acquisition of Denisons US Mining Division. Energy Fuels also
owns a 50% interest in and is the manager of the Wate Project.

The Arizona Strip is an area largely bounded on the north by
the Arizona/Utah state line; on the east by the Colorado River and Marble
Canyon; on the west by the Grand Wash Cliffs; and on the south by a midpoint
between the city of Flagstaff and the Grand Canyon. The area encompasses
approximately 13,000 square miles.

Since 1980, when mine development first began at the Hack
Canyon II mine, the Arizona Strip has produced in excess of 21 million pounds of
uranium from eight mines. Of these mines, Hack Canyon I, II, and III, Pigeon and
Hermit are depleted and have been reclaimed. In addition, the Kanab North mine is depleted and in reclamation. The Arizona 1 mine was placed
on standby by the Company in February 2014 due to the depletion of the economic
resource.

52

---

Ore from the Arizona Strip mines is hauled by truck from the
mine sites to the Companys White Mesa Mill. The Arizona 1 and Pinenut Mines are
approximately 307 road miles, the Canyon Project is 325 road miles, and the Wate
Project is approximately 390 road miles from the Mill.

The Arizona Strip mines are held by Energy Fuels on unpatented
claims located on land managed by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), except for the Wate Project, which is located on an Arizona
State lease, and the Moonshine Springs deposit, which is held by a combination
of mineral claims and a mineral lease. There is a 3.5% yellowcake royalty on the
Canyon property. The Wate Project is expected to have a royalty on the Arizona
State lease, but the royalty amount has not yet been established. In addition,
the Companys 50% interest in the Wate Project is subject to an additional 2%
royalty, which may be purchased by the Company for $750,000.

Mining operations began at Arizona 1 in late 2009 and continued
until February 2014 at which time the project was placed on standby. At Pinenut,
mine development activities began in late 2010. Ore production commenced in the
summer of 2013 and is expected to continue until second quarter 2015 at which
time ore production is expected to have recovered all economical resources. The
mine will subsequently be reclaimed. At the Canyon mine, all surface facilities
for shaft sinking are in place, and shaft sinking commenced in February 2013, at
a depth of 50 feet below the surface. Development progressed to a depth of 280
feet during 2013. In November 2013, shaft sinking at Canyon was placed on
standby. On February 6, 2015, the Company announced plans to restart mining
activities at the Canyon mine. To complete the mine, the Company expects to sink
an additional 1,200 feet of shaft, install a ventilation shaft, and complete
underground development. Reclamation has begun at the Kanab North mine and all
that remains is to remove surface waste rock, grade the surface and re-vegetate.
The EZ Complex and Wate Project are both currently in the permitting process.
The What, DB-1, Why, John, Not, Lisa, Otto and Moonshine Springs properties have
no development on site or plans for permitting at this time.

Property Description and Location

Prior to 1995, EFN located and developed to
various stages, numerous uranium mineralized breccia pipe structures in
northwestern Arizona, between Utah and the Grand Canyon, an area termed the
Arizona Strip. Most of Energy Fuels breccia pipes are between the town of
Fredonia, on the Arizona-Utah state line, and Grand Canyon National Park. Two
deposits, Canyon and Wate, are located south of the national park.

Arizona 1 is located in Mojave County, Arizona, about 45 miles
southwest from Fredonia, Arizona by unsurfaced road. Energy Fuels property
position consists of 10 unpatented mining claims covering approximately 207
acres, located on land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).

Pinenut consists of 10 unpatented mining claims encompassing
207 acres, located on land managed by the BLM. It is located 45 miles south of
Fredonia in Mojave County, Arizona and is accessible via an unsurfaced road.

The Canyon project is in north central Arizona, 153 miles north
of Phoenix and six miles south of Tusayan, Arizona in the Kaibab National
Forest, Coconino County and is accessible by an unsurfaced road. The Canyon site
consists of nine unpatented mining claims encompassing approximately 186 acres,
located on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). There is a
3.5% yellowcake royalty on the Canyon property.

53

---

The EZ Complex is also located in Mohave County, Arizona, about
30 miles southwest of Fredonia, Arizona. The EZ Complex is comprised of 12
unpatented mining claims covering approximately 248 acres, located on land
managed by the BLM. There is a 1.0% yellowcake royalty on the EZ Complex
properties.

The Wate Project (Wate) is located on Arizona State land in
northwestern Arizona, south of the Grand Canyon National Park in Coconino
County. Wate is approximately 5 miles northwest of Indian Route 18, which runs
northeast from Route 66. Wate is held by the Company under Arizona State Mineral
Lease Application 11-116806.

Holding costs for the Arizona 1, Pinenut, Canyon and EZ
properties are minimal and consist entirely of annual fees for unpatented mining
claims ($140 per claim per year  the BLM increased fees to $155 per claim per
year in 2014) and county filing fees (approximately $10 per claim per year).
Unpatented mining claims expire annually, but are subject to indefinite annual
renewal by filing appropriate documents and paying the fees described above. In
addition, holders of unpatented mining claims are generally granted surface
access to conduct mineral exploration and mining activities.

Mine development of uranium-bearing breccia pipes of the
Arizona Strip requires a minimum of surface disturbance, typically less than 20
acres, and has little if any impact on groundwater since most of the mines are
relatively dry. The overall environmental impact is small. Nevertheless, the
Grand Canyon area is environmentally sensitive in many ways and the permitting,
development, and operation of a uranium mine is a contentious issue.
Environmental liabilities at the four mines not yet completely reclaimed are
bonded at their total expected reclamation cost.

Arizona 1 is a fully developed mine, with the production shaft
having been completed for about 1,250 ft. of its proposed final 1,650 ft. depth.
In February 2014, the Arizona 1 was placed in standby due to the depletion of
the economic resource. Drill stations were cut near the current shaft bottom and
some 40,000 ft. of drilling, including 34,000 ft. of percussion and 6,000 ft. of
core drilling, were completed from that point. The mine is located in Sections
22 and 23, T36N, R5W, Mojave County, Arizona, about 45 mi. southwest of Fredonia
by unsurfaced road. A headframe, hoist, compressor, and fully-sunk shaft are in
place. Haulage distance from Arizona 1 to the White Mesa mill at Blanding, Utah,
is 307 mi.

The Canyon Project is a partially developed mine with: a
headframe, a hoist, a compressor and a partially sunk shaft. The site is located
in Sections 19 and 20, T29N, R3E, Coconino County, Arizona. The haulage distance
from Canyon to the White Mesa mill at Blanding, Utah, is 325 mi.

Pinenut is a fully developed underground mine which produced
25,807 tons of ore at an average grade of 1.02%
U3O8 containing 526,350 pounds U3O8 in 1989.
The Pinenut Mine was placed into production by Energy Fuels in the summer of
2013 (productions since then is reported in the resource update table below and
elsewhere in the text). A hoist, headframe, fully developed shaft and compressor
are in place. Pinenut is located in an unsurveyed portion of T36N, R4W, Mojave
County, Arizona, about 45 mi. south of Fredonia by unsurfaced road. The haulage
distance from Pinenut to the White Mesa mill at Blanding, Utah, is 317 mi.

There is no infrastructure currently on the EZ property. The
proposed disturbance for the EZ property will be between 20 acres and 40 acres.
A series of permits and approvals will be required from the BLM, ADEQ, Mohave
County and other agencies. The haulage distance from the EZ property to the
White Mesa Mill at Blanding, Utah, is approximately 305 miles.

54

---

There is no infrastructure currently on the Wate property. The
proposed disturbance for the Wate property will be approximately 20 acres. The
Wate Project is currently awaiting an Arizona State Land Department lease, which
will confer the right to mine and ship ores and to conduct all support
operations, similar to a mining permit in other jurisdictions. The haulage
distance from the Wate property to the White Mesa Mill at Blanding, Utah, is
approximately 390 miles.

Accessibility, Local Resources, Physiography and
Infrastructure

Climate in northern Arizona is semi-arid, with cold winters and
hot summers. January temperatures range from about 7° F to 57° F and July
temperatures range from 52° F to 97° F. Annual precipitation, mostly in the form
of rain but some snow, is about 12 inches. Vegetation on the plateaus is
primarily open piñon juniper woodland and shrubs. Mining operations can be
conducted on a year around basis.

The region north of the Grand Canyon is very sparsely
populated. Due to the inaccessibility and low population, infrastructure is not
well developed. The nearest commercial centers to the Kanab and Fredonia area
are the towns of St. George and Cedar City, Utah, both approximately 88 miles to
the northwest by road. The White Mesa Mill is approximately 275 miles by road
from Fredonia and about 325 and 390 miles by road from the Canyon Project and
Wate Project, respectively.

History

Uranium exploration and mining of breccia pipe uranium deposits
started in 1951 when a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey noted
uranium ore on the dump of an old copper prospect on the South Rim of the Grand
Canyon of Northern Arizona. The prospect was inside the Grand Canyon National
Park, but on fee land that predated the park. A mining firm acquired the
prospect and then mined a significant high grade uranium deposit, called the
Orphan Mine. By the time mining ended in the early 1960s, 4.26 million pounds of
U3O8and some minor amounts of copper and silver had been
produced.

After the discovery of the first deposit in the 1950s, an
extensive search for other deposits was made by the government and industry, but
only a few low grade prospects were found. Exploration started again in the
early 1970s. In the mid-1970s, Western Nuclear Inc. (Western Nuclear)
acquired the Hack Canyon prospect located about 25 miles north of the Grand
Canyon and found high grade uranium mineralization offsetting an old shallow
copper/uranium site. In the next few years, a second deposit was found
approximately one mile away.

EFN acquired the Hack Canyon property from Western Nuclear in
December 1980. Development started promptly, and the Hack Canyon mine was in
production by the end of 1981.

The Kanab North deposit was discovered in 1981, but development
did not begin until late 1984. Kanab North was fully developed in 1988 and
operated until December 1990 when it was placed on standby. Production totalled
about 2.8million pounds of U3O8at an average grade of
just over 0.50% U3O8. The site was placed in reclamation
by the Company in late 2013.

EFN explored the Arizona 1 deposit with a total of 253 drill
holes, including: 18 core holes from underground drill stations with a total
footage of 6,122 feet; 17 rotary holes from surface with a total footage of
25,289 feet; and 218 long holes from underground drill stations with a total
footage of 36,189 feet. Mine development of the Arizona 1 ore body began in 1990
but was suspended in 1992, with the shaft at a depth of 1,254 feet.

In February
  2014, the Arizona 1 was placed on standby due to the depletion of the economic
  resource. Production at Arizona 1 totaled about 111,800 tons at an average grade
  of 0.613% U3O8, yielding approximately 1,371,000 lbs. of
  U3O8.

55

---

The Canyon deposit is located on mining claims that EFN
acquired in 1982. Drilling completed by EFN in 1983 identified a significant
deposit. EFN drilled an additional 36 holes from May 1983 through April 1985 to
delineate the uranium mineralization and to determine placement of the mine
shaft and water supply well. Additional drilling of six holes was completed in
1994. Development of the site was discontinued as a result of low uranium
prices.

The Pinenut Mine was developed in 1989 after 29 holes were
drilled from the surface. A shaft was then sunk to 1380 feet and five
development drifts were excavated. Four hundred and eighty three long holes were
drilled to define the ore body and mining of a large, high grade ore zone was
commenced on the lowest level. In 1991, due to dropping uranium prices, the mine
was put on standby after having produced 25,807 tons of ore at an average grade
of 1.02% U3O8 containing 526,350 pounds
U3O8 in 1989.Since  the Technical Report, mining at the Pinenut Mine
re-commenced in mid-2013 and is expected to continue until the second quarter of
2015. Since 1989 a total of 76,550 tons of ore at an average grade of 0.71
U3O8, containing approximately 1,084,500 pounds of
U3O8 have been produced from the mine.

The Wate Project was discovered in the mid 1980s by Rocky
Mountain Energy and contains several drill holes with + 0.50%
eU3O8 mineralization grades and an exploration potential
(historically estimated resources) of between 70,000 tons grading 0.80%
eU3O8(1.1 million contained pounds
eU3O8), and 146,000 tons grading 0.83%
eU3O8 (2.4 million contained pounds
eU3O8). Historical drilling encountered reported ore
grade mineralization in 17 of 23 drill holes.

The EZ Complex was drilled in the 1980s by Pathfinder.
Pathfinder drilled 81 holes for a total of 139,118 feet. Pathfinder entered into
a joint venture with EFN and prepared mineral resource estimates for the two
deposits in 1988. At the time of International Uranium Corporations
(IUC) acquisition of EFNs mining properties in 1997, the
EFN/Pathfinder joint venture was terminated and control of the EZ 1 and EZ 2
projects reverted back to Pathfinder. Denison acquired the EZ 1 and EZ 2
projects from Pathfinder in 2007.

EFN identified and investigated more than 4,000 circular
features in northern Arizona. About 110 of the most prospective features were
explored by deep drilling, and approximately 50% of those drilled were shown to
contain uranium mineralization. Ultimately, nine deposits were deemed worthy of
development. Total mine production from the EFN breccia pipes from 1980 through
1991 was approximately 19.1 million pounds U3O8 at an average grade of just over
0.60% U3O8.

Most of the EFN assets were acquired by Denisons predecessor
IUC in 1997 and by the Company in June 2012 upon acquisition of the US Mining
Division. Since that time, Denison and then Energy Fuels has maintained
ownership of the Kanab North, Pinenut, Arizona 1, and Canyon deposits. All other
EFN breccia pipe prospects were dropped by Denison. In addition to the EFN
breccia pipe deposits, Denison acquired several additional breccia pipe deposits
(EZ 1, EZ 2, WHAT, WHY, NOT, John, Lisa, Otto and DB 1) and one sandstone type
deposit (Moonshine Springs) from Pathfinder, all of which were acquired by
Energy Fuels as part of the US Mining Division. In February, 2015, the Company
acquired its 50% interest in the Wate Project from VANE Minerals US, LLC.

Geological Setting

Parts of two distinct physiographic provinces are found within
Arizona: the Basin and Range province in the southern and western edge of the
state, and the Colorado Plateau province in most of northern and central
Arizona. The Arizona Strip lies within the Colorado Plateau province.

56

---

Surface exposures within the Arizona Strip reveal sedimentary
and volcanic rocks ranging in age from upper Paleozoic to Quaternary; the area
is largely underlain by Mississippian through Triassic sedimentary rocks.
However, exposed within the Grand Canyon are older rocks reaching Precambrian in
age.

Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of northern Arizona are host to
thousands of breccia pipes. These deposits are known to extend from the
Mississippian Redwall Limestone to the Triassic Chinle Formation, which makes
about 4,000 feet of section. However, because of erosion and other factors, no
single deposit has been observed cutting through the entire section. No deposit
is known to occur above the Chinle Formation or below the Redwall Limestone.

Breccia pipes within the Arizona Strip are vertical or near
vertical, circular to elliptical bodies of broken rock. Broken rock is comprised
of slabs and rotated angular blocks and fragments of surrounding and
stratigraphically higher formations. Surrounding the blocks and slabs making up
the breccia is a matrix of fine material comprised of surrounding and overlying
rock from various formations. The matrix has been cemented by silicification and
calcification for the most part.

Breccia pipes are comprised of three interrelated features: a
basinal or structurally shallow depression at surface (designated by some as a
collapse cone); a breccia pipe which underlies the structural depression; and
annular fracture rings which occur outside of, but at the margin of the pipes.
Annular fracture rings are commonly, but not always, mineralized. The structural
depression may range in diameter up to 0.5 miles or more, whereas breccia pipe
diameters range up to about 600 feet; the normal range is 200 feet to 300 feet.

Mineralized breccia pipes found to date appear to occur in
clusters or trends. Spacing between breccia pipes ranges from hundreds of feet
within a cluster to several miles within a trend. Pipe location may have been
controlled by deep seated faults, but karstification of the Redwall Limestone in
Mississippian and Permian times is considered to have initiated formation of the
numerous and widespread breccia pipes in the region.

Arizona 1, in common with all other breccia pipes within the
Arizona Strip, was believed by EFN to have had its origin as a solution collapse
of the Redwall Limestone. This collapse worked its way upward through the
overlying formations where the throat diameter is on the order of 200 feet to
300 feet. Vertical displacement in the throat averages about 175 feet. Uranium
mineralization is distributed irregularly over a depth interval of approximately
650 feet mainly at the level of the Hermit Shale formation to a maximum depth of
about 1,400 feet from surface.

At the Canyon deposit, the surface expression of the pipe is a
broad shallow depression in the Permian Kaibab Formation. The pipe is
essentially vertical with an average diameter of less than 200 feet, but it is
considerably narrower through the Coconino and Hermit horizons (80 feet). The
cross sectional area is probably between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. The pipe
extends for at least 2,300 feet from the Toroweap limestone to the upper Redwall
horizons. The ultimate depth of the deposit is unknown. Mineralization extends
vertically over about 1,700 vertical feet, with ore grade mineralization found
mainly in the Coconino, Hermit, and Esplanade horizons and at the margins of the
pipe in fracture zones. Sulphide zones are found scattered throughout the pipe
but are especially concentrated (sulphide cap) near the Toroweap Coconino
contact, where the cap averages 20 feet thick and consists of pyrite and
bravoite, an iron-nickel sulphide. The ore assemblage consists of
uranium-pyrite-hematite with massive copper sulphide mineralization common in
and near the ore zone. The strongest mineralization appears to occur in the
lower Hermit-upper Esplanade horizons in an annular fracture zone.

57

---

Potentially Economic grade intercepts at the Pinenut deposit occur between depths of 880 ft to 1,370 ft. The entire vertical extent
of the potential mine, when complete, will be less than 600 ft. The uppermost
part of the deposit consists of several isolated ore pods, some of which may be
associated with ring fractures. Other significant yet less prolific
mineralization occurs within the pipe structure proper, but is generally
isolated and sporadic down to 900 ft. The area of the widest mineralization is
found at 1,000 ft. and measures approximately 262 ft. along its major axis and 152
ft. along its minor axis.

Below 900 ft. and to the bottom of the mineralization, the
central part of the mineralized zone is consistent. At its widest, it measures
220 ft. in long dimension and 140 ft. in short dimension. This main section tapers
down to dimensions of 100 ft. by 40 ft. at an elevation of approximately 1,120 ft.

At the Wate Project, Kaibab Limestone crops out at the surface
throughout the breccia pipe. It is overlain by occasional, small outcrops of the
maroon redbeds of the Moenkopi Formation, and where it has subsided into caved
sinkholes or breccia pipes. Drill logs describe both surface formations and
deeper formations.

Uranium mineralization in the EZ 1 and EZ 2 deposits is located
primarily in the Coconino and Hermit horizons. Uranium mineralization in EZ1
occurs at two distinct vertical intervals. The Upper zone is contained within a
400-foot interval 1,170 to 1,560 feet below surface and at its widest point has
a diameter of approximately 183 feet. The Lower zone is at a depth of 1,812 to
2,143 feet and at its widest point has a diameter of 45 feet. At EZ2, the
mineralization occurs in three distinct zones: an Upper, Middle and Lower zone.
The larger Upper zone is mushroom shaped and is approximately 300 feet wide at
its widest point and occurs from 952 feet to 1,153 feet below surface. The
Middle zone is made up of two central deposits surrounded by multiple ring
deposits. The Middle zone array of deposits occurs between depths of 1,194 to
1,356 feet. The Lower zone also is a mushroom shaped deposit from 1,417 to 1,512
feet.

Exploration

Denison did not carry out any exploration on the properties
since the acquisitions in 1997 and 2007, respectively, nor has the Company to
date. Some exploration was conducted on the Wate Project in the mid 1980s and
mid 2000s. Please see History above for information on historic drill
programs.

Exploration for breccia pipes in northern Arizona typically
begins with a search for surface expressions of circular features. This search
was aided by geologic mapping, Landsat aerial photography, thermal infrared
imagery, geochemical testing, and certain geophysical methods such as
resistivity, Very Low Frequency (VLF), and time domain electromagnetics. Other
techniques tested included: geobotany, microbiology, and biogeochemistry. All of
these methods were utilized to identify surface expressions of breccia pipes.
The key element of the process was to zero in on the throat of the pipe as a
locus for drilling from the surface since the throat is usually associated
directly with the center of the collapse.

Mineralization

In the breccia pipe deposits, uranium occurs largely as blebs,
streaks, small veins, and fine disseminations of uraninite/pitchblende.
Mineralization is mainly confined to matrix material, but may extend into clasts
and larger breccia fragments, particularly where these fragments are of Coconino
sandstone. An extensive suite of anomalous elements has also been reported,
including: silver, arsenic, barium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, cesium, copper,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, lead, antimony, selenium, strontium, vanadium, and
zinc. In addition, many of the rare earth elements are consistently enriched in
uranium-mineralized samples. Within some pipes copper occurs in sufficient
concentrations to be economic. Silver is almost always anomalously high and some
of the pipes carry potentially economic grades. Within many pipes, there is a definite mineralogical
zoning in and around the uranium mineralization.

58

---

The Pipes are surrounded by bleached zones where unaltered red
sediments contrast sharply with grey-green bleached material. Age dating and
disequilibrium determinations indicate that remobilization of uranium has
occurred. Uranium concentrations in the upper levels of a pipe tend to be in
equilibrium. With depth, disequilibrium in the deposits increases in favour of
the chemical assays.

Uranium mineralization within Arizona 1 extends significantly
in the vertical dimension. Continuous drill hole intersections of several tens
of feet with grades exceeding 1.00% eU3O8 or more are not
uncommon. The maximum continuous surface drill hole intersection was 92.5 feet
at an average grade of 1.55% eU3O8. On average, the 17
drill holes from surface which had intersected uranium mineralization recorded
75 feet of 0.62% eU3O8.

Uranium mineralization at the Pinenut deposit includes ore
bearing intercepts, the uppermost of which is at an elevation of 4563 ft. above
sea level (depth from surface = 879 ft.); and the lowermost of which occurs at
4074 ft. (1,372 ft. depth). The uppermost part of the mine consists of several
isolated ore bodies which may be associated with a ring fracture system.
Other, less prolific mineralized material occurs within the pipe body proper but
remains isolated and sporadic down to elevation 4440 ft. Below 4440 ft.
elevation and to the bottom of the mineralization the central part of the ore
body remains consistent. At its widest it measures 220 ft. in long dimension and
140 ft. in short dimension. This main section tapers slowly down to dimensions
100 ft. by 40 ft. at an elevation of approximately 4220 ft., below which
historical mining has removed all ore grade material.

Uranium mineralization at Canyon is concentrated in three
stratigraphic levels: Coconino, Hermit/Esplanade, and a lower zone.
Mineralization extends vertically from a depth of 600 feet to over 2,100 feet.
Intercepts range widely up to several tens of feet with grades in excess of
1.00% eU3O8.Twenty-two drill holes from surface
encountered uranium mineralization averaging 100 feet of 0.45%
eU3O8.

Uranium mineralization at the Wate Project shows nearly
vertical circular to elliptical column of brecciated rock that has a slight
plunge to the north with a diameter of 170 ft. at 1,200 ft. in depth, narrows to
60 ft. in diameter at 1,600 ft. depth, and expands to 160 ft. diameter at 1,700
ft. depth and below. The Hermit shale/Esplanade sandstone contact is at about
1,500 ft. in depth, which is approximately the location of the best thickness
and grade of mineralization. The average grade for uranium mineralization is
+0.80% eU3O8.

Uranium mineralization in EZ1 occurs at two distinct vertical
intervals. The Upper zone is contained within a 400-foot interval 1,170 to 1,560
feet below surface and at its widest point has a diameter of approximately 183
feet. The Lower zone is at a depth of 1,812 to 2,143 feet and at its widest
point has a diameter of 45 feet. At EZ2, the mineralization occurs in three
distinct zones: an Upper, Middle and Lower zone. The larger Upper zone is
mushroom shaped and is approximately 300 feet wide at its widest point and
occurs from 952 feet to 1,153 feet below surface. The Middle zone is made up of
two central deposits surrounded by multiple ring deposits. The Middle zone array
of deposits occurs between depths of 1,194 to 1,356 feet. The Lower zone also is
a mushroom shaped deposit from 1,417 to 1,512 feet.

Drilling

Shallow drilling was often conducted to locate the center of
the collapse feature as a guide to the throat of the underlying breccia pipe.
The basic tool for exploring breccia pipes in northern Arizona is deep rotary drilling supplemented by core drilling, to a depth of 2,000
feet or more from surface. Prospective pipes were usually first tested with
three drill holes. If no mineralization was present, the effort was
abandoned.

59

---

Exploration drilling of breccia pipes is a difficult process.
Substantial depths, approximately 2,000 feet, small targets, approximately 200
feet in diameter, and non-homogeneous rock formations combine to limit the
accuracy of the drilling process. The presence of cavernous and brecciated
sediments near the present land surface can result in loss of circulation of
drilling fluid; as a result, much drilling is conducted blind. Periodic spot
cores are taken to determine whether or not holes are within the target
structure or have drifted away from the pipe. Indeed, most pipes cannot be
completely drilled out from the surface due to deviation from desired targets.
All drill holes are surveyed for deviation and logged with gamma logging
equipment.

If surface drilling provides sufficient encouragement that a
mine can be developed, on that basis a vertical shaft is sunk or drilled to its
ultimate depth and underground drill stations are established at various levels
to provide platforms for further exploration and delineation drilling. Drilling
from underground stations typically utilizes large bore percussion drills. The
resulting drill holes, out to as much as approximately 300 feet or so, are then
gamma logged and surveyed as a supplement to surface drilling.

Energy Fuels drilling activities at the Arizona 1 and Pinenut
mines have focused on underground drilling. No recent drilling has occurred at
the Canyon or EZ properties. A total of 23 drillholes were drilled at the Wate
Project in the mid 1980s, to depths up to 2,000 ft. Eleven holes were drilled
in the mid 2000s.

EFN explored the Arizona 1 pipe with a total of 253 drill
holes, including: 18 core holes from underground drill stations with a total
footage of 6,122 ft.; 17 rotary holes from surface with a total footage of
25,289 ft., and 218 long holes from underground drill stations with a total
footage of 36,189 ft. Thus, total drill footage drilled at Arizona 1 amounts to
about 67,600 ft. Mine development of the Arizona 1 deposit began in 1990 but was
suspended in 1992, with the shaft at a depth of 1,254 ft. Denison recommenced
development work on the Arizona 1 deposit in April 2007 and restarted mining
operations in 2009 when the air quality permit was received. The Canyon deposit
is located on mining claims that EFN acquired from Gulf Mineral Resources
Company (Gulf) in 1982. Gulf drilled eight exploration holes at the
site from 1978 through May 1982 but found only low-grade uranium in this pipe.
Additional drilling completed by EFN in 1983 identified a major deposit. EFN
drilled a further 36 holes from May 1983 through April 1985 to delineate the
uranium mineralization and to determine placement of the mine shaft and water
supply well. Additional drilling of six holes was completed in 1994. In the
1980s, Pathfinder Mines Corporation (Pathfinder) explored the EZ1 and EZ2
deposits. Pathfinder drill-tested the EZ1 pipe with 34 rotary holes for a total
of 63,100 ft (19,235 m) and the EZ2 pipe with 47 rotary holes for a total of
76,018 ft (23,169 m). Energy Fuels has not drilled any holes on the two EZ
deposits since it acquired the property.

Sampling Method and Approach

All the historical drill holes on Energy Fuels Arizona Strip
breccia pipe properties were gamma logged and surveyed for deviation. These data
provide the basic building blocks from which quantities of mineralized material
are estimated. Core holes were drilled to supplement this data, to provide
information for determination of disequilibrium, and to accommodate material for
metallurgical testing. This process was consistent with industry standards at
the time and the work carried out by EFN is judged by RPA to have been of
suitable quality.

All of the basic data for calculation of quantities and grades
of mineralized material for the Arizona 1, Pinenut, Canyon, Wate and EZ1 and EZ2
deposits was derived directly by gamma log interpretation.

60

---

Numerous checks were completed on this data by means of
chemical assays, closed-can assays, and various beta gamma analyses.

RPA noted in the two technical reports that all gamma log
grades listed and discussed utilize an eU3O8characterization. SRK Consulting noted in its technical report for the
Wate Project that gamma log grades listed and discussed utilize an
eU3O8characterization. The e preceding
U3O8indicates that the respective grades are equivalent
U3O8grades based on an assumed direct correlation between
gamma-ray intensity, as measured by the gamma logging tools, and uranium
content. Such is not always the case and the correlation must always be checked
by chemical and radiometric assays of core samples or by direct neutron
activation means. EFN performed extensive checks on core and the available
results seem to confirm the general correlation, but detailed test results are
not available for review.

Industry standards for uranium exploration in the western
United States are based almost completely on the gamma logging process with a
number of checks, including: (i) frequent calibration of logging tools, (ii)
core drilling and chemical analysis of core as a check on gamma log values and
the potential for disequilibrium; (iii) possible closed-can analysis as an
adjunct to chemical assays; and (iv) possible gamma logging by different tools
and/or companies.

Security of Samples

There are no specific provisions for security of data or
samples other than those employed for confidentiality. The previous property
owners are deemed to have met or exceeded industry standards for the exploration
process.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

Initial Mineral Resource estimates were prepared for the
Arizona 1, Canyon, Pinenut and EZ Complex deposits using historical drill hole
data provided by Energy Fuels. RPA interpreted a set of cross sections and plan
views to construct 3-D grade-shell wireframe models at 0.2%
eU3O8. Variogram parameters were interpreted and
eU3O8grades were estimated in the block model using
kriging. The grade-shell wireframes were used to constrain the grade
interpolation. All blocks within the 0.2% eU3O8grade-shellwireframes, regardless of grade, were included in
the Mineral Resource estimate.

Mineral Resource estimates were prepared for the Wate Project
using drill hole data provided to SRK Consulting by VANE Minerals (US) LLC, the
Companys predecessor in the Wate Project. SRK Consulting created wireframe
shapes of mineralization using all drillhole data at a cutoff of
0.15%eU3O8.

There are no Mineral Reserves estimated at  any of the six deposits at this time. Due to difficulties encountered in validating historical data, all  Mineral Resources were classified as Inferred despite dense drilling from  underground in some areas. In June 2012,  RPA estimated the Inferred Mineral Resources for Arizona 1, Canyon, Pinenut,  EZ-1 and EZ-2, as shown in the table below. The current resources following mining at Arizona 1 and Pinenut after  the June 2012 RPA estimate is shown in the Mineral Resource Update table in the  next subsection. In March 2015 SRK  Consulting estimated the Inferred Mineral Resources for Wate shown below.

Arizona Strip Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates(1)(4)

Tons (,000)
    Grade (%)
      eU3O8(2)(3)
    Contained eU3O8
    (,000 lbs)Arizona 1(5)
    54
    0.64
    685Canyon
    82.5
    0.98
    1,629Pinenut
    95
    0.55
    1,037


61

---

EZ 1
    110.5
    0.51
    1,127EZ 2
    113.7
    0.43
    978Wate(6)
    71
    0.79
    1,118


Notes:

| | (1) | The Mineral Resource estimates comply with the
      requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM
      definition standards.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2) | Interval grades were converted from the gamma log data
      and are therefore equivalent U3O8(eU3O8).                                            
| | (3) | High eU3O8grades were cut to 6% at
      Arizona 1, 10% at Canyon, 8% at Pinenut, EZ 1 and EZ 2, and 18% at
      Wate.                           
| | (4) | See Tables below for updated remaining resources
      following the 2014-FY mining at Arizona 1 and Pinenut                                      
| | (5) | The Arizona 1 Mine was placed on standby in February 2014
      due to the depletion of the economic resources.                                   
| | (6) | The resource shown for Wate is the total; the  Company currently owns 50%                                                                         

The Mineral Resource estimates for the EZ1, and EZ2 mines may
be materially affected by the mineral withdrawal described in Energy Fuels
Business  Government Regulations  Land Tenure below. In the event the EZ1
and EZ2, properties are found to not have valid, existing rights, the Mineral
Resource estimates for those properties may be reduced to zero.

In its feasibility studies of the various Arizona Strip breccia
pipes compiled during the 1980s and 1990s, EFN typically used a cut-off grade of
0.15% U3O8. A reasonable cut-off grade for long term
sustainable market conditions would be approximately 0.20%
U3O8. This cut-off grade was applied by RPA to the Arizona
1, Canyon, Pinenut, EZ1 and EZ2 breccia pipe deposits. RPA applied a tonnage
factor of 13 ft.3 which had been used in the historical resources and
substantiated by Hack Canyon mines production data. SRK Consulting used a
cut-off grade of 0.15% eU3O8 for the Wate Project
technical report.

Mineral Resource and Reserve Update

Since the Mineral Resource estimates were prepared by RPA, the
Mineral Resources have been updated for the Pinenut and Canyon operations by the
Company. Furthermore, at Arizona 1, mining operations have been underway since
late 2009. In February 2014, the Arizona 1 Mine was placed on standby due to the
depletion of the economic resources. The Pinenut was in full operation
throughout 2014 and is expected to continue to produce through the second quarter
of 2015. As a result of the updates and the mining operations, the following
illustrates the current Mineral Resource estimates for the Arizona Strip
properties.

Arizona Strip Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate Update

Resources
    Dec. 31, 2013 Resources (,000
      lbs.) U3O8
    Production(1)/ Depletion
      (,000 lbs.) U3O8
    Exploration / 
      Engineering(2)(3)Change (,000 lbs.) U3O8
    Net Resource Change (,000 lbs.)
      U3O8
    2015 Resources (,000 lbs.)
      U3O8Arizona 1(4)
    82
    (43)
    0
    (43)
    39Canyon
    1,629
    0
    0
    0
    1,629Pinenut(1)
    612
    (335)
    (8)
    (343)
    269EZ 1
    1,127
    0
    0
    0
    1,127EZ 2
    978
    0
    0
    0
    978Wate(5)
    1,118
    0
    0
    0
    1,118


Notes:

| | (1) | Includes production from December 31, 2013 through
      December 31, 2014.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2) | Large areas of the original resource were inaccessible to
      reconciliation due to the nature of the mining method (open stoping). At
      Arizona 1, this number represents an estimate of that part of the original
      resource removed based on production sent to the mill.                                                                              
| | (3) | At Pinenut, this number reflects an engineering
      adjustment due to a deviation error (in database) discovered as mining
      began. At the same time, the economic cut-off has been raised from 0.2%
      U3O8to 0.3% U3O8cut-off.
      Some of the 2015 Resources at Pinenut are already broken material in
      surface stockpiles (approx.. 142,000 lbs)

| | (4) | The Arizona 1 Mine was placed on standby in February 2014
      due to the depletion of the economic resources.          
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (5) | The resource shown for Wate is the total; the  Company acquired a 50%
    interest in the Wate Project in February, 2015.

62

---

Mining Operations

The Discussion provided here by the Company
  has been updated since the Technical Report

The Arizona 1 and Pinenut deposits are mined using a
combination of long hole and shrinkage stoping as described in Section 6
History contained in the Arizona Strip Technical Report. The Pinenut mine is
projected to operate through the 2ndquarter of 2015. The Arizona 1
Mine is now on care and maintenance.

The Pinenut Mine is a producing underground uranium mine. The
Pinenut Mine was partially developed in the late 1980s, and a limited amount of
selective mining was conducted. A shaft was sunk to a depth of 1,350 feet and a
high grade pod was mined in late summer 1988, yielding about 25,500 tons grading
1.03% U3O8 containing about 526,000 pounds. Following
extraction of the high grade pod, the mine wasplaced on standby in
1989. In November 2010, a production decision was made on the Pinenut Mine.
Expansion of the storm water storage pond and rehabilitation of the surface
facilities were completed in 2011. Following the filing of the Technical Report,
first ore production resumed in June 2013. From the resumption of mining to the
end of calendar year 2014, production amounted to about 50,750 tons at an
average grade of 0.55% U3O8. Uranium production is
expected to total approximately 268,000 additional pounds
U3O8 by the time the mine is expected to recover all
economic resources; projected to be in the 2nd quarter 2015.

The Canyon Project is a permitted and partially-developed
uranium mine. Surface facilities were constructed in 1986, and the shaft was
collared and sunk to approximately 50 feet, prior to the mine being placed on
standby in 1992. After the Technical Report was written, Energy Fuels resumed
development of the Canyon Project in 2013. Activities included refurbishment of
the evaporation pond and recertification of site mechanical and electrical
installations. Shaft sinking begin in February 2013, with a total of 224 feet of
shaft advanced during FY 2013. The development was stopped in November 2013 due
to the continuing low market price of uranium. On February 6, 2015, the Company
announced plans to restart mining activities at Canyon. To complete the mine,
the Company expects to sink an additional 1,200 feet of shaft, install a
ventilation shaft, and complete underground development.

The Kanab North mine is in reclamation and  a closure plan has been approved for reclamation of the mine site. Reclamation is currently underway.

There are no infrastructure or mining operations in place at
the Wate Project, EZ Complex or other of Energy Fuels Arizona Strip properties.

Permitting

Prior to 2009, the Arizona 1 Mine had received all permits
necessary to mine, with the exception of an air quality permit. The air quality
permit was issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) after a period of public comment, in September 2009, and renewed
in 2014. The Arizona 1 Mine has an Individual Aquifer Protection Permit with
ADEQ and an approved PO with the BLM. A National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) application for radon emissions was submitted
to the EPA in April 2013 when it became apparent that the life of mine ore
production would exceed the exemption threshold of 100,000 tons. That
application was approved by the EPA on July 1, 2013.

The Pinenut Mine and Canyon Project are located on public lands
managed by the BLM and USFS, respectively. Both mines have approved POs with
these agencies. In September 2009, the groundwater General permits were received for the stormwater storage ponds
for both mines. Air Quality Permits for the Pinenut and Canyon projects were
issued by ADEQ in March 2011. EPAs approval of the Pinenut Mine NESHAPs
application for radon emissions was obtained in April 2011. Although the Canyon
Mine is estimated to contain 82,800 tons of ore, which is less than the 100,000
tons of ore required to trigger the need for a NESHAPs approval, the Company
nevertheless plans to voluntarily submit an application for NESHAPs approval
for the Canyon Mine in the first quarter of 2015, in order to be prepared in the
event the total tons of ore over the life of the mine were to exceed 100,000
tons.

63

---

The Wate Project is currently awaiting an Arizona State Land
Department lease, which will confer the right to mine and ship ores and to
conduct all support operations, similar to a mining permit in other
jurisdictions. In addition to the state lease, the Company expects to move
forward to acquire additional state aquifer protection and air quality permits.

The BLM had previously accepted the PO for the EZ1/EZ2 deposits
as complete; however, the PO is currently being revised to reflect a new mining
plan in which the EZ1 deposit will be mined first rather than concurrently with
the EZ2 deposit. The revised PO will need to be determined complete by the BLM
and a Mineral Examination will need to be completed by the BLM for the project
before an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)can be initiated.

In July 2009, the BLM issued a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal
(2009 Notice). See Government Regulation  Land Tenure  United
States below. In January 2012, the Secretary of the Interior implemented
the withdrawal of approximately one million acres of public land in the Arizona
Strip from mineral entry proposed in the 2009 Notice, subject to valid existing
rights. To confirm the rights to proceed with development and mining on its
existing valid rights, the USFS completed a Mineral Examination for the Canyon
Project, which confirmed that the mineral claims underlying the Canyon Project
are valid existing rights. Mineral examinations have not been required by BLM on
the Arizona 1 and Pinenut mines, as they had previously approved Plans of
Operations. Mineral examinations need to be completed by the BLM for the EZ
Complex and other Company projects within the withdrawal area, prior to further
permitting on those projects. The Wate Project is not located within the
withdrawal area, and as a result, will not require a mineral examination and is
not otherwise impacted by the withdrawal.

Metallurgical Testing

Test work completed on samples from the Canyon pipe during 1984
indicated 99% leach extraction with 25 g/l of free acid at a pH of 0.8. Leach
retention time was 48 hours at 70oC with a sodium chlorate addition of 16 pounds
per ton.

Recovery Methods

All mineralized material produced from the Arizona 1, Pinenut,
Canyon, Wate, and EZ deposits on the Arizona Strip will be processed at Energy
Fuels White Mesa mill near Blanding, southeastern Utah. The White Mesa mill is
located six miles south of Blanding. Due to uranium market variability, the Mill
has frequently operated on a campaign basis in order to provide intervals for
stockpiling sufficient ore to operate the mill at capacity. Treatment of higher
grade ores from the Arizona Strip required certain minor modification to the
leaching circuit and is at a rate somewhat lower than nominal capacity. The
basic mill process is a sulfuric acid leach with solvent extraction recovery of
uranium and vanadium. Run-of-mine ore is reduced to minus 28 mesh in a six-foot
by 18-ft. diameter semiautogenous grinding (SAG) mill. Leaching of the
ore is accomplished in two stages: a pre-leach and a hot acid leach. The first,
or pre-leach, circuit, consisting of two mechanically agitated tanks, utilizes
pregnant (high-grade) strong acid solution from the countercurrent decantation
(CCD) circuit which serves both to initiate the leaching process and to
neutralize excess acid. The pre-leach circuit discharges to a 125-ft. thickener
where the underflow solids are pumped to the second stage leach and the
overflow solution is pumped to clarification, filtration, and solvent extraction
circuits. A hot strong acid leach is used in the second stage leach unit, which
consists of seven mechanically agitated tanks having a retention time of 24
hours. Free acid is controlled at 70 grams per litre and the temperature is
maintained at 75°C. Leached pulp is washed and thickened in the CCD circuit,
which consists of eight high capacity thickeners. Underflow from the final
thickener at 50% solids is discharged to the tailings area. Overflow from the
first thickener (pregnant solution) is returned to the pre-leach tanks. The
solvent extraction (SX) circuit consists of four extraction stages in which
uranium in pregnant solution is transferred to the organic phase, a mixture
consisting of 2.5% amine, 2.5% isodeconal, and 95% kerosene. Loaded organic is
pumped to six stages of stripping by a 1.5 molar sodium chloride solution, and
thence to a continuous ammonia precipitation circuit. Precipitated uranium is
settled, thickened, centrifuged, and dried at 1,200°F. The final product at
about 95% U3O8is packed into 55-gallon drums for
shipment.

64

---

Current and Contemplated Exploration and Development
Activities

Energy Fuels plans to continue mining at the Pinenut mine until
mid-2015, at which time the mine is expected to have recovered all economic
mineralized material. No additional exploration activities are expected at this
project.

At the Canyon Project, preparations have begun to restart
active mining operations at the Canyon mine. Surface development at the Canon
mine, including a headframe, evaporation pond, hoist, environmental controls,
and an office/maintenance facility is in place, and approximately 280 feet of
shaft has been sunk. To complete the mine, the Company expects to sink an
additional 1,200 feet of shaft, install a ventilation shaft, and complete
underground development. The Canyon Project is estimated to contain 1.63 million
pounds of uranium with an average grade of 0.98% eU3O8. In
November 2013, the Company entered into a stipulation agreement, which was
extended in November 2014, under which the Company has agreed to keep shaft
sinking operations on standby until the earlier of the date the District Court
issues a final appealable order on the merits of the Plaintiffs claims, or
April 15, 2015, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to stay their appeal and
Emergency Motions. See Legal Proceeding and Regulatory Actions section below
for further detail on the Canyon Project litigation.

At the Arizona 1 Mine, ore production has ceased due to the
depletion of the economic resource. The Company completed additional drilling to
determine if additional resources remain on the property. Low-grade resources
are known to exist at depths below the deepest mine workings, but are considered
uneconomic under current market conditions.

65

---

The Daneros Mine



Unless otherwise stated, the following description of the
Daneros Mine is derived from a technical report titled The Daneros Mine
Project, San Juan County, Utah, U.S.A., dated July 18, 2012, prepared by
Douglas C. Peters, Certified Professional Geologist, of Peters Geosciences,
Golden, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Daneros Mine Technical
Report). The author of the Daneros Mine Technical Report is a qualified
person and is independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The
Daneros Mine Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

Project Location and Description

The property is in the Red Canyon portion of the White Canyon
District. EFI holds a 100% interest in various groups of mining claims,
including Daneros and adjoining historical mine sites which can be developed in
conjunction with the Daneros project.

The project comprises 219 unpatented mining claims located on
federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in San
Juan County, Utah, totaling 4,300 acres. (Since the Technical Report was
written, EFI has reduced the property position around the periphery, without
affecting the Mineral Resource as described in the Technical Report. EFI added a
Utah State mineral lease of 640 acres in Section 32, T36S, R16E. The property
now consists of 141 unpatented mining claims plus the State lease totaling
approximately 3,450 acres.). The Daneros Mine is located 4.8 miles from Fry
Canyon, Utah and is accessed via Radium King Road for approximately 14 miles,
which is maintained by San Juan County. The property lies in Sections 1, (11,
and 12 were dropped in 2014) T37S, R15E, SLM, Sections (4 dropped in 2014), 5,
6, 7, 8, (10, 11, 15, 17 dropped in 2014), and 18, T37S, R16E. (and Section 31
and 33, T36S, R16E dropped in 2014). The mining claims are maintained by making
annual payments of US$140 per claim to BLM due September 1st each year (BLM
increase the fee to $155/claim in 2014) and a nominal filing fee at the county
level, within 30 days of the BLM filing, of about $10 per claim. Work
expenditures are not required. Holders of unpatented mining claims are generally
granted surface access to conduct mineral exploration and mining activities.
However, additional mine permits and plans are generally required prior to
conducting exploration or mining activities on such claims. EFIs holdings in
the White Canyon District include the actively producing Daneros Mine and
adjoining and nearby exploration properties.

A number of the claims bear production royalties. Claims
hosting Daneros deposit are subject to royalties ranging between 15% of "market
value" of the ore and 2.5% of gross proceeds as described in further detail in the Daneros Mine Technical report. Other claims are
owned by EFI without encumbrances. The State lease added since the Technical
Report carries the standard Utah royalty of 8% on uranium and 4% on
vanadium.

66

---

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography

The Daneros Mine is located 4.8 miles from Fry Canyon, Utah and
is accessed via Radium King Road for approximately 14 miles, which is maintained
by San Juan County. The mine facilities consist of a modular trailer for the
mine office, two reinforced mine portals, a generator building, and an equipment
storage and maintenance building. Two ventilation shafts daylight on the
topographic bench above the mine. The bench above the mine, where past drilling
also had been conducted, is accessed by a dirt road connecting to the mine
access road south of the mine portal area. The ore shipping distance from
Daneros to the Companys White Mesa Mill is 65 miles along county roads and
state highways.

The semi-arid climate of the White Canyon area is characterized
by large daily and yearly temperature ranges and total annual precipitation of
approximately 10 to 16 inches, mostly as sporadic, intense summer thunderstorms
typical of the Colorado Plateau region. Winter snowfall is moderate and rarely
stays on the ground very long. Weather conditions pose no impediment to year
round work on the property.

Apart from previous mining activities, the only commercial land
use purposes are cattle grazing and tourism activities such as hiking and
mountain biking. Due to a shortage of water and thin soils, much of the White
Canyon area is unsuitable for agriculture.

The project area is remotely located relative to water and
power infrastructure. Housing for mine workers is mostly in camp trailers in Fry
Canyon or they commute from Blanding, Utah 65-miles to the east or farther.
Blanding is a town large enough to host regional industrial activities including
stores and supply houses of sufficient size and inventory to meet most of the
needs of an operation the size of the Daneros mine.

The project area is located along a north-south trending canyon
which is a tributary to Red Canyon, also known as Bullseye Canyon. The Red
Canyon drainage flows westerly for approximately 25 miles to the Colorado River
where it joins Lake Powell at the head of Good Hope Bay. The mine portal area
comprises steeply sloping, rocky ground and scree along the eastern slope of
Bullseye Canyon. Very steep to vertical, and at times overhanging, cliffs 400
feet high rise from the slope about 250 feet above the portal.

Vegetation in the project area consists of sagebrush, juniper
and piñon in the hills and slopes, while desert grasses, forbs, and shrubs are
evident within the valley floors and on the mesa tops. Elevations in the region
range from about 5,300 feet at the Fry Canyon townsite to over 7,000 feet on the
surrounding mesa tops. The mine portal is at about 5,750 feet above sea level.

Sufficient surface rights are in place for contemplated mining
operations and waste storage. Since no milling activities are contemplated on
the project, no areas are required for tailings storage, heap leach pads, or
processing plant sites.

History

The White Canyon mining district has a long history of
exploration and mining. From 19491987 production from the district was
2,259,822 tons at an average grade of 0.24% U3O8 for a
total of 11,069,032 lbs. placing it second, behind Lisbon Valley, for
uranium production from the Chinle Formation on the Colorado Plateau.

67

---

The properties in the area remained idle until 1946. From 1948
until 1951, White Canyon and the nearby Red Canyon and Deer Flat areas were
subject to intense exploration. The AEC ore procurement program ended on
December 31, 1970 and during the early 1970s minimum production was recorded
from the district. Production from the district started picking up again by 1974
when the demand for uranium picked up due to nuclear power generation.
Exploration and production once again increased in the White Canyon District. In
1974, Utah Power and Light Company (UP&L) began to acquire properties in
the White Canyon District, which included 100% interest in the Spook-Bullseye
property and 60% interest in the Lark-Royal property both located near the
Daneros property in Red Canyon. Between 1975 and 1985, Utah Power & Light
conducted several phases of drilling leading to definition of the Lark, Royal,
and Bullseye deposits near the modern day Daneros Mine. UP&L never started
mining operations in the White Canyon District due to the collapse of the
uranium price by 1982. By 1987 the last mines in the White Canyon district
closed due to declining economics, socio-political factors and competition from
lower cost producers. Following 1987, the properties were idle and little or no
exploration activity took place in the White Canyon District. In 1993 UP&L
dropped their mining claims in the White Canyon District. In October 1993,
Eugene and Merwin Shumway staked the Daneros claims that covered the deposits
UP&L had discovered. Eugene and Merwin Shumway quitclaimed their claims to
predecessors of White Canyon Uranium (WCU), Wilene and Mike Shumway, Terry
Leach, and James Lammert in March, 1994. No exploration or development took
place between 1994 and 2005. From 2005 to 2007, these predecessors of WCU began
acquiring properties with known historic mineral deposits in the White Canyon
District. In 2007, Utah Commodities Pty, Ltd. who later changed their name to
White Canyon Uranium Limited, which operates in the United States through its
wholly owned subsidiary Utah Energy Corporation, acquired 100% interest of the
Daneros claims. In December 2008, White Canyon purchased 33 claims, known as the
Lark-Royal Project, an extension of the Daneros Project, from Uranium One. The
Daneros Mine was developed and placed into active production by Utah Energy
Corporation.

WCU gathered the necessary environmental data and submitted
applications for approvals to open an underground mine at Daneros. A Plan of
Operation (PO) was submitted to the BLM and was approved in May, 2009, following
which UEC commenced active mine development, including driving a decline into
the main deposit at Daneros. The first loads of ore from Daneros were delivered
to White Mesa Mill in December, 2009, then operated by Denison Mines. In January
2010, Denison entered into a toll milling agreement with UEC, which was then a
wholly-owned subsidiary of WCUL. See Energy Fuels Business  Operations 
Ore Purchase and Toll Millingabove.

In 2011, Denison acquired all of the issued and outstanding
shares of WCUL. In June 2012, Energy Fuels acquired all of the issued and
outstanding shares of WCUL as part of its acquisition of the US Mining Division,
including the Daneros Mine and WCULs subsidiary UEC (which is now called EFR
White Canyon Corp.) keeping the mine in operation using the same contractors
(until placing it on standby in October 2012 after the Technical Report was
written. Production by Denison and EFI from 2010 through 2012 was approximately
123,000 tons at an average grade of 0.288% U3O8 containing
about 708,000 lbs.)

Geological Setting

Major uranium deposits of the east-central Colorado Plateau
District occur principally in two fluvial sandstone sequences. The older is
located at or near the base of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and the other
occurs in the Late Jurassic Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation. The main
uranium-bearing unit at the Daneros Mine and throughout the White Canyon
district is the fluvial Shinarump Member, a basal, sandstone-conglomerate
sequence deposited in a complex stream system which unconformably overlies and
locally scours into oxidized sedimentary units of the Moenkopi Formation.

68

---

The Shinarump Member consists of predominantly
trough-crossbedded, coarse-grained sandstone and minor gray, carbonaceous
mudstone and is interpreted as a valley-fill sequence overlain by deposits of a
braided stream system. Uranium mineralization appears to be related to
low-energy depositional environments in that uranium is localized in fluvial
sandstones that lie beneath organic-rich lacustrine-marsh mudstones and
carbonaceous delta-front sediments. The reducing environment preserved in these
facies played an important role in the localization of uranium.

Uranium deposits consist of closely-spaced, lenticular ore pods
which are generally concordant with bedding in paleochannel sediments. Single
ore pods range from a few feet to a few hundred feet in length and from less
than one to more than 10 feet in thickness. Deposits range in size from a few
tons to more than 600,000 tons. The Shinarump deposits generally have low
vanadium content, and are therefore not processed for vanadium recovery.

The uranium deposit at the Daneros Mine, like nearly all others
in the White Canyon district, is in the lower part of the Shinarump, especially
where it has scoured into the Moenkopi. The lithology, facies, sedimentary
structures, and locations within the channel deposits all were important in
controlling the migration of fluids and localization of the deposits.
Coarser-grained rock is more favorable than fine-grained sand or silt units.
Most of the uranium mineralization is overlying impermeable siltstones of the
Moenkopi or local siltstone lenses internal of the Shinarump. The lateral edges
of channels where they are bounded by mudstones are also favorable locations for
mineralization. Historical production from the White Canyon District exceeds 11
million pounds U3O8.

Exploration

Exploration for uranium has been going on in the White Canyon
area since the late 1940s. Prospectors used Geiger counters to investigate
outcrops of the Shinarump Sandstone. Several macroscopic guides to exploration
were channel scouring, conglomerate pebble type and carbon content; all
characteristic of the Shinarump Ss. Where the bench and slopes above the
Shinarump were accessible, percussion, core, and rotary drilling were used to
explore for and define channels that werent exposed in the outcrop. Access
routes were constructed to the top of some mesas where deeper rotary drilling
was used to access the Shinarump at depth. The history of exploration is closely
tied to the AEC buying program, opening and closing of the several processing
facilities in the region, and the fluctuation of the price of uranium.

Information on hand regarding the uranium assets of White
Canyon Exploration indicated that the Daneros project had been subject to
extensive shallow drilling for uranium by UP&L. White Canyon initiated
confirmation drilling at its Daneros project in June, 2007. Based on the success
of this initial drilling, 38 more holes were drilled in 2008, which provided the
basis for mineral resource estimates relied upon by White Canyon to commence
mine development work at Daneros.

Mineralization

Uraninite (pitchblende) is by far the dominant primary uranium
mineral in the Shinarump deposits. It occurs as distinct grains, fine-grained
coatings on and pore-fillings between detrital quartz grains, partial
replacement of feldspar grains, and as replacement in carbonized wood and other
remains of organic matter. Metallic sulfide minerals are often abundant. Where
secondary oxidation has occurred, minor amounts of uranyl carbonates, sulfates,
and phosphates are found. The source of the uranium is not well established.
Overlying shaley units of the Chinle contain clays derived from volcanic ash
that is uraniferous. The source area of the arkosic sediments was also a
uranium-rich province.

69

---

Drilling

In the early 1950s, the US Atomic Energy Commission conducted
exploratory drilling in the White Canyon area resulting in a number of promising
uranium discoveries. The area in and around Bullseye Canyon, where Daneros is
located, has been a target of this exploration drilling since that time. Between
1975 and 1985 Utah Power & Light (UP&L) explored within and around
Bullseye Canyon area resulting in a number of promising uranium discoveries. The
area in and around Bullseye Canyon, where Daneros is located, has been a target
of this exploration drilling since that time. Also during the AEC exploration
programs, companies were encouraged to mine exploration drifts along promising
geologic trends or channels. As part of this exploration drifting, a company
would drill exploration long-holes underground, to better define a chosen
mineralized zone. Several of these prospects around the EFI property were
drilled in this manner. The Spook Prospect, the Bullseye Prospect and the Cove
(Lark) Prospect were all mined and drilled in this manner along the Cairns
Channel (Texas Zinc and Minerals Map of 1961). Between 1975 and 1985 Utah Power
& Light (UP&L) explored within and around Bullseye Canyon. UP&L
drilled 595 diamond drill holes with an average depth of 510 feet and, following
industry standard procedures, logged all holes using down-hole geophysical
(gamma) probes to identify radioactive horizons. Anomalous horizons were sampled
and analyzed for uranium. WCU began drilling programs in Bullseye Canyon during
2007. The first program drilled 8 holes within the five Daneros claims. A second
program, in 2008 drilled 16 diamond drill holes and 1 rotary drill hole.
Finally, a third program, also in 2008, drilled 11 diamond drill holes and 9
rotary drill holes.

Energy Fuels received an electronic database from WCUL
containing both the results of their recent drilling programs (Daneros holes) as
well as a spread-sheet containing name, location and interval grade data of the
historic UP&L data. AutoCAD Civil 3D was then used to convert the drill hole
collars of the historic drill holes to the current coordinate system and
compared the results to the current survey of several historic drill hole
collars. After slight adjustments for rotation between the two state plane
coordinate systems, it was found that the converted drill hole collars fell
within two feet of the surveyed collars. Energy Fuels considers its conversion
method, as well as its survey method, sound, and as a result considers the
historic UP&L data set satisfactory for use in the Daneros Mine Technical
Report. For the historic drill holes from UP&L, it was assumed that the
holes were vertical and an assumed survey of straight down was assigned them. It
should be noted that, having reviewed the actual down hole survey for the
Daneros holes, lateral deviation at Daneros is minimal. Energy Fuels has
combined both the recent drilling by WCU with the appropriate historic drill
hole data from UP&L to create the database used for the Daneros Mine
Technical Report. All down hole grade data used for the Daneros Mine Technical
Report is based on gamma probe results.

Exploration Notices have also been approved for brown fields
drilling around the Daneros mine. These Notices cover the Daneros and the Lark
and Royal claim areas. Energy Fuels is reviewing plans for additional surface
drilling in the Daneros mine area.

Sampling and Analysis

Industry standards for uranium exploration in the western
United States are based almost completely on the gamma logging process with a
number of checks, including: 1) frequent calibration of logging tools, 2) core
drilling and chemical analysis of core as a check on gamma log values and the
potential for disequilibrium; 3) possible closed-can analysis as an adjunct to
chemical assays; and 4) possible gamma logging by different tools and/or
companies. The radiometric (gamma) probe measures gamma radiation which is
emitted during the natural radioactive decay of uranium. The gamma radiation is
detected by a sodium iodide crystal, which when struck by a gamma ray emits a
pulse of light. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier tube,
which outputs a current pulse. The gamma probe is lowered to the bottom of a drill hole and data is recorded as the tool is
withdrawn up the hole. The current pulse is carried up a conductive cable and
processed by a logging system computer which stores the raw gamma counts per
second (cps) data. If the gamma radiation emitted by the daughter products of
uranium is in balance with the actual uranium content of the measured interval,
then uranium grade can be calculated solely from the gamma intensity
measurement. The result is an indirect measurement of uranium content within the
sphere of measurement of the gamma detector.

70

---

Energy Fuels used the GAMLOG computer program to interpret
gamma-ray logs. The GAMLOG program was developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission. The essence of the method is a trial-and-error iterative process by which U3O8 grades are determined
for a series of 1/2-foot or 1-foot layers which can be considered to comprise the zone under analysis.
The objective of the iterative process is to find a grade for each separate
layer such that an imaginary set of separate gamma-ray anomalies (one from each
separate layer) could be composited to form an over-all anomaly which would
closely match the real anomaly under analysis. Energy Fuels accepts the validity
of the GAMLOG program. There are no specific provisions for security of data or
samples other than those employed for confidentiality. The previous property
owner, Denison Mines, is deemed to have met or exceeded industry standards for
the exploration program.

Security of Sampling

All uranium exploration technical information is obtained,
verified and compiled under a formal QA/QC assurance and quality control program
in the southwestern United States.

The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred
to as "eU3O8" or "equivalent U3O8")
is the sensitivity of the sodium iodide crystal used in each individual probe.
Each probe's sensitivity is measured against a known set of standard "test
pits," with various known grades of uranium mineralization, located at the DOE's
Grand Junction, Colorado office. The ratio of cps to known uranium grade is
referred to as the probe "K-Factor", and this value is determined for every
gamma probe when it is first manufactured and is also periodically checked
throughout the operating life of each probe. Application of the K-Factor, along
with other probe correction factors, allows for immediate grade estimation in
the field as each drill hole is logged. Energy Fuels received the raw data file
for the Daneros drill hole set from Hawkins Geophysical. The data were processed
using Gamlog which converts cps (counts per second) data into equivalent
eU3O8. All factors affecting the gamma flux downhole are accounted for using the Gamlog program and the results are
industry standard acceptable.

Mineral Resource Estimate

Energy Fuels published an Inferred Mineral Resource for the
Daneros property on July 19, 2012, soon after the property was acquired from
Denison, reporting 156,000 tons of mineralized material at an average grade of
0.263% eU3O8for a total of 824,100 lbs. of U3O8. The
current resource estimate, after taking into account production from 2010
through October 17, 2012, is 155,724 tons at an average grade of 0.212%
eU3O8 for a total of 661,000 lbs. of
U3O8.

Energy Fuels has prepared resource estimates for the Daneros
Project, located in Bullseye Canyon of southeastern Utah. This resource estimate
was prepared using both historical as well as recent data. The Daneros Mine
Technical report presents the raw data and model wireframe creation methods. The
suitability of the interpolation technique and search strategies is also
presented. Energy Fuels created a wireframe model of the mineralized zone based
on the outside bound of a 0.15%eU3O8GT contour aswell as the stratigraphic boundaries within which the known mineralization
occurs; the Shinarump Sandstone member of the Triassic Chinle Formation. The raw
data in the DAN database was composited over 2 foot run-length intervals to
generate a preliminary database necessary to create a preliminary block model. A 0.15% eU3O8grade-shell was
created and superimposed upon the boundaries of the GT contourand the
stratigraphic surfaces to create a wireframe model of the mineralized zone in
which to place the following block model and grade interpolation. The Energy
Fuels Daneros database contains two sets of drill holes totaling 300 drill
holes, totaling 141,087 feet. Drill holes in the DAN series have had downhole as
well as collar surveys, down-hole gamma and resistance surveys and, where
available, have had their core assayed. The second set of drill holes are named
the 125 series and the LR series holes. This last set of holes is historic
in nature and their locations, as well as their reported gamma-logged intervals
are historic and the down-hole data contained could not be verified.

71

---

As of 07-17-12 the operating costs for uranium production from
Daneros are approximately $300.00 per ton of ore grade material. Energy Fuels
assumes a reasonable price for their product, U3O8at
$60.00/lb. Therefore, 0.25% U3O8is considered a
reasonable cutoff grade. Energy Fuels considers the base of the Shinarump
Sandstone to be the lowest horizon at which economic mineralization occurs in
the Bullseye Canyon area and therefore represents a solid boundary beyond which
(above) compositing of the Daneros database should begin. There are several
population breaks present with the most significant being at the approximately
the 97th percentile corresponding to a grade of 0.8%
eU3O8. Energy Fuels considers this a reasonable capping
level to avoid the adverse effects of high grade outliers on the data
population. Grades above 0.8% eU3O8were assigned this
value and remain a part of the working dataset. Capping the raw grade dataset at
0.8% eU3O8set back fifty values or 4% of the individual
data in the dataset. Energy Fuels used Vulcan 3D Mine Modeling software to
create the resource estimate. A block model was created where each block was 50
ft. by 50 ft. by 5 ft., with 5 ft. by 5 ft. by 2.5 ft. subblocks. However, as
the grade in conglomerate type uranium deposits has shown a proclivity to follow
channels, the block model was oriented such that it reflects the general
direction and dip of the suspected channel structure in the immediate vicinity
of the Daneros deposit Average grade was compared between the raw
eU3O8values, the average composite values and the average
grades of the blocks All resources are reported as Inferred Mineral Resources.

INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCES  JULY 2012Energy
Fuels Inc Daneros Deposit

DEPOSIT
    TONS
    **%eU3O8**
    LBSDANEROS
    156,600
    0.263
    824,109


Notes:

| | 1) | Mineral Resources were classified in accordance with CIM
      Definition Standards.              
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2) | Cut-off grade was 0.15%
    eU3O8.                                                                
| | 3) | Mineral resources have not been demonstrated to be
      economically viable.                     
| | 4) | Grades were converted from gamma-log and assay data and
      presented in equivalent U3O8(eU3O8).
| | 5) | A grade-shell wireframe at 0.15% eU3O8was used to constrain the grade interpolation.              
| | 6) | All material within the wireframe is included in the
      estimate.                              
| | 7) | High grades were capped at 0.8 %
      eU3O8.                                                     

EFI believes this resource estimate has been prepared using
industry standard best practices and is therefore, acceptable. (After completion
of the Technical Report in June 2012, mining continued through October 2012. The
remaining Inferred Mineral Resource estimate following that mining is
approximately 156,000 tons of material at an average grade of 0.21%
U3O8 containing 661,000 pounds of
U3O8.)

Mining Operations

The mining of all resources in the Daneros Project are by
conventional underground methods. These methods have been used very successfully
in the region for over 70 years. The nature of the Shinarump uranium deposits
require a random room and pillar mining configuration. The deposits have
irregular shapes and occur within several close-spaced, flat or slight-dipping
horizons. Uranium mineralization often rolls between horizons. The use of
rubber-tired equipment allows the miners to follow the ore easily in the slight dips and to ramp up or down to the other
horizons. The deposit is accessed from the surface through a 450 feet long
decline at a gradient of -15%. The Shinarump sandstones are usually quite
competent rock and require only moderate ground support. The overlying mudstones
are less competent, so the decline is often supported by square set timber or
steel arch and timber lagging. The Shinarump deposits are usually thinner than
the mining height needed for personnel and equipment access. Therefore, the ore
is mined by a split-shooting method. The mine also employs a underground long
hole exploration drilling program, reaching out as much as 400 feet ahead of and
adjacent to the workings, as guided by the mine geologist.

72

---

UEC gathered the necessary environmental data and obtained the
approvals to open an underground uranium mine at Daneros in May 2009, following
which UEC commenced active mine development, including driving a decline into
the main Daneros deposit. The first loads of ore from the Daneros Mine were
delivered to the White Mesa Mill in December 2009, and a toll milling campaign
was conducted in the second half of 2010. The Daneros Mine is now operated by
Energy Fuels, and, prior to being placed on standby, ore from the mine was
delivered to the White Mesa Mill and processed for Energy Fuels account in 2013

Metallurgical Process

The White Mesa Mill owned by Energy Fuels is located six miles
south of Blanding, Utah, 65 road miles from the Daneros Mine. The milling
operation involves grinding the ore into a fine slurry and then leaching it with
sulfuric acid to separate the metals from the remaining rock. Uranium and
vanadium are then recovered from solution in separate solvent extraction
processes. The uranium is precipitated as a U3O8
concentrate, yellow cake, which is dried and sealed in 55-gallon steel drums
for transport off-site. The basic mill process is a sulphuric acid leach with solvent
extraction recovery of uranium and vanadium. Run-of-mine ore is reduced to minus
28 mesh in a six-foot by 18-ft. diameter semiautogenous grinding (SAG)mill. Leaching of the ore is accomplished in two stages: a pre-leach and a
hot acid leach. The first, or pre-leach, circuit, consisting of two mechanically
agitated tanks, utilizes pregnant (high-grade) strong acid solution from the
countercurrent decantation (CCD)circuit which serves both to initiate
the leaching process and to neutralize excess acid. The pre-leach circuit
discharges to a 125-ft.thickener where the underflow solids are pumped to the
second stage leach and the overflow solution is pumped to clarification,
filtration, and solvent extraction circuits. A hot strong acid leach is used in
the second stage leach unit, which consists of seven mechanically agitated tanks
having a retention time of 24 hours. Free acid is controlled at 70 grams per
litre and the temperature is maintained at 75°C. Leached pulp is washed and
thickened in the CCD circuit, which consists of eight high-capacity thickeners.
Underflow from the final thickener at 50% solids is discharged to the tailings
area. Overflow from the first thickener (pregnant solution) is returned to the
pre-leach tanks. The solvent extraction (SX) circuit consists of four extraction
stages in which uranium in pregnant solution is transferred to the organic
phase, a mixture consisting of 2.5% amine, 2.5% isodeconal, and 95% kerosene.
Loaded organic is pumped to six stages of stripping by a 1.5 molar sodium
chloride solution, and thence to a continuous ammonia precipitation circuit.
Precipitated uranium is settled, thickened, centrifuged, and dried at 1,200°F.
The final product at about 95% U3O8 is packed into
55-gallon drums for shipment.

Permitting

The primary permits required for mining operations at Daneros
include a Large Mine NOI issued UDOGM and a PO approved by the BLM. The BLM PO
required document preparation and public notice of an EA. The permits obtained
by UEC were for the initial stage of operations and contemplated eventual
expansion of the mining operations, with the inclusion of additional surface
area for support facilities. The Daneros Mine does not discharge any water, so
no discharge permit is required.

73

---

Following approval of the PO by the BLM, an appeal of the BLM
approval was filed by Uranium Watch and associated non-government organizations.
The appeal was ultimately denied by the Utah BLM State office, and appealed by
Uranium Watch (and others) to the Department of Interior Board of Land Appeals,
which denied the appeal on September 26, 2012.

Permitting for mine expansion began in 2012 with the submittal
of a construction application to the Utah Division of Air Quality
(UDAQ) and EPA for radon emissions. This application, which was
approved in 2nd Quarter 2012 requires monitoring and annual reporting
of radon emissions from the mines ventilation system. An air permit application
was submitted to UDAQ for other regulated air emissions (e.g., fugitive dust,
volatile organic compounds) and approved in 4th Quarter 2012. In
1st Quarter 2013, an amended PO and a Large Mine NOI were submitted
to the BLM and UDOGM, respectively. An EA is currently being conducted for the
proposed mine expansion. The Company expects these amendments to be approved in
mid- to late-2015.

Current and Contemplated Exploration and Development
Activities after the 2012 Technical Report

The mine is fully permitted and developed. The Company is
maintaining the project on care and maintenance. Additional permitting is
ongoing as described above. Energy Fuels has reviewed the remaining resources
and has evaluated prospective areas for future exploration drilling. There are
no plans to perform any drilling in 2015.

74

---

The Sheep Mountain Project



Unless otherwise stated, the following description of the Sheep
Mountain Project is derived from a technical report titled Sheep Mountain
Uranium Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary Feasibility
Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, dated April 13, 2012 and,
prepared by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., Principal Engineer of BRS Engineering
in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Sheep Mountain Technical Report, also
referred to herein as the 2012 PFS). The author of the Sheep Mountain Technical Report is a qualified person and is
independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The Sheep Mountain
Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

Overview

The Sheep Mountain Project was acquired on February 29, 2012,
as a result of the merger transaction between Energy Fuels and Titan. Titan
acquired the Sheep Mountain Project in two transactions in 2009. A 50% working
interest was acquired when Titan completed a business combination with Uranium
Power Corp. (UPC) on July 31, 2009. UPC is now a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Energy Fuels. At that time, UPC and UPCs US subsidiary (then
called UPC Uranium (USA) Inc. and now called Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc.) became
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Titan. The remaining 50% was owned by Uranium One
Inc. which was UPCs joint venture partner for the property. On October 1, 2009,
Titan acquired Uranium One Inc.s 50% interest in the property, giving Titan a
100% interest. On February 29, 2012, Energy Fuels acquired Titan (and its
subsidiaries) at which point the Sheep Mountain Project became 100% owned by the
Company.

Project Description and Location

The Sheep Mountain Project is located eight miles south of
Jeffrey City, Wyoming within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province at the
northern edge of the Great Divide Basin in central Wyoming. The project is
located in portions of Sections 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, and 33, Township 28 North, Range 92 West. The mineral properties are
comprised of 192 unpatented mining claims (the Company added 13 claims to the
179 reported in the Technical Report) on land administered by the BLM,
approximately 640 acres of State of Wyoming leases and approximately 630 acres
of private lease lands. In February 2012, Energy Fuels purchased 320 acres of
private surface overlaying some of the Federal minerals covered by 18 of the
claims. The purchased parcel includes the SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Section 28 and SE1⁄4, E1⁄2 SW1⁄4, and NW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 Section 29, T28N, R92W.
Payments have been made through January 2015; a final payment of $5,000 is due
in January 2016. The combination of land holdings (including the 13 new claims)
comprises approximately 4,675 acres and gives Energy Fuels mineral rights to
resources as defined in the Congo Pit and the Sheep Underground mine areas.

75

---

To maintain these mineral rights, the Company must comply with
the state lease provisions including annual payments with respect to the State
of Wyoming leases; private leases; BLM and Fremont County, as well as Wyoming
filing and/or annual payment requirements to maintain the validity of the
unpatented mining lode claims as follows. Mining claims are subject to annual
filing requirements and payment of a fee of $140.00 per claim (the BLM increased
the annual fee to $155/claim in 2014). Unpatented mining claims expire annually,
but are subject to indefinite annual renewal by filing appropriate documents and
paying the fees described above. ML 0-15536 will expire on 1/1/2024. Annual
Payments to maintain ML 0-15536 are $2,560 per year. Private lease will expire
11/20/2015 (and for as long as minerals are being produced). The private lease
may be extended for an additional ten year term by the Company making a delay
rental payment of $10,000. Properties covered by Private Lease include: Township
28 North, Range 92 West, 6th PM; Section 20: S1⁄2SW1⁄4; Section 29: NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4;
Section 30: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4; Section 31: E1⁄2NE1⁄4; Section 32: E1⁄2NE1⁄4; Section 33:
S1⁄2NW1⁄4. Payments $10,000 per year as annual delay rentals. Per examination of
original private lease dated 11/20/1975 between McIntosh Cattle Company and
Western Nuclear Inc.

The project is subject to an overall sliding scale royalty of
1% to 4% due to Western Nuclear, based on the Nuclear Exchange Corporation
Exchange Value. This royalty is currently at its maximum rate of 4%. A Royalty
under a private lease is due to McIntosh (to Ellen Fox and Jennifer McIntosh, as
heirs) of 7.5% of the mined value of uranium ores in raw, crude form (which
equals 50% of the average sales price of uranium concentrate made during the
previous month). According to a Surface Owners Agreement, to William and
Jennifer McIntosh, 1% of the proceeds received from the sale of all uranium
mined, shipped and sold from claims under the surface owned by the grantors. Per
the Surface Owners Agreement dated 1/27/1970 between Bessie McIntosh, Phyllis
DeWalt, William McIntosh, and John McIntosh (grantors) and Western Nuclear Inc.
(grantee), amended on 4/14/1981 by Amendment of Surface Owners Agreement
between William and Jennifer McIntosh (as successors to grantors above) and
Western Nuclear Inc. and ratified by Ratification of Surface Owner's Agreement"
on 4/16/2007 by Ellen Fox (as heir of William McIntosh) and US Energy (as
successor to Western Nuclear). Under Wyoming state lease ML 0-15536, there is a
royalty of 5% of the quantity or gross realization value of the
U3O8, based on the total arms-length consideration
received for uranium products sold for shipping point.

Additional information regarding land tenure is described in
the Sheep Mountain technical Report.

The Company is subject to liabilities for mine and exploration
reclamation at the Sheep Mountain Project. The Company maintains four (4) bonds
with the State of Wyoming as security for these liabilities. The Company files
annual reports with the State of Wyoming, and the amount of the bonds may be
adjusted annually to endure sufficient surety is in place to cover the full cost
of reclamation. The Companys reclamation of the exploration drilling performed
by Titan was deemed complete in October 2014; the drilling permit was terminated
and the bond fully released. Uranium mining in Wyoming is subject to both a
gross products (county) and mineral severance tax (state). At the federal level:
aggregate corporate profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income
tax rates, i.e. individual mining projects are not assessed federal income tax
but rather the corporate entity is assessed as a whole. For mineral properties:
depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis whichever is
greater. The percentage depletion tax credit for uranium is 22%, among the
highest for mineral commodities, IRS Pub. 535.

76

---

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and
Physiology

The Sheep Mountain Project is located at approximate Latitude
42°24 North and Longitude 107° 49 West, within the Wyoming Basin physiographic
province in the Great Divide Basin at the northern edge of the Great Divide
Basin. The project is approximately eight miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming.
The nearest commercial airport is located in Riverton, Wyoming approximately 56
miles from Jeffrey City on a paved two-lane state highway. The project is
accessible via 2-wheel drive on existing county and two-track roads.

The Sheep Mountain Project falls within the intermountain
semi-desert weather province, with average maximum temperatures ranging from
31.1 °F (January and December) to 84.9 °F (July), average minimum temperatures
ranging from 9.1 °F (January) to 49.2 °F (July), and average total precipitation
ranging from 0.36 -inches (January) to 2.04 -inches (May). The Company has
established an on-site remote weather station and has recorded temperature,
precipitation (rain and snow), barometric pressure, and wind speed since 2010.
The topography consists of rounded hills with moderate to steep slopes.
Elevations range from 6,600 feet to 8,000 feet above sea level. The ground is
sparsely vegetated with sage and grasses and occasional small to medium sized
pine trees at higher elevations. Year-round operations are contemplated for the
Sheep Mountain Project.

Telephone, electric and natural gas service adequate for the
planned mine and mineral processing operations have been established at the
Sheep Mountain Project. Electric service and a waterline have been extended via
right-of-way issued by the BLM in 2011 to both the Sheep 1 and 2 shafts.
Adequate water rights are held by the Company for planned mining and mineral
processing operations but need to be updated with the Wyoming State Engineer
with respect to type of industrial use, points of diversion, and points of use.

The Company believes that sufficient surface rights are in
place for all contemplated mining operations including tailings storage areas,
waste disposal, heap leach pads, and potential processing sites.

History

The Sheep Mountain Project was operated as an underground and
open pit mine at various times in the 1970s and 1980s. 5,063,813 tons of ore
was mined and milled, yielding 17,385,116 pounds of uranium at an average grade
of 0.17% U3O8. Mining was suspended in 1988 and the mine
has been on care and maintenance since that time.

Uranium was first discovered in the Crooks Gap district, which
includes the Sheep Mountain Project, in 1953 (Bendix, 1982). While the original
discoveries were aided by aerial and ground radiometric surveys, exploration
activities were primarily related to drilling and exploratory trenching. Three
companies dominated the district by the mid-1950s: Western Nuclear Inc.
(Western Nuclear), Phelps Dodge Corporation (Phelps Dodge),
and Continental Uranium Corporation (Continental). Western Nuclear
built the Split Rock mill at Jeffrey City in 1957 and initiated production from
the Paydirt pit in 1961, Golden Goose 1 in 1966, and Golden Goose 2 in 1970.
Phelps Dodge was the principal shareholder and operator of the Green Mountain
Uranium Corporations Ravine Mine which began production in 1956. Continental
developed the Seismic Pit in 1956, the Seismic Mine in 1957, and Reserve Mine in
1961 and the Congo Decline in 1968. In 1967, Continental acquired the Phelps
Dodge properties and in 1972, Western Nuclear acquired all of Continentals
Crooks Gap holdings. During the mid-1970s Phelps Dodge acquired an interest in
Western Nuclear which began work on the Sheep Mountain I in 1974, the McIntosh
Pit in 1975, and Sheep Mountain II in 1976. Western Nuclear ceased production
from the area in 1982. Western Nuclear production from the Sheep Mountain I is
reported to have been 312,701 tons at 0.107% U3O8.
Subsequent to the closure of the Sheep Mountain I by WesternNuclear,
during April to September 1987, Pathfinder Mines Corporation
(Pathfinder) mined a reported 12,959 tons, containing 39,898 lbs. of
uranium at an average grade of 0.154% U3O8 from Sheep
Mountain I. U.S. Energy-Crested Corp. (USECC) acquired the properties
from Western Nuclear in 1988 and during May to October 1988, USECC mined 23,000
tons from Sheep Mountain I, recovering 100,000 lbs. of uranium for a mill head
grade of 0.216%U3O8. The material was treated at
Pathfinders Shirley Basin mill, 130 miles east of the mine. The Sheep Mountain
I mine was allowed to flood in April 2007. UPC (then known as Bell Coast
Capital) acquired a 50% interest in the property from USECC in late 2007. USECC
later sold all of its uranium assets to Uranium One Inc. Titan acquired UPCs
50% interest in the property when it acquired UPC by a plan of arrangement in
July 2009. Titan acquired Uranium One Inc.s interest in the Sheep Mountain
Project in September 2009.

77

---

Geological Setting

A primary component of the geology for the Sheep Mountain
Project is the Battle Spring Formation. Battle Spring is Eocene in age. Prior to
deposition of the Battle Spring Formation and subsequent younger Tertiary
formations, underlying Paleocene, Cretaceous, and older formations were deformed
during the Laramide Orogeny. During the Laramide Orogeny, faults, including the
Emigrant Thrust Fault at the northern end of the project area, were active and
displaced sediments by over 20,000 feet. Coincident with this mountain building
event, Paleocene and older formations were folded in a series of echelon
anticlines and synclines, generally trending from southeast to northwest. The
Battle Spring Formation was deposited unconformably on an erosional landscape
influenced by these pre-depositional features. Initial stream channels
transporting clastic sediments from the Granite Mountains formed in the
synclinal valleys. The geologic setting of the Sheep Mountain Project is
important in that it controlled uranium mineralization by focusing movement of
the groundwaters which emplaced the uranium into the stream channels which had
developed on the pre-tertiary landscape. The Battle Spring Formation and
associated mineralization at Sheep Mountain is bounded to the east by the
western flank of the Sheep Mountain Syncline and to the west by the Spring Creek
Anticline. To the north the system is cut off by erosion. To the south the
Battle Spring continues into the northern portions of the Great Divide Basin.
Mineralization occurs throughout the lower A Member of the Battle Spring
Formation and is locally up to 1,500 feet thick. The upper B Member is present
only in portions of the project and may be up to 500 feet thick. Although
arkosic sandstone is the preferred host, uranium has been extracted from all
lithologies. Grade and thickness are extremely variable depending on whether the
samples are taken from the nose or the tails of a roll front. Typically the
deposits range from 50 feet to 200 feet along a strike, five feet to eight feet
in height, and 20 feet to 100 feet in width. Deposits in the Sheep Mountain area
occur in stacked horizons from 7,127 feet in elevation down to 6,050 feet in
elevation.

Exploration

To the authors knowledge, no relevant exploration work other
than drilling has been conducted on the property in recent years. The Project is
located within a brownfield site which has experienced past mine production and
extensive exploration and development drilling. The initial discovery was based
on aerial and ground radiometric surveys in the 1950's, but since that time
exploratory work on the site has been primarily drilling.

During the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE)
program conducted by the DOE in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the project
area and vicinity were evaluated. This evaluation included aerial gamma,
magnetic, and gravimetric surveys, soil and surface water geochemical surveys
and sampling, and geologic studies and classification of environments favorable
for uranium mineralization. Additional information on exploration is included in
the Drillingsubsection below.

78

---

Mineralization

Most of the mineralization in the Crooks Gap district occurs in
roll-front deposits. Roll fronts have an erratic linear distribution but are
usually concordant with the bedding. Deposits have been discovered from the
surface down to a depth of 1,500 feet. The two major uranium minerals are
uranophane and autunite. Exploration drilling indicated that the deeper
roll-type deposits are concentrated in synclinal troughs in the lower Battle
Spring Formation. Three possible sources for uranium have been suggested:
post-Eocene tuffaceous sediments, leached Battle Spring arkoses, and Precambrian
granites. Structural controls of uranium occurrences along roll fronts include
carbonaceous siltstone beds that provide a local reducing environment for
precipitation of uranium-bearing minerals, and abrupt changes in permeability
along faults, where impermeable gouge is in contact with permeable sandstones.
Uranium has also been localized along the edges of stream channels and at
contacts with carbonaceous shales

Drilling

Approximately 4,000 holes were drilled in the project area
historically (prior to 1988), most of which were open-hole rotary drilling,
reliant upon down-hole geophysical logging to determine equivalent uranium grade
%eU3O8. However, some core drilling for chemical analysis
was also completed. The drill maps show hole locations at the surface and
downhole drift, the thickness and radiometric grade of uranium measured in
weight percent U3O8, elevation to the bottom of the
mineralized intercept, collar elevation, and elevation of the bottom of the
hole.

In 2006, UPC completed a drilling program consisting of 19
holes totaling 12,072 feet. Two of the 19 holes were located in Section 28 with
the purpose of confirming the mineralization within the Sheep Underground mine
area. The remaining 17 holes were completed in the planned Congo Pit to test
both shallow mineralization and to explore a deeper mineralized horizon. This
2006 drilling has confirmed the presence of mineralization in the shallow
horizons of the Congo Pit area and has identified and extended roll front
mineralization in the 58 sand along strike.

Following the acquisition of UPC by Titan, five holes were
drilled in the Congo Pit area in 2009 for a total of 1,700 feet. In situ mineral
grades for 2009 drilling were determined by geophysical logging including both
conventional gamma logging and state of the art Uranium Spectrum Analysis Tool.
Titan, now known as Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc. also drilled in the Congo Pit area
in 2010 62 exploratory drill holes and 5 monitor wells and 2011 73 exploratory
drill holes and 5 monitor wells. There were a total of 140 exploration holes
drilled between 2009 and 2011, which total about 44,000 feet.

Sampling and Analysis

The majority of the sample data available for the evaluation of
resources for the Sheep Mountain Project is the historic geophysical log data.
For the Congo Pit, Sheep Underground, and Sun Mc areas, the majority of the hard
copy logs were reviewed both for data verification and for geologic
interpretation. The majority of the Sheep Underground logs were also available
as scanned images. In addition, the data includes an extensive collection of
detailed mine and drill maps, both surface and underground. The underground maps
show the extent of mining by date and include rib and longhole data. All
pertinent maps with respect to mine design, extent of mining, drill maps, and
mapping related to the mine permit have been scanned and rectified digitally.
This data is stored at the Companys Riverton, Wyoming office Mineral resource
and reserve estimates for the Sheep Mountain Project are based on radiometric
data. As discussed in Sections 14 and 24 of the Sheep Mountain Technical Report,
available data indicates that variations in radiometric equlibrium are local in
their effect which impacts the mining grade control program but does not
appreciably affect the overall mineral resources or reserves. Confirmatory
drilling in accordance with NI 43-101 began in 2005. The author did not observe
this drilling but has reviewed the geologic and geophysical log data and finds the data to
have been collected in accordance with current industry practice and to be
reliable. This data confirms historical drilling results and is current and
applicable to this Preliminary Feasibility Study. The reader should note that it
is common industry practice for the exploration and evaluation of uranium
mineralization in the US to rely upon downhole geophysical log data for the
determination of the thickness and grade of mineralization. The sampling and
assay methods described herein were for the purposes of developing bulk
composite samples for metallurgical testing and environmental testing. Downhole
geophysical log data was converted to equivalent uranium assays in half foot
increments for geophysical logs with digital data. Geophysical logs with only
analog data were interpreted using standard methods set out originally by the
AEC. The primary method employed for this project is referred to as the half
amplitude method. In the case of the half amplitude method the sample thickness
is determined by the log signature and while interpreted to the nearest half
foot the thickness of the sample varies. The author of the Sheep Mountain
Technical Report was trained in this methodology through a short course
conducted by Century Geophysical Corporation of Tulsa, Oklahoma and has
extensive experience in the interpretation of geophysical logs.

79

---

With respect to the 2009 drilling program completed by Titan,
drilling and sampling was observed by and/or completed by Titan and BRS
personnel, including the author and employees under his direct supervision.
These were completed by rotary air drilling to depths exceeding 300 feet using a
top drive rotary drilling rig. The drill cuttings were collected continuously
during the drilling process, in two foot increments. Over 500 pounds of
mineralized material was collected for metallurgical testing. Drill samples for
overburden testing were split with a standard rifling splitter with half of the
sample sent to Energy Laboratories Inc. of Casper, Wyoming, an independent
certified commercial analytical laboratory, for testing in accordance with WDEQ
guidelines and the remainder was sealed in plastic bags and is currently stored
in an on-site warehouse facility. Drill samples for metallurgical testing were
stored and sealed in new 5 gallon plastic buckets. Samples within the
mineralized zones as determined by gamma and USAT logging were delivered to
Lynteks facility in Denver, Colorado for further assay and testing by BRS
personnel. A chain of custody was established. Representative sample splits were
prepared for chemical assay and were delivered to Energy Laboratories Inc. of
Casper, Wyoming, an independent certified commercial analytical laboratory, for
assay utilizing standard protocol and adhering to a chain of custody. These
assays were used in the selection of samples for metallurgical testing. In
addition to the samples from the Congo Pit drilling, mineralized stockpiles from
mine material at the Sheep I shaft was sampled, assayed, and utilized for
metallurgical testing. Seven samples of the Sheep I stockpile were collected
ranging in grade from 0.022 to 0.067% U3O8 and averaging
0.045 % U3O8Bottle roll leach tests have been
completed for composite samples selected to represent mineralization at both the
Congo Pit and Sheep Underground. The remaining samples, with the exception of
reserves sample splits, were utilized in the column leach testing for heap leach
amenability.

Security of Samples

Titan has the complete hard copy data set which was passed
through the chain of property title from Western Nuclear Corporation; through US
Energy Crested Corporation (USECC); through the joint venture between
UPC and U1; to Titan through its acquisition of UPC and acquisition of U1s
share of the property; and ultimately to Energy Fuels, though its acquisition of
Titan. Assays of blind duplicates of select samples and check assays, at Hazen
Research, a separate and independent commercial laboratory were completed. The
results of the assays compared favorably. The assay data was generally not used
to verify the radiometric data as this had already been done using the USAT
data. A general comparison of assay data to USAT data was completed and the
results were comparable. Radiometric equilibrium determinations are discussed in
Section 24 of the Technical Report. No samples were collected during the 2010
drilling program. Drill cuttings were logged in the field. All holes were logged
by a commercial geophysical logging company. Geophysical log data was provided
in both hard copy and electronic format with the down-hole count data converted
to 1⁄2 foot equivalent %U3O8grades. In 2011 both rotary and reverse circulation drilling was completed. Bulk samples
from the reverse circulation drilling have been retained in sealed containers
stored at the site for further metallurgical testing but no chemical assays have
been completed as of the effective date of the Sheep Mountain Technical
Report.

80

---

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

The mineral resource estimates presented herein have been
completed in accordance with CIM Standards and NI 43-101. Based on the drill
density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic
correlation and modeling of the deposit, a review of historic mining with
respect to current resource projections, and verification drilling, the Mineral
Resource estimate herein meets CIM criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource.

Mineral Resources

Geologic interpretation of the mineralized host sands was used,
along with the intercepts that met the minimum cutoff grade and thickness, to
develop a geologic model in which to estimate the mineral resources at the Sheep
Mountain Project. The three-dimensional locations along the drill hole drift of
all mineralized intercepts were plotted in AutoCAD TM. Each intercept was
evaluated based on its geophysical log expression and location relative to
adjacent intercepts. Whenever possible, geophysical logs were used to correlate
and project intercepts between drill holes. Intercepts that met the minimum
grade cutoff but were isolated above or below the host sand horizons; where data
sets were incomplete; which did not fully penetrate the host sand were excluded
from the mineralized envelope. 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
estimate GT Contour Method. The Contour Method is a well-established approach
for estimating uranium resources and has been in use since the 1950s in the US.

The current geologic and resource model is a 3D model based on
geologic interpretation of 18 mineralized zones in the Congo area and 17
mineralized zones in the Sheep area. Mineralized zones from Sheep were
projectable down dip to the Sun Mc Area. Once the data were separated by zone an
initial area of influence of 50 feet (maximum 25 foot radius or 50 foot
diameter) was applied to each drill hole by zone at its drifted location 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.

Drill spacing in the Congo (open pit areas) range from roughly
50 foot centers to greater than 100 foot centers. Drill spacing at Sheep
Underground area varies from roughly 200 foot centers to over 400 foot centers.
Drilling depths at Congo are typically less than 400 feet in the northern
portions of the area to generally over 600 feet to the south. Drilling depths at
Sheep exceed 1,000 feet but are typically less than 1,500 feet. Drilling depths
at Sun Mc are variable depending on terrain but are typically less than 1,000
feet. The Congo mineralized thickness ranges from one foot to over 19 feet.
Grade varies from the minimum grade cutoff of 0.1% eU3O8 to a maximum reported
grade of 1.87% eU3O8. The SheepUnderground
data set is composed of a total of 485 drill holes based on data from 483
historic drill holes and two confirmatory drill holes completed in 2005. Of the
485 drill holes, only 33 were barren and 452 contained mineralization of at
least 0.5 -feet of 0.05% eU3O8. Sheep Underground
mineralized thickness ranges from 0.5 feet to over 26.5 feet. Grade varies from
the minimum grade cutoff of 0.05% eU3O8 to a maximum
reported grade of 2.19% eU3O8.

The uranium quantities and grades are reported as equivalent
U3O8 (eU3O8), as measured by
downhole gamma logging. In the fall of 2009, five rotary percussion holes were
drilled on the property to study disequilibrium. Downhole logging of the drill
holes was completed using standard gamma technology as well as a Uranium
Spectral Analysis Tool (USAT), both supplied by Century Wireline of Tulsa OK.
The USAT tool gives a direct measurement of uranium content and therefore allows
determination of the equilibrium state of the uranium mineralization intersected in
the hole. A total of 34 intervals were measured, showing an overall moderate
positive disequilibrium (thus the true chemical grade of the mineralization is
slightly higher than the equivalent grade determined by the gamma tool). The
results of the resource estimates were not adjusted to account for this positive
disequilibrium. Equilibrium data does show some local distribution of uranium
values within mineralized zones. The ore control program recommended for this
project will account for such variations. Previous studies (RPA 2005 and 2006)
also concluded that no adjustment for radiometric equilibrium was necessary.

81

---

A unit weight of 16 cubic feet per ton was assumed for all
mineral resource and reserve calculations. This assumption was based on data
from feasibility studies prepared by previous operators on the mining and
production history of the mines within the Sheep Mountain Project

Below is a summary of the total Indicated Mineral Resource
estimated for the Sheep Mountain Project:

|Sheep Underground                | GT Cutoff                | >0.30     
|-------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------
|                                 | Pounds eU3O8             | 13,245,000
|                                 | Tons                     | 5,640,000 
|                                 | Avg.
      Grade % eU3O8 | 0.117     
|Congo Pit Area                   | GT
      Cutoff          | >0.10     
|                                 | Pounds eU3O8             | 15,040,000
|                                 | Tons                     | 6,176,000 
|                                 | Avg.
      Grade % eU3O8 | 0.122     
|Sun-Mc                           | GT
      Cutoff          | >0.10     
|                                 | Pounds eU3O8             | 2,000,000 
|                                 | Tons                     | 1,080,000 
|                                 | Avg.
      Grade % eU3O8 | 0.093     
|Total Indicated Mineral Resource | GT Cutoff                | As Above  
|                                 | Pounds eU3O8             | 30,285,000
|                                 | Tons                     | 12,895,000
|                                 | Avg. Grade % eU3O8       | 0.117     

This estimate includes deletion of the portions of the mineral
resource model which falls within the historic mine limits in the Congo Pit
estimated to have removed some 25% of the initial resource estimate and the
total reported mined tonnage from the Sheep I underground mine. From review of
the Sheep I and II as-built mine plans, it was apparent that little or no ore
was mined at Sheep II and that only development work was completed. Historic
underground mining in the Sun Mc area is estimated to have removed some 10% of
the total resource. Although in many cases the mine maps showed remnant pillars,
none of these areas were included in the mineral resource estimate. Thus, the
estimate of current mineral resources is conservative with respect to the
exclusion of areas affected by historic mining. Estimated mineral resources for
potential open pit areas were diluted to a minimum mining thickness of two feet
and a cutoff grade of 0.05%U3O8.equates to a 0.10 GT
cutoff.

Mineral Reserves

The estimate of mineral reserve for the Sheep Underground is
unchanged from the previous reports (BRS, 2010 and 2011). With respect to the
open pit mineral reserves, mineral resources for the Congo, North Gap, and South
Congo areas were combined into a single comprehensive mineral resource model.
Open pit mine designs and sequencing was completed for all areas, and the
resultant mineral reserve estimate reflects the current open pit mine designs
and economic evaluations.

82

---

Below is a summary of the total Probable Mineral Reserve
estimate for the Sheep Mountain Project:

|            | GT      |            |           | Average Grade
|----------- | ------- | ---------- | --------- | -------------
|            | minimum | Lbs. eU3O8 | Tons      | % eU3O8      
|Open Pit    | 0.10    | 9,117,000  | 3,955,000 | 0.115        
|            |         |            |           |              
|Underground | 0.45    | 9,248,000  | 3,498,000 | 0.132        
|            |         |            |           |              
|Total       |         | 18,365,00  | 7,453,000 | 0.123        

The Probable Mineral Reserves are fully included in the total
Indicated Mineral Resources for the Congo Pit and are not additive to that
total. The Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the Indicated Mineral
Resource that is economic under current cost and pricing conditions. The cutoff
grade of 0.05% eU3O8 at a minimum mining height of 2 foot equates to a 0.10 GT
cutoff for the Congo Pit. The cutoff grade of 0.05% eU3O8 at a minimum mining
height of 6 foot equals a 0.30 GT cutoff used for the Sheep Underground.

Mine Cutoff Grade

As the operating cost per ton varies substantially between the
open pit and underground it is appropriate to have separate grade cutoff
criteria for the two operations. The following table provides a calculation of
breakeven cutoff grades for both the open pit and underground mines based on
current cost forecasts and a sales price of $65 per pound. The costs per ton
reflect operating costs only and do not include capital write off. The
calculation of breakeven cutoff grade allows for a constant tail or loss in the
mineral processing of 0.01 %U3O8. Note that
staff and support costs are included in the open pit mining costs. Incremental underground mining costs are solely related to
underground mining and mineral processing costs.

Operating Cost$/Ton
    Breakeven Grade % U3O8@ $65/lb PriceOpen Pit Mine and Mineral Processing
    $23.87
    0.024 % U3O8Underground Mine and Mineral Processing
    $ 52.24
    0.046 % U3O8


From this evaluation, and other factors such as minimum mining
thickness, the mine design cutoffs were set above the minimum breakeven cutoff
grades at:

| | Open Pit   
|- | -----------
|  | o          
|  | o          
|  | o          
| | Underground
|  | o          
|  | o          
|  | o          

83

---

Based on these parameters, the average grade mined from a
combined open pit and underground operation is estimated at 0.123 e%U3O8. As
mining proceeds, mineralized material encountered below the mine GT cutoff,
which has to be excavated as part of the mine plan and would otherwise be
disposed of as mine waste, could be salvaged at grades as low as the calculated
breakeven grades of 0.024 %U3O8 and 0.046 %U3O8 for the open pit and underground
mines, respectively. Without an increase in sales price or a decrease in
operating costs, material salvaged at lesser grade would not be profitable. The
mineral reserve as stated herein does not include the potential mineralized
material, which may be salvaged, which meets the breakeven grade cutoff but is
less than the design GT cutoff.

The project is a brown-field development located in a state
which tends to favor mining and industrial development. The project has been
well received locally and will also provide substantial revenues to both Fremont
County and the State of Wyoming in addition to providing long term employment
for the region. The author was not aware of any factors including environmental,
permitting, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or other factors
which would materially affect the mineral resource estimate, herein.

Mining Operations

A Plan of Operation (PO) was submitted and has been accepted
as complete by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is underway with completion anticipated
for late 2015. The Company has submitted a revision of its existing Mine Permit
381C to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). The permit
revision will address improvements to the mine plan, including the proposed
uranium recovery facility. Development of an application to the NRC for a
combined Source Material and By-product Material License to construct and
operate the uranium recovery facility is at an advanced stage of development.
This license will allow the Company to process the uranium ore and produce
yellowcake at the Sheep Mountain Project site. The subsequent review and
approval process for this license by NRC is anticipated to take approximately
three years. Submittal of the license application to the NRC is on hold pending
the Companys evaluation of off-site processing options for this project.

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the Congo Pit, a proposed
open pit development, and the reopening of the existing Sheep Underground mine.
Although alternatives were considered, the recommended uranium recovery method
includes the processing of mined materials via an on-site heap leach facility.
Mined product from the underground and open pit mine operations will be
commingled at the stockpile site located near the underground portal and in
close proximity to the pit. At the stockpile the mine product will be sized if
needed, blended, and then conveyed via a covered overland conveyor system to the
heap leach pad where it will be stacked on a double lined pad for leaching. The
primary lixiviant will be sulfuric acid. Concentrated leach solution will be
collected by gravity in a double lined collection pond and then transferred to
the mineral processing facility for extraction and drying. The final product
produced will be a uranium oxide, commonly referred to as yellowcake. Since the
Technical Report was completed Energy Fuels has acquired the White Mesa Mill
uranium processing plant in Blanding, Utah which creates the option to transport
loaded resin to White Mesa for striping, drying, and packaging of yellowcake.

The preferred alternative for the development of the Sheep
Mountain Project begins the operation with the open pit and heap leach facility
and brings the underground mine into operation some 5 years later such that the
forecasted end of mining for both the open pit and underground coincide. This
approach defers a substantial amount of initial capital, minimizes risk, and
allows for a gradual startup of site activities while maximizing resource
recovery. Having the end of mining coincide for both operations optimizes the
fixed costs of personnel and facilities. A preliminary feasibility study for the
project has been completed which includes the preliminary design and sequencing
of the open pit and underground mine operations and the heap leach mineral processing facility.
Designs and sequencing are inclusive of pre-production, production, and
decommissioning and reclamation.

84

---

The current mine design for the Congo Pit includes typical
highwall heights in the range of 100 to 400 feet, and reaches a maximum depth of
600 feet in localized areas in the southeast pit corner. The open pit design
employs similar design parameters and mining equipment configurations to those
used successfully in past Wyoming conventional mine operations. Highwall design
is based upon the performance of past projects in the Sheep Mountain and Gas
Hills districts, and includes an average highwall slope of 0.7:1, which reflects
the average of a 10-foot bench width and 50-foot wall at a 0.5:1 slope. Current
data indicates that ground water flow will average less than 150 gpm and will
not be encountered until pit 6. The proposed primary stripping fleet consists of
scrapers supported by dozers and motor graders. The nominal capacity of this
configuration is capable of excavation and placement of over 5 million cubic
yards of material on an annual basis. Mining will be completed in a selective
manner with a 2 cubic-yard bucket on a medium-size excavator loading two 35 ton
articulated mine haul trucks.

The mining method proposed going forward is also a conventional
method using a modified room and pillar method, but utilizing modern mining
equipment such as jumbo drills and 7 cubic-yard scooptrams for haulage. A new
double entry decline will be constructed starting at the Paydirt Pit and ending
below the deposit. Haulage from the mine will be accomplished via a 36 inch
conveyor within one of the double declines. The existing shafts will be used for
ventilation purposes only, with exhaust fans mounted at both locations. If the
existing borehole ventilation shafts can be rehabilitated, they will be used as
intake shafts.

Risks related to permitting and licensing the project are low
as the project is a brown-field development located in a state which tends to
favor mining and industrial development. The project has been well received
locally and will also provide substantial revenues to both Fremont County and
the State of Wyoming in addition to providing long term employment for the
region. The project development is timed well with respect to the market and
substantial increases in financial return may be realized in what is being
forecast as a rising market.

Feasibility Study

On March 1, 2012, Energy Fuels announced the results of the
2012 PFS for the Sheep Mountain Project which updated a previous prefeasibility
study on the property prepared in 2010. The 2012 PFS increased the Probable
Mineral Reserve to 18.4 million lbs. U3O8 (7.5 million
tons at an average grade of 0.123% eU3O8). Total Indicated
Resource is 12.9 million tons containing 30.3 million lbs.
U3O8 at an average grade of 0.117%
eU3O8, which includes the Probable Mineral Reserve of 18.4
million lbs. U3O8 (7.5 million tons at an average grade of 0.123% eU3O8). Under
the 2012 PFS, the base plan design provides for concurrent development of both
the underground and open pit deposits. The base plan generates an expected
pre-tax IRR of 42%, with an expected pre-tax Net Present Value NPV of $201
million at a 7% discount rate, and an expected pre-tax NPV of $146 million at a
10% discount rate. CAPEX are expected to be $109 million.

The Company is considering a modified plan which would be
expected to require a much reduced initial CAPEX of $61 million. The modified
plan initially develops the open pit only, and delays producing the underground
deposit until the 5thyear of operations. The modified plan would be
expected to generate a pre-tax IRR of 35%, with pre-tax NPVs of $174 million at
a 7% discount rate and $118 million at a 10% discount rate.

85

---

Highlights of the 2012 PFS base plan include:

- 2012 PFS estimates are based on estimated capital and operating costs for
  a uranium mine, utilizing both conventional open pit and underground mining
  methods and heap leach recovery, with a maximum annual capacity of 1.5 million
  lbs. of U3O8;
- The financial model is based on a long-term uranium price of $65.00/lb.
  based on historical average prices over the three years prior to the date of
  the 2012 PFS, and supported by published reports of securities analysts at the
  time;
- Updated Probable Mineral Reserve of 7,453,000 tons at an average grade of
  0.123% eU3O8, containing 18,365,000 lbs. of
  U3O8, compared to the originally reported (April 12,
  2010) 6,393,000 tons at an average grade of 0.111%
  eU3O8, containing 14,186,000 lbs. of
  U3O8, an increase of 29.6% in Probable Mineral Reserve
  over the 2010 prefeasibility study;
- Initial mine life: 15 years, compared to the originally reported 11 years.
  Average production rate will be approximately 264,000 tons of mineralized
  material per year;
- Open pit stripping ratio: 8.1 bank cubic yards per pound mined;
- Estimated capital cost: $109 million including allowances for contingency
  and risk, compared to the originally reported $118 million;
- Estimated operating cost: $32.31 per lb. recovered, as compared to the
  originally reported $28.67 per lb. recovered;
- Estimated pre-tax NPV at a 7% discount rate: $201 million, as compared to
  the originally reported $101 million; and
- Estimated pre-tax IRR: 42%, as compared to the originally reported 25%.
- Estimated pre-tax payback period: 3 years, at a discount rate of 5%, as
  compared to the originally reported 5 years at the same discount rate.

Pre-tax NPV and IRR sensitivities are as follows:

Base Plan - Open Pit and UndergroundSelling Price (US$/pound)
    $60.00
    $65.00
    $70.00Pre-tax NPV @ 5% discount rate
    $202 MM
    $249 MM
    $296 MMPre-tax NPV @ 7% discount rate
    $161 MM
    $201 MM
    $240 MMPre-tax NPV @ 10% discount rate
    $115
      MM
    $146
      MM
    $176 MMPre-Tax IRR
    36%
    42%
  48%


In summary, the primary changes in the 2012 PFS that improve
economics as compared to the previous 2010 prefeasibility study:

- Use of a $65/lb. selling price rather than the $60/lb. price used
  originally;
- Open pit pounds nearly doubled, based on the increased Probable Mineral
  Reserve;
- Mine life was extended by 4 years with the expanded Probable Mineral
  Reserve; and
- Average grade for the project increased from 0.111% eU3O8to 0.123% eU3O8.

The 2012 PFS was prepared by a group of consultants led by BRS
Inc., an independent engineering consulting firm based in Riverton, Wyoming, in
collaboration with Western States Mining Consultants and Lyntek Inc. This group
also prepared the 2010 prefeasibility study. The 2012 PFS was filed on SEDAR on
April 13, 2012.

86

---

Permitting

In June 2010, Titan commenced baseline environmental studies to
support an application to the NRC for a Source Material and By-product Material
License. Work was also initiated on a revision to the existing WDEQ Mine Permit
as well as a Plan of Operations (PO) for the BLM. Baseline studies
included wildlife and vegetation surveys, air quality and meteorological
monitoring, ground and surface water monitoring, radiological monitoring, and
cultural resource surveys.

Submission of the PO to the BLM was made in June 2011. The PO
was accepted as complete by the BLM, and an EIS was initiated in August 2011.
Energy Fuels revised the PO in July 2012, consistent with the modified plan
presented in the 2012 PFS. In July 2013, the PO was again revised to reflect a
new waste rock disposal layout for the open pit mine and an improved and more
economical heap leach and processing facility. The revised PO also included the
option of transporting ore off-site for processing. Work on the EIS is ongoing
with a Draft EIS scheduled to be released for public comment in early 2015.

In October 2011, Titan submitted a draft revision to its
existing Mine Permit 381C to WDEQ. WDEQ then provided Titan with review comments
as part of its courtesy review. The permit revision was completed in 2013 and
resubmitted in January 2014. The revision includes expansion of surface and
underground mining operations and an updated reclamation plan consistent with
current reclamation practices. The Company expects approval of the Mine Permit
modification in mid-2015.

Development of an application to the NRC for a combined Source
Material and By-product Material License to construct and operate the uranium
recovery facility is in an advanced stage of preparation. This license will
allow Energy Fuels to process the uranium ore and produce yellowcake at the
Sheep Mountain Project site. The draft application to NRC for a Source Material
license was reviewed in detail by the NRC in October 2011. The NRC audit report
identified areas where additional information is to be provided. The review and
approval process for this license by the NRC is anticipated to take
approximately three years. Submittal of the license application to the NRC is on
hold pending the Companys evaluation of off-site processing options for this
project.

87

---

Gas Hills Project



Unless stated otherwise, the following description of the Gas
Hills Project is derived from a technical report titled National Instrument
43-101 Technical Report Update of Gas Hills Uranium Project Fremont and Natrona
Counties, Wyoming, USA, dated March 22, 2013 (the Gas Hills Technical
Report), prepared by Richard L. Nielsen, PhD., CPG, Thomas C. Pool, P.E.,
Robert L. Sandefur, P.E., and Matthew P. Reilly, P.E., in accordance with NI
43-101 (the Gas Hills Technical Report). The technical report includes
an updated NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimate. Each of the authors of
the Gas Hills Technical Report is a qualified person and is independent of
the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The Gas Hills Technical Report is
available under Strathmores profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

The Gas Hills Project was acquired on August 29, 2013 as a
result of the merger transaction between Energy Fuels and Strathmore.

Property Description and Location

The Gas Hills project, located in Fremont and Natrona Counties,
Wyoming, totals approximately 14,600 acres and consists of 701 unpatented lode
mining claims, one State of Wyoming mineral lease, and one private mineral
lease. The property at the date of the Technical Report consisted of 1,711
unpatented claims and a total acreage of about 36,000 acres. The Company has
dropped claims in the periphery areas, especially areas of deep, expensive
drilling due to the soft uranium market and the sparseness of exploration
funding. None of the claims dropped affect the mineral resources as stated in
the Technical Report since all of the claims covering the resources have been
kept. The properties are in central Wyoming within Townships 32-33 North, Ranges
89-91 West, 6th Principal Meridian.

Of the 701 claims, 607 are unpatented lode mining claims owned
100% by the Company and are located on public lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Ninety-four (94) of the claims are
located on split estate lands where the surface is privately owned, but the
federal government owns the mineral rights. The claims are listed in the BLM
Mining Claim Geographic Index Report (LR2000). The latest assessment
year is 2015 and the claims are shown as Active. Holding costs for the claims
include a claim maintenance fee of US$140.00 per claim payable to the BLM before
September 1 of each calendar year (BLM increased the fee to $155/claim in 2014)
and the recording of an affidavit and Notice of Intent to Hold with the Fremont
or Natrona County, Wyoming clerk (as applicable) at a cost of about $10 per
claim. Unpatented mining claims expire annually, but are subject to indefinite
annual renewal by filing appropriate documents and paying the fees described
above.

Strathmore entered into an agreement with Elmhurst Financial
Group Inc. (Elmhurst) on October 31, 2007 to purchase 155 unpatented lode
mining claims located in the Rock Hill part of the Gas Hills Project and 18
additional nearby claims were staked on behalf of Elmhurst, of which 173 are
still held by the Company. A net production royalty of 5% was assigned to
Elmhurst on these claims. No other royalties encumber any other claims in the
Gas Hills project.

88

---

Strathmore acquired the State of Wyoming Mineral Lease No.
0-42121 (the Wyoming State Lease) on April 2, 2007. The lease covers
approximately 320 acres in Section 36, Township 33 North, Range 90 West. The
Wyoming State Lease is in place until it expires on April 1, 2017. The Wyoming
State Lease has a royalty of 5% payable to the State of Wyoming.

On July 28, 2010, Strathmore entered into a mineral lease
agreement with James D. Sherlock, Mary Freezer and Donna Robeson as Trustees for
South Pass Land and Livestock Company for two parcels of land: 40-acres at the
Jeep Project and 40-acres at the Day Loma Project (the Sherlock Lease).
The Lease is good for an initial 10-year period with indefinite 10-year renewal
periods. The mineral owner was granted a 5% net production royalty. As the
mineral lease holder does not hold title to the surface of these two parcels,
Strathmore entered into a Surface Use and Access Agreement (SUA) with
the surface holder, Philp Sheep Company. The SUA also includes additional lands
at the Loco Lee and Rock Hill projects where Strathmore controls the mineral
rights but not the surface estates.

Significant previous drilling and mine production has occurred
on and adjacent to the Companys claims in the Gas Hills. These surface
disturbances mainly consist of drill roads, drill sites, haul roads, spoil
dumps, and reclaimed, mined-out open-pits. On the Companys claims, the drill
pits have been reclaimed as required by State law. All physical work performed
by the company is covered by bonds filed with the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the BLM. Several legacy reclamation
programs of historic mining activities are ongoing in the Gas Hills area,
including on lands controlled by the Company. These programs are carried out by
the WDEQ and its Abandoned Mine Lands Division (AML) with cooperation
from the BLM. In addition, several former mill tailings sites on adjacent lands
have been or will be reclaimed and transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) for long-term care and maintenance. All of this reclamation
activity is performed at the sole cost of the state and federal government.

Prior to any exploration or drilling activities in the Gas
Hills project, the Company is required to apply for drilling permits with the
WDEQ Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD) and the BLM. Prior to the
issuance of any permit, a reclamation bond is posted by the Company. Strathmore
applied for and was granted eight drilling permits covering parts of six
properties in the Gas Hills project. Reclamation of the disturbed areas has
resulted in significant reductions in the bonds. EFR has two permits still open
(some permits have been consolidated or released since the Technical Report was
written); drilling can resume at any time, but will require increasing the
bonds. Strathmore received BLM approval of the Plan of Operations on February
11, 2013.

Strathmore submitted a preliminary Permit to Mine Application
with the state of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality
Division (WDEQ-LQD) and a preliminary Plan of Operations to the BLM on October
31, 2012. The Companys preliminary Plan of Operations submitted to the BLM was
withdrawn on March 13, 2014, and the Permit to Mine Application was withdrawn
from the WDEQ-LQD in early 2014.

For Energy Fuels proposed Gas Hills Heap Leach Recovery
Facility, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has the responsibility
to issue a source material license to receive title to, receive, possess, use, transfer, or deliver any source
material after removal from its place of deposit in nature (CFR 40.1 and
40.3).

89

---

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography

The Gas Hills project is accessible via public roads and
highways. The Gas Hills uranium district is near the geographic center of
Wyoming. It is partly in Fremont County and partly in Natrona County, midway
between the cities of Casper and Riverton. Altitude ranges from about 6,000 feet
to over 8,000 feet. A steep north-facing escarpment from 400 to 500 feet high
above the surrounding lands, called the Beaver Divide, extends from the
southwestern part of the district to the east-central and southeastern parts.
The areas north and south of the Beaver Divide are gently rolling semi-arid
sagebrush-covered desert.

Climate in the Gas Hills uranium district 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 typically hot, dry
and clear except for infrequent rains. Because of the dry climate, almost all of
the streams in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or
spring snow melt. Winters are cold and summers are hot. Year-round open-pit
mining operations were successfully carried out previously in the Gas Hills
uranium district. Studies have found most common native vegetation is sagebrush
and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush. No threatened or endangered plants were
found on the properties. The Greater Sage Grouse, present in the general area of
the project, is being considered for listing as a threatened or endangered
species.

Extensive natural resources production in Wyoming provides a
highly skilled labor force in the region. Population centers within two hours of
the Gas Hills Project include Casper, Riverton, Lander and Rawlins, where labor,
equipment and supplies may be obtained. Paved roads from these cities extend to
the edge of the Gas Hills Project area. Access and haul roads within the project
are graded gravel and are maintained by the State, County and mining companies
operating in the area. Functioning power lines, natural gas lines, telephone and
fiber optic cable are present or and near the Gas Hills Project area. Several
wells producing water for domestic and industrial uses are on or close to the
Gas Hills Project area.

History

The Gas Hills uranium district has historically been one of the
major uranium mining and production regions of the United States. Total
district-wide production totaled approximately 100 million lbs. of uranium from
the mid-1950s to the late 1980s. Following the initial discovery of uranium in
the district in 1953, a staking rush ensued, thousands of mining claims were
staked within a few months, and exploration exposed numerous near-surface
oxidized deposits. Shipments of ore were sent to Edgemont, South Dakota, or to
Vitros mill in Salt Lake City, Utah. By 1959, there were five uranium mills
operating in the region: Lucky Mc, Split Rock, Susquehanna, Federal-American
Partners, and Globe, Inc. In the early-1980s, the spot price of uranium
dropped, and the Wyoming uranium mills were placed on standby and eventually
dismantled. The last mill production in the Gas Hills uranium district occurred
in 1988 at Lucky Mc. Extensive mill site mine reclamation occurred from the late
1980s until the present time.

More than 100,000 exploration and development holes were
drilled in the Gas Hills from the mid-1950s to 1979. Since 1990 only a few
hundred holes have been drilled, nearly all by Strathmore and Cameco.

The Day Loma uranium mineralization was discovered in the
1950s and was later owned by Western Nuclear Inc., later acquired by
Phelps-Dodge. Mining by open pit and underground continued to 1977 and resulted
in the total production of 498,381 tons with a grade of 0.248%, yielding
3,284,593 pounds of U3O8. In 1978, Energy Fuels Nuclear (no
relation to the Company) entered into an agreement to purchase the Day Loma
properties from Western Nuclear and initiated an aggressive drill program in
1978. In April 1979, Pathfinder Mines completed 200 holes at Day Loma,
confirming additional mineralization.

90

---

Three mining companies, Gas Hills Uranium, Federal Resources,
and Radorock Uranium, formed a partnership and constructed the central Gas Hills
uranium mill. Through various reorganizations, this group later became known as
Federal-American Partners (FAP). FAP signed an agreement with the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the early 1970s to develop uranium
ores in the Gas Hills area. In the early 1980s TVA acquired all of the mining
interests of FAP and subsequently sold them to Power Resources Inc.
(PRI, which was later acquired by Cameco Corporation) in 1991. Cameco
maintained many of the claims until the early 2000s, when they dropped their
rights to mineralization deemed too shallow for in-situ recovery (Loco-Lee and
Bullrush), in addition to those claims considered too close to previously mined
open pits (Andria, George-Ver, Day Loma, Sunset) and mineralization at greater
depths (Beaver Rim).

The Loco-Lee deposit lies adjacent to the Day Loma property and
was part of the FAP property. Loco-Lee was sold to PRI/Cameco. Cameco dropped
the mineral rights to Loco-Lee, which were later staked by Strathmore. Past
production figures for Loco-Lee are not available. American Nuclear reportedly
drilled 1,508 holes in Day Loma that provided information for the historical
tonnage and grade estimates. Although, not complete, Strathmore was able to
acquire information on 652 holes from Cameco. FAP designed a Loco-Lee pit in
preparation for mining, and it is evident from shape and extent of the proposed
pit that many of the missing holes contain significant uranium mineralization.

Bullrush consists of several separate uranium deposits about
one to two miles west of George-Ver at the northwestern extreme of Strathmores
Gas Hills area. They are located on property that once was part of FAP, Western
Nuclears (acquired later by FAP), and Union Carbides historical land
positions. There has been significant historical production from the property,
predominantly by open-pit methods and to a lesser extent by underground mining.
The FAP portion was sold to PRI in 1991. Cameco dropped the mineral rights to
Bullrush, and these were later staked by Strathmore. FAP had previously acquired
the Western Nuclear mineral rights in the 1960s. Production records are very
limited; however, by 1961 Western Nuclear mined 105,300 tons grading 0.196% for
412,000 pounds of uranium from four shallow open-pit mines. Later, FAP mined
additional deposits on their portion (Bullrush, Sagebrush, Tablestakes) of the
current property; final production numbers are unknown. On the west side of the
Bullrush Property, Union Carbide developed uranium deposits by open-pit mining.
Their George pits were excavated in the early 1980s to a depth of ~200-250
feet; final production numbers are unknown.

Jeep is a relatively small uranium deposit located about three
miles southwest of Day Loma. It is located on property that once was part of the
FAP land position. There has been no historical uranium production from this
property.

The Rock Hill deposits located in the northeast part of the Gas
Hills project area lie north of Camecos planned in-situ mining area. The
deposits were discovered in the 1950s as surface outcrop radiometric anomalies.
In the 1960s Vipoint Mining Companys (Vipoint) drilling defined
several near surface uranium deposits. Adobe Oil and Gas Company
(Adobe) in 1975 entered into an agreement with Vipont to develop an
open pit mine. During 1977-1981, Adobe drilled about 500 development holes in
addition to 50 core holes to delineate two deposits (Rock Hill and Red Horse)
adjacent to several mined by Union Carbide and Utah Intl/Pathfinder. Total past
production from the Rock Hill property is unknown.

Strathmores property includes portions of the Beaver Rim area,
which is located to the south of the target areas previously discussed herein.
CAM estimated that approximately 500 to 750 holes were drilled above Beaver Rim prior to 1980. The Allegretti claim group was
previously owned by Adobe. Uranium mineralization in the Wind River formation
was located by drilling in six horizons, each containing roll type uranium
mineralization. Two separate areas about 5,000 feet apart were explored by
historical drilling. Twenty exploration holes were drilled in the north area,
some of which were located on Strathmore or the Companys property. Of the
twenty holes, 18 encountered evidence of mineralization on four levels. The
depth of mineralization is about 1,200 feet.

91

---

Geologic Setting

The Gas Hills Uranium District, located in central Wyoming, is
about 100 square miles in area and is located within the Wind River Basin that
is bounded on the north by the Owl Creek Mountains, on the west by the Wind
River Mountains, and on the south by the Granite Mountains, part of the
Sweetwater uplift. These mountain ranges consist of Precambrian crystalline
basement rocks overlain by unmetamorphosed, mainly marine, Paleozoic and
Mesozoic sedimentary rocks Mountain ranges around the Wind River basin were
uplifted during the late Cretaceous to early Tertiary Laramide orogeny. Erosion
from these basement-cored uplifts deposited terrestrial clastic sediments of the
Eocene Wind River formation unconformably upon tilted and deformed
Paleozoic-Mesozoic rocks. Arkosic sandstones and conglomerates are common in the
Eocene Wind River formation and suggest that alluvial fan deposits helped fill
the basin. The coarse clastic rocks are up to 1,800 feet thick in the Gas Hills
area and pinch out against Paleozoic/Mesozoic rocks south of the Gas Hills. The
arkosic sandstones of the Wind River Formation are the host rocks for all
economic important quantities of uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills.

Mineralized trends are developed in the arkosic facies. The
Bullrush, Day Loma and Loco-Lee deposits are hosted in the Puddle Springs member
in the west Gas Hills trend. The George-Ver deposit is located in the Puddle
Springs member in the Central trend; and the Rock Hill deposit is located in the
Puddle Springs member in the eastern Gas Hills trend.

The uranium deposits are roll-front type, crescent-shaped in
vertical cross section, and with a linear sinuous pattern in plan view.
Roll-type uranium deposits are formed where oxidized and soluble uranium is
carried down a permeable sandstone bed to a point where it meets reducing
conditions. Uranium is reduced and deposited as uraninite and coffinite along
the roll-front.

The majority of uranium deposits targeted for eventual
production lie at depths from surface to approximately 450 feet in the main part
of the Gas Hills Project. Depths to mineralization reach 1,200 feet below the
prospective Beaver Rim to the south.

Exploration

Uranium was discovered in the Gas Hills near the center of the
district at the north end of what later became known as the Central Gas Hills.
As exploration continued, uranium was found at widely scattered localities and
after a while it became evident that uranium occurrences were concentrated in
three separate areas: a western area, a central area, and an eastern area.
Following the initial discovery of uranium in the district in 1953, a staking
rush ensued, thousands of mining claims were staked within a few months, and
exploration exposed numerous near-surface oxidized deposits. Exploration for
roll-front uranium deposits requires drilling for discovery, development and
definition of economic deposits. Initial drilling is wide spaced to gather
geologic information, including presence of alteration bleaching, traces of
mineralization and stratigraphic information. The latter along with the gamma
signature from the logging probe, is used to guide location of subsequent drill
holes. This is standard procedures in exploration for roll-front uranium
deposits. Application of current and historical exploration information, and
known geological controls on mineralization, suggest that additional
U3O8 could be present in already-identified trends, in addition to areas where sparse
drill information is available, where geological conditions appear favorable.

92

---

Strathmores exploration activities focused primarily on the
George-Ver, Frazier LaMac, Loco-Lee, Day Loma, Bull-Rush, Rock Hill, Andrea,
Sunset, Table-Stakes areas within the main Gas Hills area. All of these
properties have a significant historical resource and at least several hundred
historical holes in each property. Beginning in 2007 and continuing to the
present, Strathmores exploration for uranium in the Gas Hills has involved
confirmation drilling of previously-explored areas, along with some step-out
drilling in other areas. Definition of the water table, preliminary
metallurgical tests, and design of a proposed heap-leach pad and recovery plant
were initiated by Strathmore. Exploration and confirmation drilling, in addition
to permitting activities were completed as part of a US$8 million program
formally announced by Strathmore on June 26, 2012 as a part of a strategic
venture with Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).

Strathmore utilized a prompt-fission-neutron (PFN)
logging tool, gamma-ray probing tools, and select chemical assays for the
measurement of uranium in the Gas Hills project. Equivalent uranium values,
expressed as eU3O8, were obtained from down-hole gamma-ray
probes, assuming that uranium and its daughter products are in radiogenic
equilibrium. The probes were standardized and calibrated using test pits
operated by U.S. Department of Energy, located in Casper, Wyoming and Grand
Junction, Colorado. Many drill holes completed subsequent to November 11, 2011
were logged using a PFN logging tool which gives a direct reading of uranium
content.

Strathmore carried out confirmation and development drilling on
the Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, Jeep and Rock Hill properties. Each of these
areas has been the site of past mine production and have historical mineral
tonnage estimates. Most of the holes were rotary-drilled, with some
reverse-circulation holes and a few cored sections. Strathmore drilling for each
of the five areas is summarized below.

Mineralization

Uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills is present in bodies
usually referred to as rolls. In vertical cross section, they are irregularly
crescent shaped. Rolls are the result of oxidized and soluble uranium being
transported by ground water to a location within a permeable sandstone host
where a reaction within a reducing environment occurs and insoluble reduced
uranium minerals are deposited. The contact between oxidized and reduced
conditions is called the roll front. Reduced uranium minerals, uraninite and a
little coffinite are concentrated in the sandstone matrix in the crescent roll.
A concave contact separates the roll from adjacent bleached and oxidized host
rock barren of uranium. This contact is the roll-front. Upper and lower
boundaries of mineralization generally are beds of impermeable mudstone.
Individual rolls can be a few feet to tens of feet thick. In plan, rolls can be
traced for several thousand feet.

In the body of the crescent, individual rolls range from a few
inches to many feet in vertical thickness. Average thickness of a well
mineralized roll is 10 to 15 feet; many rolls thicker than 20 feet have been
mined. The upper and lower horns of the crescent thin away from the body of the
crescent. In the Gas Hills, the lower horn normally is greatly extended and
thins gradually, whereas the upper horn is short and thins abruptly.

On the concave side of a crescent-shaped mineralized body,
relatively light gray colored altered host rock is present. The contact is a
slightly irregular narrow zone, and the change from uranium-bearing to bleached
or altered rock normally takes place within a distance of three inches or
less.

On the convex side of a crescent shape mineralized body,
relatively dark greenish-gray unbleached (unaltered) rock is present. The
contact between uranium-bearing and unbleached or unaltered rock is an extremely irregular interfingering, mostly gradational feature
but the contact between individual fingers of mineralized rock and unbleached
host may be moderately sharp. The fingers of mineralized rock point in the
direction of unbleached rock; this direction can be thought of as the direction
in which the roll is facing.

93

---

Uranium is not distributed uniformly throughout a roll, rather,
it is typically concentrated in the body of the crescent close to the concave
side. High-grade mineralization locally contains several percent
U3O8per ton. The grade progressively decreases away from
the high-grade zone.

Drilling

More than 100,000 exploration and development holes were
drilled in the Gas Hills from the mid-1950s to 1979. Since 1990 only a few
hundred holes have been drilled, nearly all by Strathmore and Cameco.

Strathmores drilling was successful in better-defining
mineralized areas and in defining NI 43-101 compliant mineral resources.

Strathmores practice was to drill holes by conventional rotary
drill rigs using air, foam or circulating drilling mud.

Holes drilled for environmental monitoring of water are
designated with a number followed by MW in the Gas Hills Technical Report and
are included in the numbering sequence that includes all holes. All holes,
including MW holes were logged by gamma probes, and at times, by the PFN probe.
Late in 2011 and throughout the 2012 drilling campaign, Strathmore searched for
historic drill holes in the principal target areas in the field. When found,
these holes were reamed or re-drilled and logged with gamma ray probe and with
the PFN tool. Locations of the holes were established with GPS surveying. These
recovered historic holes are identified by WO in the respective hole number
within the Gas Hills Technical Report. Beginning in May 2012, prior to the
effective date of the Gas Hills Technical Report, Strathmore used GAA Wireline
Inc. to log holes, and to verify the Strathmore gamma and PFN readings. CAM
concluded from its study of all PFN and gamma readings data from Strathmores
drilling that disequilibrium effects are present and that actual amount of
uranium in the drilled deposits may be greater than those indicated by the
gamma-ray probe.

Strathmore drilled 60 rotary holes and three core holes in the
Bullrush area in 2012. All holes were logged with a gamma ray probe and a PFN
tool. Eleven confirmation rotary holes and one core hole were drilled in the
area of the historic pit designed by FAP. Strathmore drilled 49 rotary
exploration holes and two core holes in the Bullrush West-29 target area. These
holes were drilled in a grid pattern, with lines spaced 200 feet apart and holes
located at intervals of 200 feet along the lines.

In October 2010, Strathmore initiated drilling on the Day Loma
Property. Nine holes were drilled; seven confirmation holes and two monitor
wells. The seven holes were drilled to confirm mineralization at the Property
and to extend the southeast trend into untested areas. The two monitor wells
were drilled for baseline water quality data collection and analysis as required
for mine permit submittal, and were all logged for uranium. Two areas within the
Day Loma area are considered to have potential for commercial uranium
mineralization. One area lies immediately east and south of the old open pit
mine, called the Day Loma Southeast Extension target. Thirty-eight holes were
drilled in this area, including one core hole in 2012. The second exploration
target area drilled was the Northeast target and 25 holes were drilled in this
area, including one core hole in 2012. Other holes were drilled across the
greater property to confirm the mineralization indicated by the historical
database.

94

---

Drilling at George-Ver took place from 2007 to 2010. A total of
25 holes were drilled including seven core holes. Uranium mineralization varies
from 0.007% to 0.261% eU3O8. Generally, chemical assays
ofcore are higher than the gamma-ray probe measurements. Drilling at
the George-Ver property in 2011 and 2012 was concentrated in three areas located
north, west, and South of the historic Lucky Mc open pit. Twelve rotary holes
and seven core holes were drilled in the area located north and northwest of the
old Lucky Mc open pit. The holes were logged with both gamma probe and PFN
tools. Twenty-four rotary holes were drilled west of the old open pit and 17
rotary holes were drilled south of the old Lucky Mc open pit. All rotary holes
were logged with gamma-ray and PFN probes.

The Loco-Lee property was drilled with 15 holes in 2010 and
2011 with three being core. Gamma-ray probe readings vary from 0.019 to 0.404%
eU3O8. The 11 holes drilled in 2011 also were logged with
a PFN probe to obtain disequilibrium information. The PFN readings generally
were greater than the gamma-ray probe. Sixty-five rotary holes and seven core
holes were drilled at Loco-Lee in 2011 and 2012. Thirty-eight rotary holes and
six core holes were drilled to confirm mineralization in the known area of
extensive historic drilling located to the northeast of the old open pits. These
holes were drilled on a grid with lines spaced 100 feet apart and holes located
100 feet apart along the lines. In addition, thirteen exploration rotary holes
also were drilled in a potential mineral target area north and west of the known
mineralized area with extensive historic drilling.

Strathmore started drilling the Rock Hill Property in April
2011. Twelve holes were drilled by reverse-circulation across the Rock Hill
deposit to confirm existing historical drilling, retrieval of samples for
overburden characterization (mine permit requirement), and for recovery of
mineralized samples for mill amenability and column leach tests. The holes are
located very close to the claim boundary against adjacent land controlled by
others. Strathmore probed each of the twelve 2011 holes, using their standard
gamma and PFN logging tools. Strathmore drilled 26 more confirmation rotary
holes and four core holes in 2012 at the Rock Hill deposit; each of the holes
was logged by gamma and PFN probes. Generally PFN probe readings were higher in
uranium values than provided by gamma-ray probes. An additional eight (8)
confirmation rotary holes were drilled to the southwest of the Rock Hill
mineralization in an area previously mined by Utah International and planned for
mining by Union Carbide.

The Tablestakes Project Area is located southeast of
Strathmores past-proposed Gas Hills uranium recovery facility. Part of the
target is an area called Amazon by FAP. Strathmore drilled 13 holes in this
Amazon target area in 2012. Holes are widely spaced and drilled on grid lines
spaced 400 feet apart, and holes located 400 feet apart on the grid lines. Six
(6) additional holes were drilled to the west, in an area of pit highwalls not
mined previously by Union Carbide and FAP. All holes were logged with gamma and
PFN logging probes.

Strathmore drilled 40 development holes at the Jeep property in
2007. All holes were logged by standard gamma-ray probe, and readings of up to
0.058% eU3O8were obtained.

Strathmore carried out exploration drilling at several targets
south of the Beaver Rim Divide during the summer and autumn of 2012. Location,
geologic favorability and previous historic drill testing justified additional
exploration in the area. Strathmore drilled 12 rotary exploration holes in the
West Diamond target and three rotary exploration holes in the East Diamond area.
Nineteen rotary exploration holes were drilled in the South Black Mountain
target area. All holes were logged with the gamma probe and several with the PFN
tool. No core holes were drilled south of Beaver Rim.

Please refer to the Gas Hills Technical Report for the results
of all drilling.

95

---

Sampling and Analysis

Historical Data

The bulk of the drilling on the property was undertaken prior
to 1980, and is considered historical under NI 43-101. Sedimentary roll
uranium deposits were historically sampled by measuring the quantity of
radiation emitted along the length of a drill hole, and converting these
measurements into equivalent grade and thickness of uranium mineralization.
Standard logs consist of recordings of gamma, self-potential and resistivity.
Equivalent U3O8content was calculated from gamma logs
using industry-standard methods developed by the U.S. AEC. Some check analyses
were done by fluorimetric chemical analyses and closed-can radiometric analyses.
Any differences between the two analyses would indicate a radiogenic
disequilibrium situation where gamma logs did not provide an accurate analysis
of the quantity of uranium present. Chemical analyses for uranium were
historically done at ISO-certified laboratories.

Strathmore Data

Strathmores practice was to drill holes by conventional rotary
drill rigs using air, foam or circulating drilling mud. The cuttings were
collected over 5 foot intervals and laid out on the ground in rows of 20 samples
(100 feet) by the driller. The site geologist examined cuttings in the field to
determine rock type and geochemical alteration. Between 2007 and November 11
2011, Strathmore, logged all its holes with gamma-ray probes. A few core holes
were drilled to supplement the gamma data, and to provide material for
metallurgical testing. Strathmore implemented PFN logging, and select core
assaying, in addition to gamma logging. PFN analysis assesses the quantity of
uranium present surrounding a drill hole directly by measuring neutrons
fissioned from the U235isotope, thus aiding in determining any
disequilibrium which may be present. In May 2011, Strathmore started drilling in
the Gas Hills, specifically on the Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, Bullrush, and
Rock Hill properties, using a reverse-circulation drill rig. A total of 41 holes
were drilled and logged with gamma and PFN tools during the summer 2011. Samples
were collected for mine and mill permitting requirements. This method allows
bulk samples to be collected from surface to total depth (varies from 100-450
feet). The retrieved mineralized samples are substantial in size and can be used
for mill amenability and column leach testing to determine the ideal leachant
and mill scenario.

Data Verification

Validation of the drill hole database is a key element in
preparation of an NI 43-101 report. The drill hole database for the Gas Hills
project consists of thousands of historical drill holes with gamma logs, mostly
from the 1970s, but also with some from as early as the 1950s. It is recognized
that gamma logs are indirect measurements of the amount of uranium present and
must be validated. Typically, this process consists of comparing equivalent
uranium determined from gamma log interpretations with chemical analyses of rock
core recovered from core holes. This process is subject to some degree of
uncertainty because the gamma logs and the chemical assays are obtained from
different samples: core from the drill hole itself and gamma readings from the
material surrounding the hole.

CAM undertook a rigorous statistical comparison of Strathmores
drilling results with those of historical operators, as shown in Section 12 of
the Gas Hills Technical Report. The comparison also included comparison of
historical chemical assays of historical drill core with gamma logs of the cored
intervals, and comparison of Strathmores gamma and PFN logging of the
dual-probed intervals. As a result of these studies, CAM concluded that the
historical drilling at Day Loma and Rock Hill, augmented by Strathmores
drilling, were suitable for use in Mineral Resource estimation. There was not
sufficient comparative data from George-Ver, Loco Lee, or Jeep to allow
estimation of compliant Mineral Resources in these three areas.

96

---

A series of 37 laboratory cross-checks between Hazen and IML
are available for Strathmore core. This correspondence provides a high degree of
confidence in the chemical assay data base.

Metallurgical Studies

The Companys concept is to mine uranium-bearing material by
open-pit and underground methods, heap-leach the mined material, and recover
uranium by ion exchange. Strathmore previously contracted Lyntek Inc. of Denver,
Colorado, to conduct preliminary metallurgical tests by bottle-roll and
column-leach to assess uranium recoveries. Eight composite samples were prepared
from drill cuttings obtained from drilling at Bullrush-Tablestakes, Day Loma,
George-Ver, Loco-Lee and Rock Hill properties. These were submitted to
InterMountain Labs in Sheridan, Wyoming and to Lyntek for metallurgical test
work. Results of preliminary bottle-roll tests indicate average recoveries of
89.2%; overall reagent consumption is low.

Security of Samples

The historical sampling, logging, and gamma-probing were
subject to the normal industrial security controls typical of the 1950s to
1970s. Strathmores security practices involved: awareness of chain-of-custody
issues, limited access to logging tools through locked storage as approved by
the NRC, and continuing calibration of logging tools to assure that no tampering
occurred. All drill hole physical samples were locked in storage until sent for
laboratory testing.

Beginning in May 2012, Strathmore utilized third-party
independent PFN and gamma logging provided by GAA Wireline Inc. of Casper,
Wyoming. GAA operated their own logging equipment and at times, provided loggers
who operated Strathmores company-owned PFN logging truck. GAA provided
calibration documentation of test pit runs, which were also reviewed by CAM. The
Strathmore PFN and gamma probes from which this data is derived have been
frequently calibrated at the Casper and Grand Junction DOE test pits and have
shown, with a few exceptions, very little drift between calibrations.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

Below is a summary of the total Indicated Mineral Resources
estimated for the Gas Hills Project:

Area
    Thickness (Ft)
    Cutoff Grade
      (eU3O8%)
    Grade Thickness
    Tons (1,000,000s)
    Contained Lbs. (eU3O8) (1,000,000's)
    Average Grade
      (eU3O8%)
    Average Thickness
      (Ft)Day Loma
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    1.4
    4.0
    0.14
    4.4George-Ver
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    0.9
    1.4
    0.08
    4.1Total
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    2.3
    5.4
    0.13
  4.3


Below is a summary of the total Inferred Mineral Resources
estimated for the Gas Hills Project(1):

Area
    Thickness (Ft)
    Cutoff Grade
      (eU3O8%)
    Grade Thickness
    Tons (1,000,000s)
    Contained Lbs.
      (eU3O8)
      (1,000,000's)
    Average Grade
      (eU3O8%)
    Average Thickness
      (Ft)Bullrush
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    0.9
    0.9
    0.05
    5.7Day Loma
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    0.6
    1.2
    0.10
    3.2George-Ver
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    0.4
    0.5
    0.07
    3.2Loco-Lee
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    1.0
    1.2
    0.06
    3.2Rock Hill
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    1.1
    1.7
    0.08
    8.3Total
    1.0
    0.035
    0.035
    3.9
    5.5
    0.07
    5.1 97    (1)
    Total pounds, tons, average grade, and grade thickness
      may not check exactly with totals and averages calculated from table
      values due to rounding. The Gas Hills Project contains no NI 43-101 Mineral Reserves. Key assumptions in the resource estimate are as follows: 
    CAM reviewed gamma ray, PFN, closed can and chemical
      assay data for all five properties. For Day Loma and George-Ver CAM found
      that PFN, closed can and chemical assay data supported the assumption that
      the gamma ray eU3O8 could be used for calculation of indicated and
      inferred resources. For Bullrush, Rock Hill and Loco Lee the data are
      suitable for estimation of an inferred resource but believes that
      additional chemical, closed can and associated PFN and gamma ray data are
      required for the estimation of indicated and measured resources.
    CAM reviewed the geometry in three dimensions of mineral
      intercepts above the grade of 0.035 and a minimum thickness of 1 foot. A
      content of 0.035% eU3O8 corresponds to a contained uranium value of $35
      per ton at a $50 uranium price. A foot is about the minimum thickness that
      can be selectively mined by open pit methods. This review indicated that
      likely open pit minable mineralization is confined by elevations or
      depths. These elevations or depths were used to define limits for a
  potentially open pit minable resource.
    Day Loma and George-Ver were historically mined by open
      pits and by underground workings. The areas of historic mining were
      excluded from resource tabulation based on the plan footprint of historic
      mining. Depending on backslope and vertical extent of underground
      workings, this may be conservative.
    Grade thickness and thickness contour maps were
      constructed using all the data and a zero nugget linear variogram. This
      gives a smooth contour map which honors the data. The contour maps were
      consistent with usual roll front deposit geometry but all contour maps
      showed the connectivity associated with potentially minable mineral
      deposits.
    Limits of mineralization in plan for each of the 5 areas
      were provided by Strathmore. CAM reviewed these and found them to be
      reasonable so resource reporting was additionally constrained to within
      these areas.
    Based on a the variogram ranges of a minimum about 200
      feet and review of grade thickness contour maps CAM classified resources
      as inferred if values were interpolated up to 400 ft. and extrapolated to
      200 feet and were not indicated. Resources were classified as indicated if
      values were interpolated up to 282 ft. and extrapolated to 141 ft. Note
      that indicated must also have an acceptable equilibrium factor.
    A specific volume of 16.9 cubic feet per ton is suitable
      for the estimation of tonnage and contained pounds. This is based on
      current measurements. Although additional specific volume information
      should be obtained, CAM believes this value is suitable for estimation of
      an inferred and indicated resource. Mining Operations Mining operations have been carried out on areas of the Gas
Hills Project at various times in the 1950s to the 1980s as discussed above.
No current mining is occurring on the project. Although not discussed in the
Technical Report, Strathmore had proposed several small open pit mines and a
central heap leach recovery plant for uranium from the various resource areas.
Strathmore had developed mine and processing permit applications. After acquisition by Energy
Fuels, the permitting process was placed on hold. 98   Permitting The Gas Hills Project consists of proposed open pit mines with
ore to be processed onsite or at a centrally-located processing facility. The
Company has completed baseline studies for the Project. Most of the mining
activities proposed for the Project are on Federal lands administered by the
BLM. Strathmore previously submitted a Mine Permit Application and Plan of
Operations (PO) to the WDEQ-LQD and the BLM, respectively, in August
2013. The BLM completed public hearings to advance work on the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). In late 2013, Energy Fuels requested that WDEQ-LQD cease
review of the Mine Permit Application and that the BLM temporarily delay the EIS
process until the company can fully assess the Projects economics. In March
2014, Energy Fuels withdrew the PO because it became apparent that the mining
and processing plans would need to be significantly revised to optimize the
projects economic potential. Energy Fuels continues to cooperate with the AML
Division of the WDEQ to advance reclamation of historic mining features within
the Project area. 99   La Sal Project  Unless stated otherwise, the following description of the La
Sal Project is derived from a technical report titled "Technical Report on La
Sal District Project (Including the Pandora, Beaver, and Energy Queen Projects),
San Juan County, Utah, U.S.A.", dated March 25, 2014, prepared by Douglas C.
Peters, CPG, of Peters Geosciences, in accordance with NI 43-101 (the La Sal
Technical Report). The La Sal Technical Report includes an updated NI
43-101 compliant Mineral Resource estimate. The author of the La Sal Technical
Report is a qualified person and independent of the Company within the
meaning of NI 43-101. A copy of the La Sal Technical Report is available under
the Companys profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. Energy Fuels had previously filed an NI 43-101 Technical Report
for the Energy Queen mine in March 2011 titled Updated Technical Report on
Energy Fuels Resources Corporations Energy Queen Project San Juan County, Utah
March 15, 2011by Douglas C. Peters. The Energy Queen property is
located near the west end of the La Sal Mineral Belt, about three-to-five miles
west of the town of La Sal, Utah. In June 2012, Energy Fuels acquired the US
assets of Denison Mines Corp. (Denison), including the Pine Ridge, Pandora,
Snowball, La Sal, and Beaver mines in the eastern part of the La Sal Mineral
Belt, as well as property between the Beaver and Energy Queen mines, referred to
in this section and in the La Sal Technical Report as the Redd Block. Peters Geosciences was retained by Energy Fuels to prepare a
new Technical Report to support disclosure of Mineral Resource estimates for the
combined properties now controlled by Energy Fuels in the La Sal Mineral Belt,
herein referred to as the La Sal project. The La Sal Technical Report replaced
the Energy Queen Technical Report; however, it, in part, relies on information
previously disclosed in the Energy Queen Technical Report. Project Description & Location The La Sal project consists of four core mineral properties,
from east-to-west, the Pandora/ Snowball, Beaver/La Sal, Redd Block, and Energy
Queen, all located in San Juan County, Utah near the town of La Sal. Other
properties within the La Sal Project include the Pine Ridge property, east of
Pandora, and unpatented mining claims and a Utah State Mineral Lease west of the
Energy Queen mine. The property stretches for 11 miles in an east-west direction
and covers all, or parts of the following Sections: Sections 31, 32, and 33,
T28S, R25E; Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7, T29S, R25E; Sections 25, 26, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, and 36, T28S, R24E; Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12, T29S,
R24E; Section 36, T28S, R23E; and Sections 1, 2, and 12, T29S, R23E, SLBM, San
Juan County, Utah. 100   The La Sal project is held by Energy Fuels subsidiaries, EFR
Colorado Plateau LLC under private surface use and access leases, private
mineral leases, Utah State Mineral Leases, San Juan County surface use, access,
and mineral lease, and, after the Company reduced the property position by
dropping claims without affecting the Mineral Resource, 219 unpatented mining
claims on land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest
Service, that are either owned by Energy Fuels (90 claims) or leased by Energy
Fuels (129 claims). After the claim drop the total land package consists of
approximately 9,900 acres. The unpatented claims cover about 3,350 acres, the
eight Utah State leases total approximately 2,860 acres, the San Juan County
leased land contains just over 263 acres, and the six separate surface access
and nine private parcel mineral leases apply to a total of 3,430 acres. The La
Sal Project consists of four core properties, from east-to-west,
Pandora/Snowball, Beaver/La Sal, Redd Block, and Energy Queen. Other properties
within the La Sal Project include Pine Ridge east of Pandora and unpatented
mining claims and a Utah State Mineral Lease west of Energy Queen. The property
covers all, or parts of the following Sections: Sections 31, 32, and 33, T28S,
R25E; Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7, T29S, R25E; Sections 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
and 36, T28S, R24E; Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12, T29S, R24E;
Section 36, T28S, R23E; and Sections 1, 2, and 12, T29S, R23E, SLBM, San Juan
County, Utah. Annual holding costs consist of rental fees to the BLM at
$140/year/claim, due on or before September 1st each year (BLM increased the fee
to $155 per claim in 2014). An affidavit of the payment to the BLM must be filed
with the appropriate County each year for a nominal fee of about $10 per claim.
This applies to all unpatented claims whether owned or leased by Energy Fuels. Claims Owned by Energy Fuels: Beaver/La Sal Area: Energy Fuels owns 21 unpatented claims
covering parts of the Beaver/La Sal and Snowball Mines. Energy Queen Area: After the Company reduced its property
position by dropping 20 claims without affecting the Mineral Resource as
described in the Technical Report, the Company owns 36 unpatented claims
covering part of the Energy Queen Mine Mineral Resources and west of the Energy
Queen property. In March 2009, Energy Fuels purchased 29 claims from BZU
Holdings (Mesa Uranium) in section 1, T29S, R23E. There are no royalties on
these claims. The Sunnyside 3-8, Rattlesnake 3, 4, 7, and 8, Buck #1, and Jude
#1 and #2 were purchased by Energy Fuels from Uranium One in December 2010. They
lie in Sections 1 and 12, T29S, R23E. Uranium One reserved an overriding royalty
of 1% on these claims which also are burdened by a 2.5% royalty due to a
previous owner of the claims. Since issuance of the Technical Report, the
Company dropped some of these claims and retained only the Sunnyside #5-#8 and
Jude # 1 and #2 subject to the above royalty. Energy Fuels purchased the Judas
10-13, HEC 23, DOD 1-3, and Daisy 1-8 claims in March 2012 from Kimmerle Mining
LLC. Energy Fuels will owe a production royalty (4% net smelter return) to the
seller on those claims. These claims lie in Section 31, T28S, R24E, Sections 1
and 12, T29S, R23E, and Sections 6 and 7, T29S, R24E. Pine Ridge Area: In April 2011, Denison purchased 37 claims on
Pine Ridge from six separate claim owners. Due to some overlap and other
irregularities, Denison amended the Notice of Location with the BLM on 18 of the
claims. Energy Fuels abandoned the other 19 claims and replaced them with 15 new
claims covering essentially the same ground. All of these claims are held
without encumbrances and lie in Section 33, T28S, R25E and Section 4, T29S,
R25E. Claims Leased by Energy Fuels: Pandora Claims: Energy Fuels is successor to the Mining Lease
of June 16, 1967 and its several amendments between Robert H. Sayre, Jr. and
American Metal Climax, Inc. and its successors (to Atlas in 1973; to Umetco in
1988) applicable to 104 Pandora unpatented claims. The claims lie in Sections 1 and 12, T29S, R24E, Section 31, T28S, R25E, and Sections 5, 6,
and 7, T29S, R25E. Production from these claims is subject to a royalty to
Sayres successors of 10% of the contained value of uranium and vanadium, less
certain allowable deductions. No annual advance royalties are due. 101   Martha Claims: A Mining Lease between Robert H. Sayre, Jr. and
Atlas dated July 11, 1973 applies to 10 Martha unpatented claims at the east end
of the Pandora claims. Energy Fuels is successor to this lease. The terms of the
Mining Lease, with respect to production royalty, are the same as the Pandora
Mining Lease (above). The Martha claims lie in Section 31, T28S, R25E and
Section 5, T29S, R25E. The Mining Lease does not include any requirement for
annual advance royalties. Mike Claims: The Mike claims are the subject of a Mining Lease
between various individuals who are all part owners of the six Mike claims and
Denison, dated August 1, 2011. That lease supersedes the original 1970 lease
between Umetco and the owners. The claims lie in Section 1, T29S, R24E.
Production royalties are on a sliding scale for both uranium and vanadium
depending on the respective commoditys market price. The uranium royalty varies
from 3% to 8% and the vanadium royalty from 2% to 6% less allowable deductions.
There is no annual advance royalty due on these claims. Crested Claims: Six Crested and two T and A claims are covered
by a Mining Lease dated February 1, 2009 between the eight individual owners and
Denison. These claims are located in Sections 33 and 34, T28S, R24E and Section
3, T29S, R24E. Energy Fuels pays an annual advance royalty determined by the
long term uranium price in the preceding twelve months. Production royalties are
on a sliding scale for both uranium and vanadium depending on the respective
commoditys market price. The uranium royalty varies from 3% to 8% and the
vanadium royalty from 2% to 6% less allowable deductions. State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA) Leases: ML-18301: The Utah State Mineral Lease covering all of the 640
acres in Section 36, T28S, R24E was originally issued to an individual, Robert
Manly, on April 25, 1960. Through a series of assignments and amendments, the
lease is now held by Energy Fuels. The term of the lease runs through December
31, 2014; it is renewable for as long as minimum royalty and rental fees are
paid. The Company has renewed this lease for another 10 year term. The surface
of approximately 384 acres of the western part of the lease parcel is owned by
Charles Hardison Redd. Energy Fuels has a surface access agreement with Mr.
Redd. The eastern part of ML-18301 surface is owned by SITLA. Rights to
necessary surface use are granted by the mineral lease. The eastern part of the
Beaver/La Sal Mine lies within this lease. The lease is held by paying in
advance an annual rental of $1.00 per acre and an annual minimum royalty based
on the previous January through Novembers average uranium and vanadium market
prices. The production royalty on this and other Utah SITLA Leases is 8% on
uranium and 4% on vanadium. ML-27247: Mineral Lease ML-27247 covers 40 acres in the SW 1⁄4 SW
1⁄4 Section 35, T28S, R24E. The lease was originally issued on December 4, 1970 to
an individual, Gregory Hoskin. Through a series of assignments and amendments,
the lease is now held by Energy Fuels. The term of the lease runs through
December 31, 2014; it is renewable as long as minimum royalty and rental fees
are paid. The Company has renewed this lease for another 10 year term. The
surface of the western 20 acres of the lease parcel is owned by Redd Agri LLC
and the eastern 20 acres is owned by La Sal Livestock. Energy Fuels has a
surface access agreement with both Redd Agri and La Sal Livestock. Portions of
the western part of the Beaver Mine occur on this lease parcel. The production
royalty on this lease is 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. ML-27248: As with ML-27247, the Mineral Lease ML-27248 was
originally issued to Gregory Hoskin in December 1970 and is now held by Energy
Fuels following several assignments and amendments. It covers 80 acres in the W
1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 Section 2, T29S, R24E. With the exception of small parcels owned by San Juan School District and La Sal Recreation District, the
surface is owned by Redd Agri. Energy Fuels has a surface use agreement with
Redd Agri for the remainder. Portions of the western part of the Beaver Mine are
located on this lease. The term of the lease runs through December 31, 2014. The
Company has renewed this lease for another 10 year term.. The lease is held by
paying in advance an annual rental of $1.00 per acre and an annual minimum
royalty based on the previous January through Novembers average uranium and
vanadium market prices. The production royalty on this and other Utah State
Mineral Leases is 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. 102   ML-49313: In December 2010, Energy Fuels purchased ML-49313
from Uranium One with the seller retaining a 1% overriding royalty. Uranium One
acquired the lease from the original assignee, William Sheriff. This lease
covers about 484 acres in the S1⁄2, S1⁄2 of NW1⁄4, and E1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 Section 36, T28S,
R23E. The southeast corner of this section is one mile west of the Energy Queen
Shaft. The surface is owned by SITLA. Rights to necessary surface use are
granted by the lease. This lease is held by payment of $500 per year rental. No
annual minimum royalties apply. Energy Fuels has paid to hold this lease to the
end of its first term, May 1, 2014 and renewed the lease for an additional 10
year term. The production royalty on this lease is 8% on uranium and 4% on
vanadium. ML-49314: This lease was issued April 30, 2004 to William
Sheriff. Sheriff assigned it to Energy Metals Corporation in 2006, which then
became Uranium One in 2009. In February 2011, Denison purchased it from Uranium
One. Energy Fuels now is the lessee, having acquired this asset from Denison in
June, 2012. The lease covers 640 acres, all of Section 32, T28S, R25E. This lies
north of the eastern part of the Pandora Mine, but no mining has occurred. The
surface is owned by Paul Redd. Energy Fuels has a surface access agreement with
Redd to access a Pandora Mine ventilation hole. Holding cost for ML-49314 is
$1.00 per acre. The rental of $640 was paid to hold the lease to the end of its
first term, May 1, 2014, and the lease was renewed for an additional 10 year
term. The production royalty on this lease is 8% on uranium and 4% on
vanadium. ML-49315: The history of ownership of this lease is the same as
that of ML-49314, mentioned above. ML-49315 covers almost 138 acres mostly in
the NE 1⁄4 and in parts of NW 1⁄4 Section 5, T29S, R24E. Energy Fuels has paid the
annual rental of $1.00 per acre to hold this lease until May 1, 2014, and
renewed the lease for an additional 10 year term. Portions of the Redd Block
Mineral Resources are located on this lease. The production royalty on this
lease is 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. ML-49596: The State lease, ML-49596, comprises 640 acres in
section 2, T29S, R23E. It was purchased from Uranium One in December 2010 with
the seller retaining a 1% overriding royalty. Uranium One acquired the lease
from the original assignee, William Sheriff. The surface is owned by SITLA.
Rights to necessary surface use are granted by the lease. Holding costs are
currently $1.00/acre/year and have been paid to hold the lease until January 31,
2015. The Company has renewed this lease for an additional 10 year term The
production royalty on this lease is 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. ML-51440: In September 2008, Energy Fuels was the high bidder
on lease ML-51440. The lease covers 160 acres in the N 1⁄2 S 1⁄2 Section 32, T28S,
R24E. Payment of $500 per year is required to hold this lease. Energy Fuels has
made the payment to hold until August 31, 2015. The production royalty on this
lease is 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. Private Mineral Leases: Superior Uranium - Energy Queen Mining Lease: A lease to lease
the Energy Queens surface rights with Markle Ranch Holdings, LLC was signed on
December 15, 2006 for a term of twenty years, which is extendable if mineral
production is on a continuing basis. Rental is at the rate of $50.00 per acre
for those acres disturbed by such activities, currently about 60 acres, and
$10.00 per acre for the remaining undisturbed acreage. Markle also will be paid 1% of market
value for any material mined on adjoining properties, if such minerals are
removed by use of the mine shaft located on the Markle property. A Mining Lease
Agreement to lease the Energy Queen mineral rights from Superior Uranium Inc.
was signed on December 13, 2006 for a term of twenty years, which is extendable
if mineral production is on a continuing basis. The mineral lease and surface
lease cover the same 702 acres located in most of Section 6 and the N 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 and
NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 Section 7, T29S, R24E. There are annual payments due on the lease
anniversary dates of $50,000, which are advance royalties that will be credited
against production royalties. Production royalty will be paid on a sliding scale
for both uranium and vanadium from 4% to 8%. 103   Redd Royalties Block 1-A Mining Lease: The leased parcel
referred to as Redd 1-A covers 160 acres in the SE 1⁄4 Section 31, T28S, R24E. An
advance royalty of $3.00 per net mineral acre is paid annually to hold the
lease. Payment is current to hold the lease until July 1, 2014, and the Company
has made payments to hold the lease until July 1, 2015. No mining has occurred
on this parcel yet. Production royalty will be 12.5 % of gross value. Redd Royalties Block 1-B Mining Lease: The lease referred to as
the Redd 1-B was entered at the same time and in the same form as the Redd 1-A
lease described above, but covering different parcels of land. The Redd 1-B
Mining Lease applies to 1,400 acres lying in the following sections: E 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4,
SE 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 Section 34 and W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 Section 35, T28S, R24E; in Section 2, T29S,
R24E all but the W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4; the SE 1⁄4, E 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 and E 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 of Section 3, T29S,
R24E; and the N 1⁄2 Section 11, T29S, R24E. An annual advance royalty of $6,000 is
paid to hold this lease. Payment is current to hold the lease until July 1,
2015. The production royalty is 12.5 % of gross value. Redd Royalties La Sal Unit Mining Lease: This lease was entered
into on February 5, 2008 between Denison and Redd Royalties for a 20-year term
to cover some of the land previously part of the Redd 1-A that had been released
from the 1-A lease in 1999. The leased land lies in the following parcels: NE 1⁄4
Section 31, T28S, R24E; S 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4 Section 4, T29S, R24E, and the SE 1⁄2
Section 5, T29S, R24E. It totals about 683 acres. The annual advance royalty to
hold this lease is dependent on the previous 12 month weighted average Ux
Consulting Long Term U3O8 Price (Ux Long-Term
price). Based on theUxLT price 12-month average dropping below $50/lb., a
payment of $8,000 has been made to keep the lease current until February 5, 2016.
A market value production royalty will be due on a sliding scale ranging from
a uranium royalty of 4% when the Ux Long Term price is less than $50/lb. to 10%
when the Ux Long-Term Price is greater than $150/lb. The vanadium market value
royalty varies from 2% at a Ryans Notes published value for
V2O5of less than $3.00/lb. up to 6% if the Ryans Notes
published value for V2O5is more than $20.00/lb. Redd Royalties Pine Lodge Unit Mining Lease: On January 31,
1968, Union Carbide entered a mining lease with Redd Ranches, a partnership of
11 members of the Redd family, for the rights to more than 3,680 acres north and
east of La Sal, Utah. Partial drops occurred along with assignments resulting in
the current lease held by Energy Fuels applicable only to 60 acres described as
SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4, E 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4, Section 31, T28S, R25E. Holding costs amount to an
annual $12.00 per net mineral acre, which has been paid until February 2, 2016.
A production royalty is due at the rate of 15% of gross value. Redd Royalties West Pine Lodge Unit Mining Lease: Denison began
a Mining Lease with Redd Royalties on February 5, 2008 to cover an area
previously in the Pine Lodge Unit (above) that had been dropped from the older
lease. The current lease held by Energy Fuels applies to 100.4 acres described
as W 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4; NW 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 and Lots 2 and 3, Section 31, T28S, R25E. The annual
advance royalty to hold this lease is dependent on the previous 12 month
weighted average Ux Long-Term price. Annual advance royalties have been paid to
hold this lease current until February 5, 2015 in the amount of $2,000. Based on
the UxLT price 12-month average dropping below $50/lb a payment of $1,000 has been made to keep the lease current until February 5, 2016. No
mining has yet occurred on the subject land. When it does, a market value
production royalty will be due on a sliding scale ranging from a uranium royalty
of 4% when Ux Long-Term price is less than $50/lb. to 10% when Ux Long Term
price is greater than $150/lb. The vanadium market value royalty varies from
2% at a Ryans Notes published value for V2O5of less than
$3.00/lb. up to 6% if the Ryans Notes published value for V2O5is more than $20.00/lb. 104   Redd Royalties portion of Redd-Mullins Mining Lease: Union
Carbide entered a lease with Katheryn Anne Redd Mullins and ten other members of
the Redd family on April 16, 1973. It covered 50% of the mineral ownership of
280 acres located in S 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 and S 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4 Section 33, T28S, R24E and SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4
and W 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4 Section 34, T28S, R24E. (See Crawford-Keller and Barton Estate,
below for description of the other 50% mineral ownership of these parcels.) The
lease has undergone assignments and amendments. An annual advance royalty equal
to $30.00 per net mineral acre ($4,200) has been paid to hold this lease current
until April 16, 2014. The Company has made the payment to hold the lease until
April 16, 2015. It is the intent of Energy Fuels to continue to hold this lease
beyond that date. The production royalty on the 50% mineral ownership on this
leased land is like that due on the other older leases, such as Redd 1-A.
Production royalty is 12.5% of gross value. Crawford-Keller portion of Redd Mullins Land: A 20-year mining
lease was entered between Denison and the Erma Crawford Family Trust on April 1,
2008. It applies to the Crawfords 25% mineral ownership of 240 acres of land
situated in S 1⁄2 SW 1⁄4 and SW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4, Section 33, T28S, R24E and SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 and W 1⁄2
SE 1⁄4, Section 34, T28S, R24E. The annual advance royalty to hold this lease is
currently paid in the amount of $625/year each to two individuals through April
1, 2015. This amount is based on a sliding scale determined by the 12-month
weighted average Ux Long-Term price. Production royalty here is variable, based
on a market value ranging from a uranium royalty of 3% when Ux Long Term price
is less than $50/lb. to 8% when Ux Long-Term price is greater than $150/lb. The
vanadium market value royalty varies from 2% at a Ryans Notes published value
for V2O5of less than $3.00/lb. up to 6% if the Ryans
Notes published value for V2O5is more than $20.00/lb. Barton Norton Estate portion of Redd-Mullins Land: Denison
entered a Mining Lease with Joel Norton, representative of the Thora Barton
Norton Estate on April 25, 2008. The lease covers a 50% mineral ownership on 40
acres located in the SE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 Section 33, T28S, R24E. The other 50% mineral
right resides with Redd Royalties, described above in the Redd-Mullins Mining
Lease (Section 4.4.7) . The annual advance royalty payment to hold the Barton
Norton mineral lease is based on the weighted average Ux Long-Term price in the
previous 12 months, currently $4,000. The advance royalty is paid through April
25, 2014. The Company has made the payment to hold the lease until April 25,
2015. It is the intent of Energy Fuels to continue to hold this lease beyond
that date. Production royalty here is variable, based on a market value
ranging from a uranium royalty of 3% when Ux Long-Term price is less than
$50/lb. to 8% when Ux Long-Term price is greater than $150/lb. San Juan County Mineral Lease: A Metalliferous Mineral Lease
between San Juan County, Utah and Hecla Mining Company was signed April 17,
1967. This gave Hecla the right to explore and mine some 262.69 acres located in
the S 1⁄2 S 1⁄2 Section 32, T28S, R24E and most of the NW 1⁄4 Section 5, T29S, R24E.
Two small private parcels in the NW 1⁄4 Section 5 are excluded. A very small
parcel, 0.18 acre in Section 10, T29S, R24E, is included in the lease. Hecla
assigned 50% interest in the lease to Union Carbide in December 1976 as part of
the Hecla-Union Carbide joint venture. The Hecla-Union Carbide JV operated the
Hecla Shaft (now the Energy Queen Shaft) immediately to the west of Section 5 on
the Superior Uranium Lease. The lease is held by an annual payment of $1.00 per
acre. Energy Fuels has paid the lease to maintain it through December 31, 2014,
and made the payment to hold the lease until December 31, 2015. An amendment to
the lease in January 1968 changed the production royalty to match that used by
the State of Utah on its metalliferous leases. The lease contains mineral
resources that are part of the Redd Block Mineral Resources described later in
this section. The mineral lease allows for surface use necessary for exploration
and mining. 105   Mines on private and state lands require an approved Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM). If the
mine generates water, a ground water discharge permit is required for the
treatment plant and ponds and a surface water discharge permit is required for
discharge of treated water. Both permits are issued through the DWQ. Air permits
for air emissions including radon are issued by the Utah Division of Air Quality
(DAQ); however, smaller mines are typically exempt. Water well permits, water
rights, and stream alteration permits are issued through the Division of Water
Resources (DWR). On federal land, all the state permits listed above are
required; however, a Plan of Operations (POO) and a review under NEPA are also
required by the federal land managing agency. The companys mines are all
existing mines in historic mining areas and approvals by the BLM and U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) have been obtained under Environmental Assessments (EAs) and
Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and
Physiography The La Sal Project property is easily accessed from the
all-weather Utah State Highway 46. Utah 46 enters the project land near the
west-central edge of ML-49596 (Section 2, T29S, R23E) about 2 miles east of the
intersection of Utah 46 with U.S. Highway 191 at La Sal Junction. Utah 46 stays
within or very near the Project land for the next 10 miles to the east. All
State and U.S. highways in this area are paved roads with weight limits for
18-wheel trucks of 80,000 pounds and are maintained year round. Utah allows for
trucks to pull an auxiliary trailer which results in some trucks hauling more
than 75,000 net pounds per trip. The area is semi-arid. Temperatures range between an average
low of 41oFto an average high of 72oF. Less than 10 inches
of precipitation falls per year. Winters are not too severe, although there are
numerous snow storms, the temperature drops below 0oF at times, and
snow can accumulate to over a foot in the lower areas and more than two feet at
times on Pine Ridge. The region of the La Sal District Project central area is
characterized by a broad shallow valley of hay fields and pasturelands at an
elevation between 6,400 and 7,000 feet. Hills cut by small canyons occur at the
west end and even higher elevations of about 7,800 feet are reached at Pine
Ridge on the east end. All elevations within 4 miles of the center and west end
of the property support moderate growths of sage and rabbitbrush along with
other brush, forbs, cactus, yucca, and grasses. Higher elevations contain
juniper and piñon pine in the rocky soils along with scrub oak, aspen, and
ponderosa pine on Pine Ridge to the east. La Sal, Utah is a small town, currently home to about 200
people. It has been a hub to area ranchers, uranium and copper miners, and oil
drillers for many years, as well as a supply stop for recreationists. A small
grocery store and post office are located on the highway. The State of Utah and
San Juan County both have road maintenance shops in La Sal. Larger population
centers of Moab and Monticello, Utah are 22 miles north and 34 miles south,
respectively, from La Sal Junction on Highway 191. Before the cessation of
mining at the Beaver and Pandora Mines in late 2012, many of the workers also
came from the Nucla-Naturita and the Dove Creek areas of Colorado, each about 55
miles away to the east and south, respectively. Larger cities with industrial
supply houses include Cortez, Colorado 100 miles to the south and Grand
Junction, Colorado about 140 miles to the north. Permanent structures existing at the Energy Queen site include
the headframe and a metal building containing an office, shop, showers,
warehouse, and the hoist. The compressor is located in a separate building. One
cased vertical ventilation hole was established into the mine working level. A
small water treatment building and settling ponds are located on the San Juan
County land in Section 5. During earlier operations, water was treated with
barium chloride to remove radium. 106   The Beaver and La Sal Mine are accessed through the La Sal
decline with rubber-tired equipment. Men and supplies enter through this portal.
The principal shop, offices, and warehouse facilities used by all mines in the
district are housed at the surface facilities of the La Sal Decline. There are
large fenced yards as well as buildings for equipment and supply storage. It is
used as a central receiving site for bulk and large orders which are then
distributed to the other Energy Fuels mines in the district and other parts of
the region. The shop areas include facilities specific to electrical equipment,
drills, mobile diesel equipment, and welding. Engineering, geology, safety,
environmental, and mine supervisory and clerk offices are located here. There
are also staff and mine crews dry rooms. Ample ore stockpile space is available
for easy truck load-out for transporting ore to the White Mesa Mill. Electrical
lines and substations exist and are adequately sized for any future production
potential of the Mineral Resources. The La Sal Mine is dry, so no water
treatment facilities are needed. The surface infrastructure at the Beaver Shaft location
consists of the hoist house, hoist, and headframe. The shaft is 690 feet deep to
the underground haulage level at the loading pockets top grizzlies and 750 feet
total depth. There are three pockets, two of 70 ton capacity and one of 90 ton
capacity. This arrangement allows for separation of ore and waste. The skips
dump into an ore bin from which the ore is trucked a short distance to a
stockpile and subsequently loaded in to the trucks for haulage to the Energy
Fuels Mill. The shaft conveyance system is certified for man trips, although the
routine access for personnel is through the La Sal decline. Another building
houses the compressors which supply compressed air for the underground workings
in the Beaver Mine. Power lines and substations are in place. The Beaver Mine is
a dry mine, therefore, no water treatment facilities exist. Access into the Pandora Mine is through a decline with
rubber-tired equipment. Surface facilities here are less than at the other
mines. It consists of a small office and shop buildings. A third building with a
dirt floor is used for storage of materials and equipment. Power lines exist to
the mine with enough capacity for the required load of potential future mining.
The Pandora Mine is a dry mine. In 1980, Umetco was planning to sink another shaft to access
the Redd Block Mineral Resource. The project did not progress too far. The
infrastructure at the Redd Block associated with a possible new shaft consists
of a cleared and leveled site large enough for future construction of all
surface facilities that would be required. The power line and transformers are
installed and the concrete base for a compressor building has been poured. As
mining progresses, a water table in the Salt Wash sandstone host horizon will be
between the current Beaver western mine advance and the east end of the Redd
Block Mineral Resources. Seven monitor wells were installed by Denison around
this proposed shaft site. Electric transmission and distribution lines exist throughout
the project area, of sufficient size to supply the load the mines demanded in
the past. Several substations exist and the electricity supply is adequate for
additional demand. Natural gas is also available for any future production
needs. History Numerous underground mines near outcrops in the eastern part of
the La Sal trend (in the La Sal Creek Canyon District) were mined for vanadium
and uranium during the early 1900s. Sometime after World War II (approximately
1948-1954), exploration work on Morrison Formation outcrops in the west end of
the district resulted in the discovery of the Rattlesnake mine (open pit) two
miles west-southwest of the Energy Queen shaft. Deeper deposits of the central
La Sal trend (in the area of the La Sal Project) were discovered in the 1960s
and developed for production in the 1970s through vertical shafts and declines.
The La Sal project and La Sal Creek District production, through 1980, amounted to
about 6,426,000 pounds U3O8(average grade of 0.32%
U3O8) and nearly 29,000,000 pounds V2O5(average grade of 1.46%) . Most production in the district was derived
from fluvial sandstones, mainly in the upper part of the Salt Wash Member of the
Morrison Formation of Jurassic age. 107   The Pandora mine was operated by Atlas Minerals in the 1970s
and early 1980s. Umetco Minerals (Union Carbide) operated the Snowball, La Sal,
and Beaver mines during the same time period. The Energy Queen mine, then known
as the Hecla Shaft, was started in 1979 by the Union Carbide/Hecla Joint
Venture. The mine stopped production in 1983 due to inadequate uranium prices.
GEUMCO (General Electric Uranium Mining Company) operated the Pine Ridge mine in
the late 1970s, producing from a sandstone lens in the Brushy Basin Member of
the Morrison Formation. Pine Ridge was acquired by Minerals Recovery Corporation
in 1981 which developed a decline to the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison
Formation, but halted operations before any significant production. A small mine
produced in the eastern part of Section 2 (ML-49596) during the early 1980s. The
amount of production from this mine is unknown. Low uranium and vanadium prices
forced all production throughout the district to cease about 1991. Ores from
these mines have been successfully processed at the now dismantled Uravan Mill
(Umetco), the now dismantled Moab Mill (Atlas), and the operating White Mesa
Mill, now owned by Energy Fuels. Denison began producing from the Pandora Mine in 2006 and later
from the Beaver Shaft/La Sal decline following its acquisition of International
Uranium Corporation. The production by Denison, and Energy Fuels following its
acquisition of Denisons US assets, between 2006 and 2012, at the Pandora was
290,000 tons of ore. The production by Denison and EFR between 2006 and 2012
from the mines in the La Sal Project area was 412,000 tons of ore (1,658,000 lbs
U3O8at an average grade of 0.20%
U3O8 and 8,431,000 lbs V2O5at an
average grade of 1.02% V2O5). From 2008 through mid-2012, Denison drilled 225 exploration and
fill-in (confirmation) holes in the project area. Energy Fuels drilled another
27 holes on the Energy Queen property and the State land to the northwest of the
Energy Queen from 2007 through 2012. Due to declining uranium prices, production
ceased in October 2012 at the Beaver/La Sal and in December 2012 at the Pandora.
Both mines were put on a standby status and are currently maintained in
conditions that would allow them to be placed back into production within a few
months time. Geologic Setting The Colorado Plateau covers nearly 130,000 square miles in the
Four Corners region of the U.S. The La Sal project and other properties held by
Energy Fuels lie in the Canyon Lands Section in the central and east-central
part of the Colorado Plateau in Utah and Colorado. The Plateaus basement rocks
are mostly Proterozoic metamorphics and igneous intrusions. The area was
relatively stable throughout much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras with minor
uplifts, subsidences, and tiltings resulting in fairly flat-lying sedimentary
rocks ranging from evaporites, limestones, and marine clastic sediments, through
eolian sandstones, to detritus of fluvial systems. The significant uranium deposits in the La Sal project occur in
the late Jurassic Morrison Formation. The Morrison comprises two members in the
La Sal area. The lower member, the Salt Wash, is the main uranium host. The
upper part of the Morrison is the Brushy Basin Member; it is from 350 to 450
feet thick. The Salt Wash, approximately 300 feet thick, consists of about equal
amounts of fluvial sandstones and mudstones deposited by meandering river
systems flowing generally toward the east. The Brushy Basin was deposited mostly
on a large mud flat, probably with many lakes and streams. Much of the material
deposited to form the Brushy Basin originated from volcanic activity to the
west. The majority of the uranium production has come from the upper sandstones
of the Salt Wash Member known as the Top Rim (historically referred to as the
ore-bearing sandstone or OBSS), which ranges from about 60 feet to 100 feet
thick. 108   Light-brown and gray sandstones and conglomerates of the
200-foot thick Cretaceous Burro Canyon Formation overlie the Brushy Basin. These
crop out in the eastern part of the La Sal project (over the Pine Ridge,
Pandora, and La Sal/Snowball areas). This formation contains interbedded green
and purplish mudstones with a few thin limestone beds. The Burro Canyon
Formation is exposed covering the Brushy Basin at the west end of the La Sal
project, on the State sections and claims west of the Energy Queen. Locally,
silicification altered the limestones to chert and some of the sandstones to
orthoquartzite. Orthoquartzite cobbles and boulders litter the Brushy Basin
slopes. In the central part of the La Sal Project (Beaver Mine, Redd Block, and
Energy Queen), the Burro Canyon is covered by a layer of alluvium and gravels
shed from the La Sal Mountains to the north. These gravels vary in thickness
from a thin veneer to over 120 feet thick. The La Sal District uranium-vanadium deposits are similar to
those elsewhere in the Uravan Mineral Belt. Host rocks within the areas
surrounding the La Sal Project consist of oxidized sediments of the Morrison
Formation, exhibiting red, hematite-rich clastic rocks. Individual deposits are
localized in areas of reduced, gray sandstone and gray or green mudstone (Thamm,
et al., 1981). The Morrison sediments accumulated as oxidized detritus in the
fluvial environment. However, there were isolated environments where reduced
conditions existed, such as oxbow lakes and carbon-rich point bars. During early
burial and diagenesis, the through-flowing ground water within the large,
saturated pile of Salt Wash and Brushy Basin material remained oxidized, thereby
transporting uranium in solution. When the uranium-rich waters encountered the
zones of trapped reduced waters, the uranium precipitated. Therefore, deposits
vary greatly in thickness, grade, size, and shape. Vanadium may have been
leached from iron-titanium mineral grains and subsequently deposited along with,
or prior to the uranium. Exploration Outcrops within a few miles of the La Sal project were explored
by prospectors in the early 20thcentury for their radium and
vanadium content. Prospecting was mostly done by exploring outcrops of the
Morrison Formation in the canyon walls of the east end of the La Sal Trend and
other parts of the Uravan Mineral Belt farther east and the Chinle outcrops to
the south. Beginning about 1936, when several mills were built in the region to
process the vanadium ores, prospecting intensified in the areas of the outcrops.
Shallow drilling on the benches above the outcrops was beginning. Uranium
exploration in the region began in the mid-1940s resulting in the discovery of
the Rattlesnake deposit in about 1948. Improvements in equipment led to
increased amounts and depths of drilling. The USGS conducted extensive uranium
exploration and geologic evaluation in the entire region from the late 1940s,
resulting in numerous publications. The Rattlesnake deposit is the only
outcropping uranium deposit on the Energy Fuels La Sal Project property. All
other exploration on the Project has been by drilling, described below. During
the operation of the underground mines, longhole drill programs are essential to
explore for mineralized material not found by the surface holes. This is
especially helpful if the surface hole spacing is larger than about 100
feet. Mineralization The uranium- and vanadium-bearing minerals occur as fine
grained coatings on the detrital grains, they fill pore spaces between the sand
grains, and they replace some carbonaceous material and detrital quartz and
feldspar grains. The primary uranium mineral is uraninite (pitchblende)
(UO2) with minor amounts of coffinite
(USiO4OH).Montroseite (VOOH) is the primary vanadium mineral, along
with vanadium clays and hydromica. Traces of metallic sulfides occur. In
outcrops and shallow oxidized areas of older mines in the surrounding areas, the
minerals now exposed are the calcium and potassium uranyl vanadates,
tyuyamunite, and carnotite. 109   Some stoping areas in the Beaver/La Sal and Pandora/Snowball
Mines are well over 1,000 feet long and several hundred feet wide. The Indicated
Mineral Resources of the Redd Block and Energy Queen mine identified through
drilling are of similar size. Individual mineralized beds vary in thickness from
several inches to over 6 feet. Throughout much of the La Sal District there are
three horizons in the Top Rim that host the mineralization. They are 25-40 feet
apart. Kovschak and Nylund (1981) report no apparent disequilibrium
problems in the other mining episodes of the La Sal area. Mining and milling by
Denison and Energy Fuels shows that well-calibrated gamma probes used by the
mining personnel equate well to the mill head grades indicating no significant
disequilibrium exists. This is generally true of the Salt Wash uranium deposits
because of the age of the mineralization and the hydrologic history of the host
rocks. Therefore, Energy Fuels has no reason to anticipate any disequilibrium
conditions within the unmined portions of the deposits on the project property. Drilling The area at and around the several mines on the La Sal project
was extensively drilled from the late 1960s through early 1980s. The targets
were the upper sandstones of the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation. The
drilling down dip from the Rattlesnake mine discovered mineralization locally in
Section 1, T29S, R23E (mostly mined-out since then; Energy Fuels has not
reviewed any information on the historic drilling in Section 1). Throughout the
1960s and into the 1970s, drilling progressed westward from the head of La Sal
Creek canyon discovering Morrison uranium deposits under several hundred feet of
cover (Pandora, La Sal, and Snowball mines). Drilling continued westward and
intensified in the later 1970s, discovering large uranium-vanadium deposits
which were developed by vertical shafts (Beaver Shaft and Hecla Shaft). The Redd
Block deposit was located and mostly defined in the late 1970s. Most of the past exploration on the Beaver/La Sal, Redd Block,
and Energy Queen properties performed by Union Carbide was in the period
1972-1984. A few holes were deep enough to explore the basal Chinle horizon.
Much of the exploration and development drilling at the Pandora mine was done in
the 1970s by Atlas. GEUMCO and its successor, MRC, drilled extensively on the
Pine Ridge property from the mid-1970s through 1985. The Company owns the data
on some 2,200 drill holes within the boundary of the property held as the La Sal
Project. In 2008, following the dormant period after Umetco stopped
mining at the Beaver and Pandora Mines in 1991, Denison began a drill project at
the Pandora mine in an attempt to extend ore being followed in the underground
mining operation. The historic drilling provided the best guide to drill offset
holes. From 2008 to 2012, Denison drilled a total of 220 rotary and core holes
over the Pandora, Beaver/La Sal Mines and the Redd Block areas. These holes were
drilled to verify historical drilling data and to test the favorable ground
adjacent to the mines. Holes were drilled on approximately 100 foot centers
where the terrain allowed. Denisons exploration drilling at the La Sal Project
in 2008 and 2009 focused on the East Pandora mining area, southwest and
northeast of the existing workings. During the two year exploration campaign
significant mineralization was intercepted in and around the Pandora mine.
During 2010, Denison completed 60 rotary holes in close proximity to mine
workings around the Beaver mine and 11 holes at East Pandora. Most of the holes
were drilled in relatively close proximity to current mine workings with the
purpose being to identify targets that could be quickly accessed, or to infill
areas close to the mine with very spare historical drilling. In 2011 a total of
68 holes were completed, including nine monitor wells. Four holes were cored in
the West Beaver area to assay for both uranium and vanadium. In 2012, a total of
40 rotary holes were drilled in the Redd Block area. Before purchasing Denisons USA assets, Energy Fuels drilled 27
holes on the Energy Queen property and the State land to the northwest of the
Energy Queen from 2007 through 2012. Twenty holes were drilled by Energy Fuels at the Energy Queen from October, 2007
to January 2008 totaling 14,450 feet. Energy Fuels drilling was done at 100
feet or greater centers. The purpose of the exploration drilling for Energy
Fuels was to verify some of the older drilling, to obtain more stratigraphic
information for mine planning of the Energy Queen mine, and to add more
resources to the mine inventory. Energy Fuels drilling discovered uranium
grades comparable to historical drill holes. 110   Sampling and Analysis EFR has not conducted widespread and definitive sampling
related to exploration on the La Sal Project. The equivalent uranium content
(eU3O8) can easily be estimated radiometrically with properly calibrated Geiger
Counters and scintillation instruments. During underground mining, samples are
often collected where the appearance of the rock suggests it is ore-grade, but
the radioactivity is low. This usually represents low uranium content but higher
vanadium content. The samples are assayed for both uranium and vanadium.
Standard industry laboratory practices are used for chemical assaying of uranium
and vanadium. Union Carbides preferred method of exploration in the late
1970s and early 1980s was to rotary plug drill through the upper part of the
hole, then core through the Top Rim uranium-bearing sandstone horizon. This
allowed the company to do assays for both uranium and vanadium. Core from drill
holes is logged for its lithology, scanned with a Geiger Counter, and any zone
of mineralization is split along the axis of the core. One half is sent for
assaying and the other half is retained with the other core. These tasks were
mostly performed by personnel of Union Carbide who were experienced in uranium
exploration, sampling, and analytical methods, and the summary data appear to be
in conformity with technological standards at the time. EFR and Denison follow
similar practices on recent core and will continue such practices on future core
samples. Conventional rotary drilling produces sand-sized particles
which cannot be assigned an exact footage interval by the time they reach the
surface. Mixing with cuttings from higher in the drill hole can occur;
therefore, they do not yield samples adequate for grade estimation. Instead,
downhole electric and radiometric logging is relied on for rotary holes.
However, assaying of cuttings from ore zones can give an approximate
V2O5:U3O8 ratio. Security of Samples Because EFR has not performed bulk sampling for exploration or
resource estimation, the results of historical preparation techniques and
analyses have been relied upon as being reasonably accurate. As mentioned in
Section 6, some personnel currently on EFRs staff have personally been involved
in work at the La Sal Project since the early 1980s. It is believed that the
lithology, core assays, and diamond drill logging information of the previous
operators is a reasonable representation of actual in situ conditions because
standard industry practices were followed by all operators. The probing was conducted by Denison staff using Mount Sopris
downhole logging equipment. Gamma counts per seconds were converted to geologic
equivalent uranium grade intervals using Denisons in house Gamlog program,
accounting for K-factor, dead time, water factors, and pipe factors. All gamma
probes used were calibrated often at the U.S. Department of Energy calibration
pits in Grand Junction. Logging of the Energy Fuels drilling at Energy Queen
followed the same procedures with identical equipment. 111   Mineral Resources Since the La Sal project covers a length of eleven miles and
includes several mines from east to west, the project was divided into four
blocks: Pandora, Beaver/ La Sal, Redd Block and Energy Queen. The mineral
resource estimation for the La Sal project is based on the gamma logs from 1,993
historic rotary drill and core holes, 247 holes drilled by Energy Fuels and
Denison from 2007 to 2012, and approximately 500 underground long holes. Mineral
Resource estimates have been calculated using a modified polygonal method. A
minimum composite intercept GT value (grade X thickness) of 0.10% ft
eU3O8 was used as a cutoff. The cutoff of a mineralized
intercept in individual holes is 0.10% U3O8, with a select
few holes as low as 0.05% U3O8. Mining assumptions were
used in determining a cut-off grade for the resource estimates. The
mineralization in the La Sal project is interpreted as being hosted in the Top
Rim sandstone of the Salt Wash Member of the Morison Formation. Total thickness
of the host sandstone is between 60 and 100 feet. Mineral Resource estimates have been made for the La Sal
Project. The Mineral Resources are classified as defined in the National
Instrument 43-101 and in accordance with CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and
Mineral Reserves. They are grouped by logical mining unit subareas and
summarized as follows: Mines
    Tons
    U3O8Lbs.
    Avg.Grade(U3O8)
    V2O5Lbs.
    Avg. Grade( V2O5)Energy QueenMeasured
    262,000
    971,000
    0.19
    5,100,000
    0.97Indicated
    81,000
    268,000
    0.17
    1,409,000
    0.87Inferred
    43,000
    79,000
    0.09
    417,000
    0.48Redd BlockMeasured
    336,000
    1,260,000
    0.19
    6,615,000
    0.98Indicated
    35,000
    47,000
    0.07
    249,000
    0.35Inferred
    95,000
    171,000
    0.09
    900,000
    0.47Beaver/La SalMeasured
    215,000
    800,000
    0.19
    4,199,000
    0.98Indicated
    9,000
    33,000
    0.18
    173,000
    0.96Inferred
    29,000
    67,000
    0.11
    352,000
    0.60PandoraMeasured
    196,000
    701,000
    0.18
    3682,000
    0.94Indicated
    6,700
    19,000
    0.14
    99,000
    0.73Inferred
    18,000
    44,000
    0.12
    232,000
    0.66Total(Mea+Ind)
    1,142,000
    4,100,000
    0.18
    21,525,000
    0.94Total(Inf)
    185,000
    362,000
    0.10
    1,902,000
  0.51
 The older drilling was often on 200-foot centers in portions of
the district. The 2007-2008 drilling program on the Energy Queen lease partially
consisted of fill-in holes on 100-foot spacing, as did the Denison drilling.
Therefore, many polygons for Measured Mineral Resources are circles with a
100-foot diameter, thus 7,854 square feet of area, reflecting just a 50-foot
influence distance centered on the hole. At locations where drifting or stoping
has removed portions of polygons, there have been reductions to the resources
assigned those polygons. The same method of polygons is used for resources on
the entire district. Where drilling is closer than 100-foot spacing and the
circles intersect, they are truncated to polygons by the perpendicular bisector
method. Intercepts in surface rotary and core holes, and underground long holes,
were assigned as Measured Resource. The contained metal associated with that drill-hole is calculated from the thickness, grade and area of
influence of the drill-hole intercept. A tonnage factor of 14 cubic feet per ton
is used for Salt Wash deposits. 112   An Indicated Mineral Resource block is drawn between two drill
holes or among several drill holes which have to meet two criteria: first,
mineralization between and among drill holes has to correlate well within the
same zones (U1. U2. U3) within which the mineralization is believed to be
continuous between drill holes; and second, the distance between two drill holes
cannot be over 200 feet apart. Otherwise an Inferred Mineral Resource will be
assigned. No Indicated or Inferred Resources will be calculated between two
holes when mineralization intercepts in these two holes are on different
horizons and does not support the mineralization continuity. The grade and
thickness assigned to a polygon of either Indicated or Inferred Resource blocks
is the smallest grade and thickness of the particular drill holes intercepts
that define each block. Therefore, the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource
reported here is conservative. The average
V2O5:U3O8 ratio from both Pandora
and Beaver/ La Sal mines is 5.25:1 from the recent Energy Fuels Mill head
grades and this ratio is used for the Vanadium Mineral Resources estimate. Mining Operations Mining operations are currently on standby. The mining of all
resources in the La Sal project have been by conventional underground methods
for over 40 years and, once mining resumes, will continue by such methods. These
methods have been used very successfully in the region for over 100 years. The
nature of the Salt Wash uranium-vanadium deposits require a random room and
pillar mining configuration. The deposits have irregular shapes and occur within
several close-spaced, flat or slight-dipping horizons. It often rolls between
horizons. The use of rubber-tired equipment allows the miners to follow the ore
easily in the slight dips and to ramp up or down to the other horizons. The
deposits are accessed from the surface via declines depending on the depth to
mineralization and geologically suitable sites for portals, as is the case for
the La Sal and Pandora/Snowball mines. Deposits may also be accessed through
vertical shafts such as at the Beaver and Energy Queen Mines. Depending on
ground conditions, the shafts will be lined with concrete or with steel and
timber-lagging methods. Most recently, the Beaver Shaft was used for hoisting
ore, ventilation, and a secondary escape. It is connected underground to the La
Sal mine which provided men and equipment access to the Beaver mine areas. The
Salt Wash sandstones are usually quite competent rock and require only moderate
ground support. The overlying Brushy Basin mudstones are less competent, so the
declines are often supported by square set timber or steel arch and timber
lagging, as is the case at the La Sal and Pandora mines. The Salt Wash uranium
deposits are usually thinner than the mining height needed for personnel and
equipment access. Therefore, the mineralized material is often mined by
employing a split-shooting method, which serves to separate ore and waste as it
is broken. Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing The La Sal Trend has a long history of uranium and vanadium
production. Deposits from this district have been successfully milled at several
historic mills in the region including Union Carbides (Umetco) mill at Uravan,
Colorado, the Climax Uranium mill in Grand Junction, Colorado, the Atlas mill at
Moab, Utah and Energy Fuels White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. Samples of
mineralized material were collected from the Energy Queen Mine waste rock dump.
These were used along with samples from other mines in the region for
preliminary testing of amenability to the proposed Piñon Ridge Mill leaching
conditions. These results and the historic milling of district ores suggest at
this point that the Energy Queen deposit will present no unforeseen problems
with either metallurgical testing or processing. Testing of Energy Queen
mineralized material should be performed after the mine is dewatered and
rehabilitated to the point that representative samples can be obtained from
in-place rock. 113   Between November 2012 and April 2013, the Mill processed
uranium/vanadium ores from stockpiles of the several previous months mining at
Beaver /La Sal and Pandora/Snowball Mines attaining greater than 96% uranium
recovery and greater than 70% vanadium recovery. Future production will be
processed at White Mesa Mill. The Mill uses sulfuric acid leaching and a solvent
extraction recovery process to extract and recover uranium and vanadium. The
Mill has been operated on a campaign basis (i.e., intermittent processing of ore
and alternate feed) since its initial start-up due to variable uranium market
conditions. The Mill is licensed to process an average of 2,000 tons of ore per
day and to produce up to 8.0million pounds of U3O8 per
year Permitting The Energy Queen and Redd Block IV mines are located on private
land and were permitted with UDOGM in the early 1980s by Union Carbide. The
Energy Queen was developed and put into production, but the Redd Block IV
project was discontinued soon after the start of construction. A mine and
reclamation plan amendment for the Energy Queen was approved by the UDOGM on
September 22, 2009. This amendment allows the Company to install water treatment
and other new surface facilities to support mine production of up to 250 tpd.
Water discharge permits to allow initial and ongoing discharge of underground
mine water were also approved by the UDEQ in 2009. Energy Fuels initiated
permitting plans for additional mine expansion in 2012, but then deferred these
plans when the Redd Block IV resource was acquired in the Denison acquisition.
Engineering studies are being conducted to determine if the Redd Block IV
resource can be mined economically from the Energy Queen Mine shaft and surface
facilities. If this proves to be the case, the Energy Queen UDOGM permit would
be updated to include the Redd Block IV area as well as other resources that
have been acquired since the 2009 amendment. A Small Source Exemption that is in
place for air emissions would also need to be replaced with an air permit
because of the increased surface disturbance. The Pandora, Beaver, La Sal and Snowball mines are permitted
with the State of Utah and the BLM/ USFS for current operations. Energy Fuels is
in the process of obtaining combined permits for expansion of the Pandora,
Beaver, and La Sal mines with both UDOGM and the BLM/USFS. Both permit
amendments are in the late stage of permitting. A final EA was issued for the La
Sal Mines Complex by the BLM and USFS late-2014. All other permits needed for
mine expansion, including the required air permit, are in place. Exploration Energy Fuels has evaluated numerous targets for additional
surface drilling. However, there are no plans to perform the drilling in 2015. A
preliminary economic assessment (PEA) is being performed internally by EFR in
2015. 114   Juniper Ridge Project  Unless otherwise stated, the following description of the
Juniper Ridge Project is derived from a technical report titled "Juniper Ridge
Uranium Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, USA," dated January 27, 2014, prepared
by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G. and Terence P. McNulty, P.E., D.Sc., in
accordance with NI 43-101 (the Juniper Ridge Technical Report). The
Juniper Ridge Technical Report includes an updated NI 43-101 compliant Mineral
Resource estimate and Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). Each of
the authors of the Juniper Ridge Technical Report is a qualified person and is
independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. A copy of the
Juniper Ridge Technical Report is available under the Companys profile on SEDAR
at www.sedar.com. The Juniper Ridge Project was acquired on August 29, 2013 as a
result of the acquisition of Strathmore by Energy Fuels. Project Description and Location The Juniper Ridge project is located in southwest Wyoming,
between 6 and 10 miles west of the town of Baggs. After the Company dropped 67
claims without affecting the mineral resources, mineral rights associated with
the project include 130 unpatented lode mining claims (the Juniper Ridge
Claims) and one (1) Wyoming State Mineral Lease No. 0-41095 of 640-acres
(the Juniper Ridge Lease). After the claim drop, these holdings
comprise 3,350 acres. Mineral ownership of the Juniper Ridge Claims resides with
the U.S. federal government, administered by the BLM. Some of the Juniper Ridge
Claims are a split estate with the minerals held by the U.S. and the surface
held by private owners. Mineral ownership of the Juniper Ridge Lease resides
with the State of Wyoming, administered by Wyoming State Lands. The surface of
the Juniper Ridge Lease is held by the U.S. The Juniper Ridge Claims were
originally located by Strathmore in 2008. All unpatented mining claims are
subject to an annual federal mining claim maintenance fee of $140 per claim. BLM
increased the fee to $155 in 2014 plus approximately $10 per claim for county
filing fees. The Juniper Ridge Lease is for an initial term of ten (10)
years, beginning on April 2, 2005, and is valid through April 1, 2015 and is
renewable for another 10-year term by payment of an increased rental rate of
$4.00/acre. The Juniper Ridge Lease includes a royalty of five percent (5%) of
the gross value of the uranium bearing ore mined and removed from the land
covered by the Juniper Ridge Lease (the Juniper Ridge Royalty). After a
lease goes into production, the State may reduce the royalty as necessary to
allow the lessee to undertake operations or continue operations with a
reasonable expectation that the operations will be profitable. Through its purchase of Strathmore, EFR now controls 100% of
the project 115   Except for the Juniper Ridge Lease Royalty, no royalties,
agreements or encumbrances exist on the Juniper Ridge Project. There are no
significant factors known by the Company that may affect title, access or the
right to perform work on the property. In order to conduct exploratory drilling of the property, a
Drilling Notification (DN) from the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality and the BLM will be required.Mine development will require a number of
permits depending on the type and extend of development. Major permits are expected to include a mining permit issued by
the WDEQ-LQD and a Plan of Operations approved by the BLM (likely requiring an
EIS). In the event mineral processing occurs on the property (versus
transporting the resource to another processing facility) a source materials
license from the NRC will be required. No environmental permits have been
obtained to date for the Juniper Ridge Project. There are no outstanding environmental liabilities to which the
project is subject. There is little existing infrastructure on the property. Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and
Physiography The project is accessible via two-wheel drive on existing
county and two-track roads by proceeding one mile north of Baggs on Highway 789,
then west on Carbon County Road 144 (Poison Buttes Road), toward Poison Buttes
for approximately six miles where, the road crosses into the Juniper Ridge
Project for the next four miles. Mining personnel and supplies can be obtained
from Wyoming towns in the region including Baggs, Rawlins, Rock Springs and
Craig, Colorado. The Juniper Ridge Project falls within the intermountain
semi-desert weather province within the Green and Bear Drainage. Although winter
conditions can be severe, including local ground blizzards, such conditions are
not expected to preclude year-round mining or processing operations. The Juniper Ridge Project is located within the Wyoming Basin
physiographic province within a small closed subsidiary basin on the southeast
flank of the greater Washakie Basin. The elevation of the property is between
6,000 and 7,000 feet above mean sea level. The topography is characterized by
gently rolling hills which are cut by ephemeral streams draining into the Little
Snake River, located approximately 3 miles south of the property. The dominant
vegetation consists of juniper trees, native grasses, sagebrush and other shrubs
typical of the continental, arid climate of the western United States. The project development will require the installation of some
infrastructure, including utilities and water supplies. Utility services,
including natural gas, electricity and communications are located in Baggs.
Water can be obtained from locally permitted and constructed wells or from
nearby surface water sources, including the Little Snake River. Water rights for
both surface and groundwater are administered by the Wyoming State Engineers
Office and are subject to prior water rights. History Uranium was first discovered in the Juniper Ridge project area
in 1951, and commercial uranium mining occurred intermittently from 1954 to
1966. Seven companies mined uranium from twelve open pits and two shallow
underground mines. During this time, a total of 156,000 tons of mineralized
material with an average grade of 0.172% U3O8 was mined
resulting in production of 536,000 lbs. of uranium. Some of the companies that
operated in the region included Shawano Development Corporation, Trace Elements
(later acquired by Union Carbide Corporation), Teton Minerals, Parker-Thomas,
and Leckenby. Underground mining was conducted by Basin Engineering Company
under contract with Teton Minerals. Mined ores were shipped to a variety of
nearby mills including Union Carbides mills located in Rifle and Maybell, Colorado, Western Nuclears Split Rock mill near
Jeffrey City, Wyoming, and ore buying stations administered by the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (the AEC). Site activities were limited during what
is referred to as the Stretch Out period beginning in the mid-1960s and
continuing into the early 1970s. In 1973, Homestead Mineral Corporation
(HMC) controlled most mining claims and leases in the area, with the
exception of those properties held by Union Carbide. Also in 1973, Minerals
Exploration Company, in a joint venture with Urangesellschaft (UG),
acquired the Juniper Ridge property from HMC. In 1981, AGIP Mining Group
(AGIP) acquired the property from UG, after which mineral leases and
claims were allowed to expire during the ensuing two-plus decade lull in the
uranium market. 116   In 2005, Strathmore, through Miller and Associates, acquired
the Juniper Ridge Lease and located the lode mining claims that comprise the
Juniper Ridge Project. On January 30, 2007, Strathmore entered into a joint
venture with Yellowcake Mining Inc. to develop the property, which was later
dissolved in December 2008. On November 1, 2010, Crosshair entered into an
agreement to acquire the property from Strathmore. However, Crosshair failed to
complete the terms of the agreement, and the property reverted to Strathmore. An historic technical report states 5,423 drill holes in the
vicinity of the property comprising 868,000 feet. Geological Setting The geological setting within the Juniper Ridge Project is well
documented in the professional literature as well as in internal historical
reports from past operators. The Juniper Ridge Project is located within a small
subsidiary basin of the southeast flank of the Washakie Basin, encompassing the
majority of the outcropping of the Browns Park Formation which was preserved in
the basin over an area of approximately ten square miles. This basin and the
larger Powder Spring Basin, about 15 miles to the west, appear to be small
tectonic grabens down-dropped post-Eocene, but pre-Browns Park in time. Uranium
mineralization in the Browns Park Formation within the Project and surrounding
area is described as Wyoming sandstone roll-type mineralization. The dominant structure of the area, directly related to the
grabens, are the east-west trending, high-angle, normal faults. These faults are
mapped as bounding the north side of the basins, but in all probability they
bound the south side as well. Although these east-west faults trend into the
Poison Basin, they do not appear to affect the Miocene rocks, and thus are dated
as being pre-Miocene. While formations ranging in age from Cretaceous to Quaternary
are exposed at the surface in the vicinity, only Eocene and Miocene formations
play a significant role in the location and tenure of mineralization. Upper
Eocene and Miocene age sediments fill the Poison Basin. Oligocene rocks are
absent, having been completely eroded away before the Miocene deposition.
Miocene rocks lie unconformably on the upper Eocene rocks in the basin and host
the known uranium mineralization within the project area. Exploration The initial discovery of mineralization was based on ground
radiometric surveys reported in 1953. Since that time, most exploration work has
focused on drilling which is discussed in the Drilling section below. The most recent of the historic technical studies (Pincock,
Allen, & Holt, 1986) state that the study was based on radiometric sampling
(geophysical logging) from 5,423 drill holes in the vicinity of the property
comprising 868,000 feet, of which 4,871 of these drill holes were located on the
AGIP mineral properties. The previous historic feasibility study (Pincock,
Allen, & Holt, 1978) states that their mineral resources/reserve estimates
were based on radiometric assays from 3,935 drill holes. 117   The previous historic technical studies and reports also
address radiometric equilibrium. The data available over time for evaluation of
radiometric equilibrium also varied. In 1982, an internal project summary report
(Beahm, 1982) radiometric equilibrium was evaluated based on data from 200 core
holes. For that study, only core holes with greater than 80% sample recovery
were included and only samples with uranium grades greater than 0.04%
U3O8were used. This study reported a positive
disequilibrium factor of 1.017:1 (chemical to radiometric). The subsequent
feasibility study (Pincock, Allen, & Holt, 1986) evaluated individual core
samples representing a total of 321.5 feet of core, but does not specify the
number of core holes from which the samples were taken. Independent sampling and
assaying of core and independent radiometric log determinations were completed
by the authors of the 1986 report. They concluded that while there was some bias
in the estimation of mineralized thickness based on radiometric interpretation,
there was no bias in grade. The older feasibility study by UG (Pincock, Allen,
& Holt, 1978) evaluated radiometric equilibrium based on 125 mineralized
intervals from three separate geographical areas at a 0.02%minimum grade
U3O8. This study recommended an adjustment of grade by an
overall negative disequilibrium factor of 0.90. The historic data utilized to evaluate radiometric equilibrium
in these reports is generally not available for incorporation into this
Technical Report. Current data with respect to radiometric drilling is available
from some 549 recent drill holes. Mineralization Uranium mineralization occurs within an eolian stratigraphic
unit of the Miocene Browns Park Formation. The host unit consists of tuffaceous,
feldspathic sandstone which exhibits small to large scale festoon and planar
cross-bed sets ranging up to several feet in thickness. Generally, uranium
mineralization is of the roll-front type, common to the uranium basins in
Wyoming. Localization of uranium appears to relate to permeability and the
presence of pyrite or hydrogen sulphide. The depth of mineralization averages
slightly over 100 feet, but ranges from near the surface to a maximum of 292.5
feet depending on the location within the basin and the local topography. The
deposit is relatively flat lying with formation dip of less than 5°. The dip of
the formation is highest at the margins of the basin and flatter near the
center. The average thickness of mineralization above a
0.02%eU3O8cutoff grade isin excess of 10 feet.
Two general areas of mineralization occur within the project, separated by less
than two miles. Historic feasibility reports (AGIP, 1986 and UG, 1978) discuss
the continuity of mineralization. These reports express some concerns relative
to the continuity of mineralization, especially with respect to grades necessary
to support mining. AGIPs 1986 report states that continuity, at very low grades
(i.e., cutoff of about 80 ppm), is excellent, and mineralization appears nearly
continuously for several thousand feet throughout much of the property area.
However, the degree of continuity decreases with an increasing grade. At grades
above 500 ppm, continuity of uranium mineralization may range from tens of feet
to several hundred feet. Continuity of most mineralized zones is generally less
than 50 feet. Past operations have compensated for the variability in grade by
delineating areas to be mined by drilling on 50-foot centers and instituting
rigorous in-pit grade control programs. The source of uranium is described as syngenetic, as alteration
of the tuffaceous volcanic materials within the Browns Park Formation and/or the
immediately overlying North Park Formation liberated uranium which was
transported by groundwater and concentrated along oxidation/reduction interfaces
within the formation. 118   Drilling Available drill data consists of radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 2,167 historic drill holes and uranium spectral analysis tool (USAT) assay data for 400 drill
holes completed during the 2011 drill program and 149 drill holes completed in
2012 (all by Crosshair). For the 2011 drill program, downhole logging of the
drill holes was completed using standard gamma technology as well as a USAT,
supplied by third party vendor, Century. The 2012 drilling was intended to
better define and expand the mineral resource. Thus, the current database
consists of 2,716 drill holes of which approximately 80% are historic and 20%
are more recent. Seventeen core holes were completed during the 2011 drilling
program primarily to provide samples for metallurgical testing. All drill holes, both historic and recent, were shallow (less
than 300 feet) and drilled vertically. The Browns Park Formation is relatively
flat, with dip varying from 5° on the margins to flat in the center. Drift
surveys of the drill holes were generally not completed. Both grade and GT
distribution are log normal. However, the range was not extreme with a grade
above cutoff ranging from 0.02%eU3O8to a maximum of
approximately 1% U3O8 and GT above cutoff ranging from
0.10 to just over 5. Sampling and Analysis The primary data collected for the project is downhole
radiometric, USAT geophysical log data, and the lithological descriptions of the
drill cuttings. For the 2011 and 2012 drill programs, downhole geophysical
logging was provided by a recognized commercial vendor, Century. The geophysical
log data was provided to Crosshair in electronic format. The current data for
evaluation of radiometric equilibrium is available from the 400 drill holes
completed in 2011 for which there is both radiometric equivalent data and USAT
data available. Lithologic descriptions, along with drill hole number and survey
coordinates, were recorded on-site with a data recorder. Qa/Qc of the data was
completed by the project manager, and the electronic data transferred to
Crosshairs data server with weekly back up. Seventeen core holes were completed
during the 2011 drilling program primarily to provide samples for metallurgical
testing. Following field lithologic description, the core was placed into
plastic sleeves which were sealed to prevent oxidation. The core was then placed
into standard core boxes and temporarily stored in a secure facility leased from
Grieve Enterprises in Baggs, Wyoming. No core data was available at the time the Juniper Ridge
Technical Report was prepared. This was not necessary for the mineral resource
estimate as the estimate is based on radiometric equivalent data with the USAT
data utilized to evaluate radiometric equilibrium. In summary, the data needed for completion of the mineral
resource estimate provided herein was collected and preserved to generally
accepted industry standards and in the authors opinion is appropriate for the
stated purpose of the Juniper Ridge Technical Report. The key data for the estimation of uranium mineral resources
for this project includes: 
    Down hole geophysical log data which provides a
      quantitative measure of uranium concentration based on total gamma
      emissions, provided;o
    The geophysical logging equipment is properly
      calibrated.o
    The geophysical log data, measured in Counts Per Second
      (CPS) is properly converted to equivalent uranium grade,
      eU3O8.o
    The uranium mineralization is in radiometric
      equilibrium.
    Chemical assays or other direct measurements of uranium
      grade to evaluate radiometric equilibrium conditions which may
    include; 119    o
    Chemical assay of physical core.o
    Down hole neutron activation analysis of uranium content
      including;
    Prompt Fission Neutron logging currently used and
      available commercially.
    Delayed Neutron Logging developed in the 1970s and used
      throughout the 1980s. No longer commercially available.o
    Down hole spectral gamma measurements which only measure
      gamma from uranium daughter products with short half-lives.
    Commercially available Uranium Spectrum Analysis
    Tool
    Cryogenic detector measuring Proactinium 234
    Sample location; coordinates and elevation
    Density of mineralized material Data sources for the estimation of uranium mineral resource for
the Project include radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8)
for 2,167 historic drill holes, radiometric equivalent data
(eU3O8) and USAT assay data for 400 drill holes completed
during the 2011 drilling program, and radiometric data for 149 drill holes
completed in 2012. For the 2011 and 2012 drilling programs, downhole geophysical
logging of the drill holes was provided by a recognized commercial vendor,
Century Wireline of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Of the 400 drill holes completed in 2011, sixty-nine were
completed within 25 feet of a drill hole with historic radiometric data. With
respect to GT above a cutoff of 0.02%eU3O8.Overall the GT
from the 2011 drill holes were slightly lower than the comparative historic
data. It is the opinion of the author of the Juniper Ridge Technical
Report that the variances in the comparison of historic and recent data are
related primarily to variations related to continuity of grade rather than
variations in assay methodology and/or equipment. In conclusion, it is the authors opinion that current
radiometric database consisting of a mixture of historic and recent dill data is
reliable for the purpose of estimating mineral resources for the following
reasons: The historic and current radiometric data were developed by a commercial
  geophysical logging company. The same commercial logging company, Century
  Geophysical Corporation, was employed for both the historic and current
  drilling programs and is one of the principal companies providing such logging
  services for the uranium industry in the US.The companies which previously controlled the project area were involved
  in uranium exploration in the US and abroad. These companies followed
  generally accepted industry practices.The historic radiometric data was vetted and verified independently for
  two separate technical studies commissioned by the previous owners of the
  Project area.The procedures employed during the 2011 drilling program were observed and
  reviewed by the author and followed generally accepted industry practices.The 2012 drill data was reviewed by the author and was found to be
  consistent with the 2011 drill data.The author has direct personal knowledge as to the veracity of the
  historic database having managed the database during the period of 1982
  through 1986. The density of mineralized material used in the historic
technical studies, (Pincock, Allen, & Holt, 1986) and (Pincock, Allen, &
Holt, 1978) was 16.3 and 17 cubic feet per ton, respectively. Although there was
some test data available for the determination of density, the data were not
specifically provided in the reports nor were they available for this study. The
previous studies both recommended further testing to determine the density. For
the purposes of the Juniper Ridge Technical Report, the author recommends a density factor of 16 cubic feet per ton based on direct
personal experience with mining operations in similar sandstone hosted deposits
in Gas Hills, Wyoming and Maybell, Colorado. 120   The maximum variance in the estimation of mineral resources
based on density in the range of 16 to 17 cubic feet per ton is approximately
6%. Security of Samples The author of the Juniper Ridge Technical Report observed the
core storage and examined some of the core which had been collected. The core
samples were sealed in plastic bags to prevent oxidation and stored in core
boxes which were labeled as to the hole number and footage interval. At that
time, no core had been prepared or shipped for assay; however, the basic
protocol of maintaining a chain of custody and obtaining assays from a certified
lab was discussed.In summary, the data needed for completion of the mineral
resource estimate provided herein was collected and preserved to generally
accepted industry standards and is appropriate. Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates Based on drill density and verification drilling completed in
2011 and 2012, the Mineral Resource estimate for the Juniper Ridge Project meets
the criteria for either Indicated Mineral Resources or Inferred Mineral
Resources, in accordance with CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves.
No current Prefeasibility or Feasibility Study has been completed for the
Juniper Ridge Project, thus no Mineral Reserves have been reported. The results of the Juniper Ridge Technical Report estimate that
the project has total Indicated Mineral Resources of 5,280,108 lbs. of
eU3O8 contained in 4,598,296 tons with an average
grade of 0.057% eU3O8. In addition, the results of the
Juniper Ridge Technical Report estimate that the Juniper Ridge Project contains
182,100 lbs. of eU3O8 contained in 107,436 tons with an
average grade of 0.085% eU3O8. The authors of the Juniper
Ridge Technical Report utilized a 0.1 GT cutoff based on their experience with
successful open pit mining of similar deposits, including Maybell, Colorado and
Gas Hills, Wyoming, which used similar cutoff criterion. Indicated Resource
    Juniper Ridge WestGT Cut-off (ft. x wt%)
    0.1
    0.25
    0.5Pounds eU3O8
    840,000
    758,000
    601,000Tons
    635,000
    487,000
    340,000Average Grade % eU3O8
    0.066
    0.078
    0.088Indicated Resource
    Juniper Ridge EastGT Cut-off (ft. x wt%)
    0.1
    0.25
    0. 5Pounds eU3O8
    5,280,108
    4,657,371
    3,394,520Tons
    4,598,296
    3,616,411
    2,391,000Average Grade % eU3O8
    0.057
    0.064
    0.071Indicated Resource
    PROJECT TOTALGT Cut-off (ft. x wt%)
    0.1
    0.25
  0. 5
 121    Pounds eU3O8
    6,120,108
    5,415,371
    3,995,520Tons
    5,233,296
    4,103,411
    2,731,000Average Grade% eU3O8
    0.058
    0.066
    0.073
  Inferred Resource
    Juniper Ridge WestGT Cut-off (ft. x wt%)
    0.1Pounds eU3O8
    117,000Tons
    82,936Average Grade % eU3O8
    0.071
  Inferred Resource
    Juniper Ridge EastGT Cut-off (ft. x wt%)
    0.1Pounds eU3O8
    65,100Tons
    24,500Average Grade %eU3O8
    0.133
  Inferred Resource
    PROJECT TOTALGT Cut-off (ft. x wt%)
    0.1Pounds eU3O8
    182,100Tons
    107,436Average Grade %eU3O8
  0.085
 The recommended base case for estimated mineral resources, as
highlighted in the forgoing tabulation, is the 0.1 GT cutoff. This
recommendation is based upon the experience of the author of the Juniper Ridge
Technical Report with successful open pit mining of similar deposits, including
Maybell, Colorado and Gas Hills, Wyoming, which employed a similar cutoff
criterion and the findings of the PEA. The primary resource calculation method utilized in the Juniper
Ridge Technical Report is the Grade Thickness (GT) contour method which complies
with the best practice guidelines specific to uranium for the estimation of
mineral resources and mineral reserves adopted by the CIM November 23, 2003 and
it is applicable to this type of deposit. The mineral resource estimate represents a two dimensional
estimate based on the total GT, by hole, meeting cutoff criteria. The cutoff
criteria applied included: minimum radiometric equivalent grade of
0.02%eU3O8, a minimum thickness of 2 feet to account for
mine dilution, and a minimum GT of 0.10. Drill data reflecting the thickness
(T), grade (eU3O8), and GT was summed for all intercepts
meeting cutoff criteria by hole. GT and T were then contoured using standard
algorithms based upon the geological interpretation of the deposit. From the
contoured GT ranges, the contained pounds of uranium were calculated by
multiplying the measured areas by GT and density. Similarly, the total tonnage
was calculated by contouring thickness and multiplying by area to obtain cubic
feet, then converting to tonnage by applying the density factor. Tonnage by GT
range was estimated based on the ratio of GT areas to total tonnage and the
results summed. A density factor of 16 cubic feet per ton was utilized in the
mineral resource calculation. Currently available drill data consists of:
radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 2,167 historic
drill holes, radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) and USAT
assay data for 400 drill holes completed during the 2011 drilling program, and
radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 149 drill holes
competed in 2012. 122   GT contour maps for Juniper Ridge East and West are provided in
the Juniper Ridge Technical Report. Due to the observed variability of grade, as
previously discussed, the projection of mineralization was limited to a maximum
of 25 feet. The spacing of drill data within the areas for which mineral
resources are projected is 100 feet or less. Based on the density of data and
interpretation of geologic continuity, the mineral resource, as calculated, is
considered to meet CIM criteria as an indicated mineral resource. Evaluation of radiometric equilibrium was based on 258 drill
holes, with natural gamma and USAT data, completed in 2011 which met the cutoff
criteria utilized in the mineral resource calculation. While the average
disequilibrium factor was slightly less than 1 (0.94), the disequilibrium factor
varies by area, ranging from 0.84 to 1.04 with the higher factors corresponding
to the more highly mineralized areas of the deposit. For the purposes of
assessing the overall mineral resources for the Project, it is recommended no
correction for radiometric equilibrium be applied. Wyoming is generally favorable to mine developments provided
established environmental regulations are met (refer to Wyoming Politicians,
Regulators Embrace Uranium Miners With Open Arms, Finch, 2006). Mine development would require a number of permits depending on
the type and extent of development, the major permits being the mining permit
issued by the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality
Division and the Plan of Operations approved by the BLM. Mineral processing for
uranium would require a source materials license from the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. To obtain these permits, it is likely that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) would be required. Portions of the project area are split estate which means that
the surface ownership is held privately while the minerals are federal. In these
areas, agreements with surface owners will be necessary for mining. Such
agreements are currently in place for the most recent drill program. To the authors knowledge, there are no other significant
factors that may affect access, title, or the right to perform work on the
property. Mining Operations Mining operations have been carried out on areas of the Juniper
Ridge Project at various times during the 1950s to the 1970s. No current
mining is occurring on the project. Preliminary Economic Assessment The PEA is based on open pit mining and heap leach extraction
of uranium values, utilizing methodologies, equipment, and a generalized design
criterion which has been employed at the site and/or similar sites in the past
but has not been specifically developed for the Project. The PEA is utilizing
methodologies, equipment, and a generalized design criterion which has been
employed at the site and similar sites in the past. Conceptual mine designs were
developed for three main areas. Mineral resources were calculated based on a
minimum mining thickness of 2 feet; a minimum grade of 0.02%
eU3O8; and a minimum GT of 0.10. Based on a commodity
price of $65 per pound, the overall breakeven grade would be approximately
0.05%eU3O8or a GT of 0.10. The planned uranium recovery method at the Juniper Project is
conventional heap leaching which includes: the mobilization of uranium into
solution from the mined material stacked on the heap pad via acid leaching, delivery of uranium rich solutions to a recovery
plant (mill), and concentration of the uranium via Ion Exchange (IX). 123   The PEA assumes constant US dollars and a commodity price of
US$65.00 per pound. Operating costs include all direct taxes and royalties, but
do not include US Federal Income Tax. The results of the PEA demonstrate that
the Juniper Ridge project is expected to generate an IRR of 22% and a NPV of
$21,255,000 using an 8% discount rate (base case), after all production related
tax and federal income taxes. The PEA demonstrates a pre-tax IRR of 26% and
$25,696,000 NPV. A range of IRRs and NPVs were calculated in the Juniper Ridge
Technical Report utilizing different discount rates and uranium prices. The
sensitivity analysis shows that the project is not highly sensitive to minor
changes in OPEX and/or CAPEX. The project is roughly twice as sensitive to
variances in mine recovery and/or process recovery as it is to variance in OPEX
or CAPEX. The project is expected to require capital expenditures of
$37.5 million, including initial CAPEX of $33.3 million. Capital investment was
assumed to begin three years prior to startup to include such items as:
exploratory drilling, environmental baseline studies, engineering and design
related studies, and permitting and licensing. Once in operation the Project has
a positive cumulative cash flow three years after the project startup, in
constant dollars. In addition, the project is expected to have total direct
operating costs of US$38.84 per pound of uranium. A total of 5.1 million lbs. of
uranium is expected to be mined from the project over a 10-year life, with
initial production of 312,000 lbs. in three years after production begins and
665,000 lbs. five years after production begins. The 10-year mine life is
expected to see production at an average rate of approximately 400,000 tons per
year of mineralized material. Exploration and Development The Company has no plans for additional exploration drilling or
for advancing permitting at the date of this AIF. 124   The Whirlwind Mine  Unless otherwise stated, the following description of the
Whirlwind Mine is derived from a technical report dated March 15, 2011 titled
Updated Technical Report on Energy Fuels Resources Corporations Whirlwind
Property (Including Whirlwind, Far West, and Crosswind Claim Groups and Utah
State Metalliferous Minerals Lease ML-49312), Mesa County, Colorado and Grand
County, Utah, prepared by Douglas C. Peters, Certified Professional Geologist,
of Peters Geosciences, Golden, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101 (the
Whirlwind Technical Report). The author of the Whirlwind Technical
Report is a qualified person and is independent of the Company within the
meaning of NI 43-101. A copy of the Whirlwind Technical Report is available on
SEDAR under the Companys profile at www.sedar.com. Property Description and Location The Whirlwind Mine project is located in the Beaver Mesa
district of the Uravan Mineral Belt, along the Colorado-Utah state line four
miles southwest of Gateway, Colorado. After the Company dropped 90 claims, none
of which affected the mineral resources, the current land position consists of
126 unpatented claims, the Whirlwind, Crosswind, and Far West groups, covering
approximately 2,520 acres, and a 320 acre Utah SITLA Lease ML-49312 for a total
of about 2,840 acres. The property is held under four mining leases with 10-year
to 20-year terms, which can be extended. The area was claimed at earlier times
by Umetco Minerals Corporation (Umetco), Atlas, Climax Uranium, and
Pioneer Uravan Inc. (Pioneer Uravan), as well as smaller companies
including Beaver Mesa Uranium, Inc. and Rajah Ventures, Ltd. The Whirlwind claim group consists of 57 unpatented lode claims
located in the Beaver Mesa mining district, some four miles southwest of
Gateway, Colorado and straddling the Colorado-Utah border. The claims lie in
sections 35 and 36, T51N, R20W, NMPM and sections 1, 2, 11, and 12, T50N, R20W,
NMPM, Mesa County, Colorado and in sections 8, 9, 17, 20, and 21, T25S, R26E,
SLPM, Grand County, Utah. The Far West claim group contains 74 claims covering
approximately 1,480 acres, however, after the claim drop, the Company retained
31 claims covering about 640 acres. This group lies to the west and north of the
Whirlwind group (which contains a few claims named Far West, also). These claims
cover all or part of sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, T25S, R26E,
SLPM, Grand County, Utah and parts of sections 25 and 26, T51N, R20W, NMPM, Mesa
County, Colorado. The Crosswind claim group is contiguous with the east side of
the Whirlwind group. Since the Technical Report was written, The Company
retained 38 Crosswind claims. None of the claims dropped in the periphery areas
affect the mineral resources as stated in the Technical Report since all of the
claims covering the resources have been kept. The claims are located in section
6, T50N, R19W, sections 1 and 2, T50N, R20W, Section 31, T51N, R19W, and section
36, T51N, R20W, NMPM, Mesa County, Colorado. The area encompassed by the claims is approximately 2,840 acres and is covered by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Dolores Point North and Dolores Point South 71⁄2
minute topographic quadrangle map. 125   The land covered by the claims is administered by the BLM. The
claim groups surround a half section (about 320 acres) of Utah State Land
(section 16, T25S, R26E). Energy Fuels signed an agreement with Energy Metals
and its successor, Uranium One, in May 2008 to acquire this parcel, and that
acquisition has been completed. The Whirlwind claims were staked over a period
of time ranging from January, 2005 through September, 2006. Amendments were made
to a few claims to correct defects in descriptions. The Whirlwind Mine portal is
located at latitude 38° 38 32 N, longitude 108° 2 54 W, at an elevation of
7,050 feet. The Far West property was staked between December 5 and December 29,
2006. Two claims were added to the group on April 19, 2007 to close a gap
immediately north of the Whirlwind Mine portal for mine permit purposes. The
Crosswind claims were mostly staked from March 19, 2005 through April 18, 2005,
with the last four staked September 4, 2006. The claims were properly staked on the ground and filed with
the two counties and the BLM. The BLM maintenance fees have been paid to
maintain the 126 claims through September 1, 2015. Energy Fuels entered into an
option to lease the Whirlwind group (Whirlwind Tunnel, Whirlwind #2-22, 25-45,
Far West 1-13) with Little Maverick Mining Company on September 1, 2006 for 120
days. The lease was signed on December 11, 2006 for a term of twenty years,
which is extendable if mineral production is on a continuing basis. The total
advanced royalty paid to Little Maverick over five years will be $3,000,000. The
Company has fulfilled all advanced royalty payments to Little Maverick.
Production royalty will be paid on a sliding scale for both uranium and vanadium
from 5% to 8.5% of spot price market value, depending upon market prices. Little
Maverick also will be paid a haulage and usage royalty of 1% or 2%, depending on
the price of U3O8 and V2O5. The term of the S&S Mining Company lease for the Far West,
et al. group (Far West #15-34, 37-112, Christmas 1-10, and Whirlwind 140-147) is
also 20 years (which is extendable if mineral production is on a continuing
basis). It was signed on March 21, 2007. The payment to the Lessor at the time
of signing was $400 per claim for the 112 claims in the group ($44,800). The
lease contains a production royalty nearly identical to the Whirlwind property,
the exception being the top rate is 8% of market value. Energy Fuels has an
exploration and development work commitment of $25,000 per year beginning after
the first anniversary date for each of the next three years. The Company has
fulfilled its work requirement. There are no annual advanced royalties due for
this property. The lease between Energy Fuels and High Country Mining Company
covering the Crosswind claim group (Crosswind #40-84) was signed March 21, 2007.
Its term is also 20 years, which is extendable if mineral production is on a
continuing basis.. There is no work commitment contained in this agreement,
however, the Lessor has the first right for drilling and ore hauling contracts.
The total advanced royalty due of $1,125,000 has now been paid. The production
royalty rate is the same as in the S&S Mining lease. The State of Utah reserves a production royalty on lease
ML-49312 of 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. Uranium One retained an overriding
royalty varying from 2 to 4% on uranium as the spot price varies from $50 to
greater than $95 per pound U3O8 and 2 to 4% on vanadium as that price varies
from less than $8 per pound to greater than $22 per pound V2O5. There is an
annual work commitment of $30,000 as part of this lease assignment from Uranium
One. Energy Fuels is responsible for payment of the Utah annual advanced royalty
($500). Effective May 1, 2014, the Company renewed the lease for a second
10-year term, and an annual minimum royalty of $1,500 has been added in addition
to the annual claim rental fees to the BLM ($140/claim). BLM increased the fee
to $155 per claim in 2014. A cost of about $10 per claim for county filing fees
also applies as well as permitting and bonding fees to the applicable state and
county agencies, and reclamation costs for all of the leases. 126   All phases of the mining permits from Mesa County, the State of
Colorado, and the Bureau of Land Management have been completed. The Mine Permit
approval for full production was received in September, 2008. Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography The Whirlwind Mine portal is centrally located for the combined
properties, being in the north central part of the Whirlwind claim group. It is
accessed by driving 0.8 mile on Colorado Highway 141 south of the Gateway,
Colorado post office to Mesa County Road 4 4/10, the road that goes south into
John Brown Canyon, then by following Road 4 4/10 for 7.4 miles to the
intersection with Mesa County Road 5/10, and then proceeding north and west on
Road 5/10 for 3.2 miles to the mine site. These county roads are mostly graded
dirt with short graveled sections. They are not presently maintained by the
county for their entire lengths during winter months. However, snowfall is
usually manageable for year-round access by a private concern. A fabric/metal frame shop building was erected in 2007, and a
two-piece mobile mine dry/office building was installed in 2008. Phone and power
lines are within a few hundred feet of the portal area; however the power lines
are not energized. Energy Fuels will use generators until the transmission line
to the area is upgraded. Water needed for underground mining is anticipated to
be encountered in the form of ground water during the development and extraction
phases. Presently, groundwater inflow is approximately the amount needed for
mining purposes. Additional water, if needed, can easily be hauled to the
site. Gateway, Colorado is a very small town currently undergoing a
transition from agriculture to a tourist-based economy. Recently completed
construction at the Gateway Canyons Resort includes a grocery store,
recreational store and tour center, hotel/resort, restaurant, car museum, small
convention center, and employee housing for part of the facility staff.
Additional resort type facilities are being built, and many more are planned by
Gateway Canyons Development. Mine personnel and supplies are available from
Grand Junction (52-miles) and Montrose, Colorado (95-miles). The region is characterized by mesas cut by deep canyons. There
are narrow benches on the mesa shoulders in some areas and near-vertical,
500-foot cliffs elsewhere. Elevations within the claim group range from 7,900
feet in the southwestern part to 6,800 feet near the canyon rim in the northeast
part. The elevation at Gateway, Colorado, where Highway 141 crosses the Dolores
River, is approximately 4,560 feet. The area is semi-arid. All elevations support moderate growths
of juniper and piñon in rocky soils along with sage and other brush, forbs, and
grasses. Where soils are rich at the higher elevations and on northern slopes,
there are stands of ponderosa pine and oak brush. History This district has seen production of radium, vanadium, and
uranium ores since early in the 20thcentury. The Gateway/Beaver Mesa
District of the Uravan Mineral Belt was mostly idle from the 1920s until about
1937 when several mills, including a small one at Gateway (Gateway Alloys,
Inc.), were built to process the ore for its vanadium content. Uranium became
the emphasis of the district when the U.S. Armys Manhattan Project came to the
area in 1943. Mining diminished until the mid-1970s when the private market
price of uranium began rising to record levels. The area boomed until 1985 when
the uranium price decline brought on by the Three Mile Island nuclear plant
incident made most mining here unprofitable. Numerous underground mines on the
Whirlwind property, and surrounding areas within one mile of the claim group
perimeter, have produced in excess of 7,000,000 lbs. U3O8
and nearly 24,000,000 lbs. V2O5. When the price of vanadium experienced a brief
spike in 1989-1990, several mines in the Uravan Mineral Belt were reactivated, including some on the
Whirlwind Property. The last production was in 1990, which ceased due to
inadequate uranium prices. 127   Shallow exploration drilling was conducted on the topographic
benches, along with some long-hole drilling underground (up to 50 feet). Mining
followed ore into areas of deeper cover as drill rigs improved. The mesa top was
drilled on wide-spacing by the USGS/AEC and claim holders in the 1950s and
1960s. In the 1970s, the area covered by the Whirlwind claims was held by
several entities. The Whirlwind Mine was started in 1979 by Pioneer Uravan. It
was known then as the Urantah Mine. Pioneer Uravan stopped the project in 1981,
shortly after completion of the access decline, with only minor production.
Umetco, who controlled the Packrat and several other mines to the north,
acquired the property from Pioneer Uravan in about 1984. In 1994, Umetco let the
Urantah claims lapse. Cotter Corporation staked the same area later in 1994 as
the Liberty group. Neither Umetco nor Cotter did any underground work in the
mine. Cotter conducted a small drilling project which resulted in a minor
increase to resources. As the uranium and vanadium prices began increasing in 2004,
the owners that Energy Fuels leases from began staking new claims. On September
10, 2008, the Whirlwind permitting process was completed with the approval by
the BLM of the PO for the Whirlwind Mine. Construction of all surface facilities
(clearing, top soil stockpiling, drainage control structures, etc.) necessary
for mine development and production to begin has been completed. The mine was
put on standby, and pumping ceased in December 2009. Geological Setting Major uranium deposits of the east-central Colorado Plateau
occur principally in two of the fluvial sequences. The older one is located at
or near the base of the upper Triassic Chinle Formation. No Chinle uranium
resources are known for the Whirlwind property. The other significant Colorado
Plateau uranium deposits occur in the late Jurassic Morrison Formation. The
Morrison comprises two members in the Gateway, Colorado area. The lower member,
the Salt Wash, is the main uranium host. The upper part of the Morrison is the
Brushy Basin Member. It is overlain by the Lower Cretaceous conglomerates,
sandstones, and shales of the Burro Canyon Formation. The majority of the
uranium production has come from the upper sandstones of the Salt Wash Member
known as the Top Rim. The Whirlwind area lies in the northwest-trending Sagers Wash
Syncline formed between the Uncompahgre Uplift and the northern La Sal
Mountains, which intruded along the axis of the salt-cored Paradox Valley
anticline. The claims are near, but slightly southwest of, the axis of the
syncline; therefore, the beds dip gently to the northeast, about one to three
degrees. Exploration and Development Outcrops were explored by prospectors in the early 20th
century. The Whirlwind, Far West, and Crosswind claim groups and ML-49312 are
composed of properties previously held separately by Pioneer Uravan (known as
the Urantah claims), Umetco Minerals, Climax Uranium, and smaller companies,
including Rajah Ventures. The area around the older mines was extensively
drilled. Most of the past drilling was complete by the early 1980s. Portions of
the underground mines were explored by longhole drilling as mining was in
progress. Some of the mineralized material found by this method near the end of
the last mining episode remains in place. EFR has not conducted any underground exploration other than
cursory examinations and limited rib-scanning in the Packrat and Whirlwind
Mines. Some outcrops of Salt Wash Top Rim sandstones also have been examined. 128   Mineralization The Whirlwind and other Beaver Mesa District uranium-vanadium
deposits are typical of the Uravan Mineral Belt type. The uranium and vanadium
bearing minerals occur as fine grained coatings on the detrital grains, they
fill pore spaces between the sand grains, and they replace carbonaceous material
and some detrital grains. The primary uranium mineral is uraninite (pitchblende) (UO2)
with minor amounts of coffinite (USiO4OH). Montroseite (VOOH) is the
primary vanadium mineral, along with vanadium clays and hydro mica. Traces of
metallic sulfides occur. In outcrops and shallow oxidized areas of the older
mines, the weathered minerals now exposed are the calcium and potassium uranyl
vanadates, tyuyamunite and carnotite. The remnant deposits in the ribs and
pillars of the old mines show a variety of oxidized minerals common in the
Uravan Mineral Belt. These brightly-colored minerals result from the moist-air
oxidation of the primary minerals. Minerals from several oxidation stages are
seen in the Packrat Mine (which is a part of the Whirlwind Mine area), including
corvusite, rauvite, and pascoite. Exposures in the Whirlwind rarely show the
colorful oxides because it was standing full of water until recently. Some stopes in old mines are over 1,000 feet long and several
hundred feet wide. More often they are 400 feet to 600 feet long and 100 feet to
200 feet wide. The Indicated Resources of the Whirlwind Mine are of similar
size. Individual mineralized beds vary in thickness from several inches up to
four feet to five feet. Locally, two or more mineralized horizons separated by
thin waste layers will make a thick mineable zone of 15 feet to 18 feet. Drilling Much of the drilling on the Whirlwind property was performed by
previous operators. Although not actually counted, it is believed that over
1,000 holes have been drilled on the Whirlwind property, and the Crosswind
property has a similar number. Energy Fuels conducted a drilling project in the summer of 2007
to verify some of the older drilling, explore for additional resources, and to
obtain stratigraphic information for mine planning, particularly for a proposed
drift to connect the Whirlwind Mine to the Packrat mine (one of the historic
mines in the Whirlwind group). This project consisted of 14 holes in Colorado
and 14 holes in Utah. The holes totaled 18,580 feet of drilling. The Colorado
Plateau logging tools were calibrated at the DOE test pits in Grand Junction,
Colorado in May of 2007. A follow-up calibration run at the Grand Junction pits
in October 2007 showed no statistical difference between calibrations. The second campaign of exploration drilling by EFR was in
September-to-November, 2008. Three portions of the project area were targeted:
1) the Whirlwind Mine portal area (Far West lease), 2) the southeast Packrat
area, and 3) Utah lease ML-49312. Eleven holes, totaling 3,060 feet, were
completed in the Far West lease area to explore for resources in the Lumsden
Mine area (one of the historic mines in the Whirlwind group), and give
stratigraphic information in the vicinity of a planned monitor well. There were ten holes, totaling 6,600 feet, drilled in 2008 on
the Colorado portion of the Whirlwind lease. Three holes were exploring east of
the Whirlwind deposit, closer to the decline. The other seven holes were offsets
in the area of a good hole drilled in 2007, WW-07-10 (1.5 -0.53%) . Of these,
three encountered ore-grade intercepts, the best being 1.5 -0.67% in the Top
Rim. Three of these holes also found the Middle Rim to be very favorable,
including mineralization up to 0.03% . Five holes were drilled on the SITLA Lease on Section 16
totaling 1,340 feet. 129   Since the filing of the Technical Report five more holes were
drilled in Section 16 in 2011. One of these encountered a well mineralized
interval (1.0 - 0.46% U3O8). Seven holes were also
drilled in the southern part of the Far West group. This area was found to be
unfavorable so the claim block was reduced by 40 claims. Also, after the
Technical report was written, ten more holes were drilled on Section 16 in 2012
further defining favorable ground, although no significant mineralization was
found. Sampling and Analysis Energy Fuels has not conducted widespread and definitive
sampling on the Whirlwind and adjoining properties. Previous underground
activity, which resulted in driving the decline and short development headings,
did encounter strong mineralization in one area. EFR has conducted scanning in
this area and taken a few grab samples from the ribs. The samples were
permit-related, intended to represent average mineralized material for simulated
atmospheric precipitation leach-potential analyses. Assays of these samples
compared well with the scanner results. A composite sample of numerous
mineralized locations in the pillars and ribs of the northwestern end of the
Packrat Mine were collected for early-stage amenability testing. During the Energy Fuels drilling campaigns, cuttings were
logged with particular attention to sandstone color, carbon content, and
interbedded mudstone characteristics. The holes were probed using a natural
gamma tool along with resistivity and spontaneous potential logs when the holes
contained water. An induction tool was used in holes that were dry. All holes
were also logged with a deviation tool. It is believed that previous operators
also used this method, or a close variant of it. Security of Samples The results of historical preparation techniques and analyses
have been relied upon as being reasonably accurate. These tasks were performed
by companies experienced in uranium exploration, sampling, and analytical
methods, and the presentation of the summary data appears to be in conformity
with technological standards at the time. The Colorado Plateau logging tools were calibrated at the DOE
test pits in Grand Junction, Colorado in May of 2007. A follow-up calibration
run at the Grand Junction pits in October 2007 showed no statistical difference
between calibrations. Since the Technical Report was written the Company has
performed additional drilling. The logging equipment was calibrated at the DOE
Grand Junction test pits both before and after the projects were completed. Mineral Resource Estimates The Whirlwind Technical Report covering all the leased claims
comprising the Whirlwind Mine property estimated an Indicated Mineral Resource
of 169,129 tons of mineralized material grading 0.30%
U3O8and 0.97% V2O5containing 1.0
million lbs. of U3O8and 3.3 million lbs. of
V2O5. The Whirlwind Technical Report also states that the
Inferred Resources on the Whirlwind Mine property are 437,100 tons grading 0.23%
U3O8 and 0.72% V2O5containing 2.0
million lbs. of U3O8 and 6.47 million lbs. of 
V2O5. Mineral resources were calculated by the polygonal method by
Energy Fuels. Polygons are drawn as perpendicular bisectors between drill holes
or as 100-ft by 100-ft square areas of influence for isolated holes or areas of
equidistant holes on 100-ft centers. The drilling is often on 100 foot centers,
and therefore, many polygons enclose approximately 10,000 square feet of area.
Of course the polygons are smaller where drill spacing is closer, and some may
be slightly larger in clusters of holes with irregular spacing. 130   For the in situresource estimate, the thickness and
grade assigned to each polygon equals that of the intercepts recorded in the
center hole of the polygon. A tonnage factor of 14 cubic feet per ton is used
for Salt Wash deposits. Mining dilution is 1 foot of waste for mineralized
thicknesses less than 6.0 feet or an appropriate fraction of a foot (if the
intercept is greater than 6 feet) up to 7.0 feet. A cutoff of 0.06% U3O8 has been used in all resource estimates
for the Whirlwind and related properties that are based on historic or EFR
drilling results. This cutoff is somewhat subjective and was chosen based on
experience of EFR staff and on the basis of the lowest grade intercepts that are
likely to be mined based on a tentative mine plan and location of such
intercepts in or adjacent to development entries that will be mined regardless
of the grade of involved mineralized sandstone. Measured vanadium grades, in
combination with uranium grade, can be high enough to warrant mining a resource
area even if the uranium contents in all holes in that area would not be
sufficient to make the mineralization mineable through uranium content alone.
Full-face mining costs less per ton of mineralized material than split-shooting
does. Vanadium assays are available for only a few of the drill
holes. Where no data exist on vanadium, the intercept is assigned a value based
on the historical district average
V2O5:U3O8 ratio of 3.24:1. This
ratio cannot be guaranteed and must be used as a historical estimator for
vanadium mineralization potential. Mining Operations Mining will be conducted by conventional rubber-tired
underground drill-blast-muck methods in a random room-and-pillar configuration
(reflecting the geometry of the deposit as found during mining). A split-shot
mining approach will be followed to minimize dilution when extracting thin
zones. In the split-shot method, the mineralization is usually thin (a few feet
in thickness). This method of split-shooting involves assessing each face as the
stopes advance by the mine geologist, engineer, mine foreman, or experienced
lead-miner. Since the grades and thickness of the typical Salt Wash
uranium-vanadium deposits are highly variable, they are usually unpredictable
from one round to the next. The eventual stope height will be seven feet or
greater, but at the time of mining the waste above or below the mineralized
horizon is blasted. After the waste is blasted and removed, the mineral zone is
blasted and removed, thus reducing the amount of dilution to the mineralized
rock. At times, the mineralized zone is blasted before the waste. For the
Whirlwind Mine, 7.0 feet is the assumed minimum stope height. Ore grade material
is determined by probing drill holes in the face of the stope. In resuing, waste
is blasted or otherwise removed from one side of the ore zone. The ore in that
zone is then extracted, thereby leaving any waste on the other side of the ore
zone in place. If additional stope space is needed or a second ore zone occurs
behind the remaining waste, that waste is removed without dilution to the ore
zones. The lower limit of waste volume that can be extracted without disturbing
ore is a function of the precision with which waste areas of the drill pattern
can be selectively blasted without unduly increasing mining costs. The Whirlwind Mine has been rehabilitated to both faces and the
main haulage drifts enlarged to accommodate larger haul trucks. Development work
for near-term production can begin within three months of the decision to
restart. Due to the declining uranium price, the mine was placed on standby
following the rehabilitation work in late 2008. In order to conserve cash, a
decision to stop pumping and treating water was made in December 2009. Since the
Technical Report was written, the mine has refilled with water to near historic
levels. It is expected to take about 90 days to pump the water from the mine
once operations resume. 131   Permitting The Whirlwind Mine has all local, state, and federal permits
needed to mine. A permit application to treat and discharge mine water was
submitted in May 2007 and approved by CDPHE in August 2007. A water treatment
plant and settling tanks were completed in the fall of 2007 under approved
exploration plans. In July 2007, mine permit applications were submitted to
CDRMS and Mesa County. A PO was also submitted to the BLM in July 2007. Mesa
County approved a Special Use Permit and CDRMS approved a 112D Large Mine Permit
for the project in February 2008. On September 10, 2008, the Whirlwind permitting process was
completed with the approval by the BLM of Energy Fuels PO for the Whirlwind
Mine with a Finding of No Significant Impact. The mine is currently on standby
and environmental monitoring and reporting continues to be conducted at the mine
in accordance with permit conditions. 132   The Sage Plain Project  Unless otherwise stated, the following description of the Sage
Plain Project is derived from the technical report dated March 18, 2015
titled Updated Technical Report on Sage Plain Project (Including the Calliham
Mine), San Juan County, Utah USA prepared by Douglas C. Peters, Certified
Professional Geologist, of Peters Geosciences, Golden, Colorado in accordance
with NI 43-101 (the Sage Plain Technical Report). The author of the
Sage Plain Technical Report is a qualified person and is independent of the
Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. A copy of the Sage Plain Technical
Report is available under the Companys profile on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com. Project Description and Location The Companys Sage Plain Project is located near the southwest
end of the Uravan Mineral Belt. It consists of three private mineral leases,
three Utah State mineral leases, and one directly owned private parcel in
east-central San Juan County, Utah. The combined 3,040 acres of the property is
comprised of approximately 1,680 acres of leased fee land in sections 21, 27, 28
and 29, T32S, R26E, SLPM, about 1,280 acres of Utah State School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) land in sections 16 and 32,
T32S, R26E, and 80 acres of land owned by Energy Fuels in section 33, T32S,
R26E. Two private leases and the Utah State leases are held  by Colorado Plateau Partners LLC (“CPP”).  CPP was a 50:50 joint venture between the Company’s former subsidiary Energy  Fuels Resources Corporation (“EFRC”)  and Lynx-Royal JV (“Lynx-Royal”). EFRC bought-out the 50% owned by Lynx-Royal  in October 2012 and EFRC assigned its consequent 100% interest in CPP to EFR  Colorado Plateau LLC (“EFRCP”), an  affiliated Colorado subsidiary of the Company in September 2014. The other  private lease is held solely by EFRCP, having been assigned from EFRC in  September 2014. EFRCP has the right to  use any of the surface necessary for exploration and mining activities by  virtue of the leases or ownership. The various parcels of the project were acquired in stages.
EFRCP was successful bidder on two SITLA mineral leases in 2007. A third lease
was awarded to EFRCP in March 2011. These were subsequently assigned to CPP. The
SITLA leases have initial terms of 10 years at a rental price of $1.00 per
acre. 133   They have provisions allowing for renewals for a second 10-year
term with increased rental and advanced royalties. Production royalty rates on
SITLA leases are 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. EFRCP purchased the lease on the private Calliham parcel in
February 2011 from NUVEMCO. The lease was effective as of March 8, 2007 and can
be held indefinitely by an annual advanced royalty payment of $10,000. It
carries a production royalty of 5% on uranium and 8% on vanadium. The Crain
lease was purchased in July 2011 from Uranium Energy Corporation. It was
effective on April 19, 2005 and was renewed by a one-time payment for a second
5-year term in April 2010. A renewal of this lease to keep it active beyond
April 2015 is in progress. A production royalty of 6.25% on uranium and 5% on
vanadium is reserved to Crain. The Skidmore lease covering land owned by J.H.
Ranch, Inc., was acquired in October 2011 from a private group when it exercised
an option to lease with J.H. Ranch. The lease has a primary term of 20 years.
EFRCP has amended the lease, deferring advanced royalty payments until after
October 2016 by continuing to make annual lease payments (the final lease
payment of $62,500 will be due in November 2015). Production royalty here will
be at a rate of 12.5% of the value of crude ore. EFRCP bought 80 acres of fee
land (surface only) on which the reclaimed Calliham mine portal is located from
Umetco in May 2012. There are no environmental liabilities on any of the properties
because reclamation associated with past exploration and production is complete.
The portal site of the Calliham mine is on the private parcel owned by EFRCP. It
was totally reclaimed and the permit terminated in 2000. A mine permit through
the State of Utah and associated air and water permits will be required before
EFRCP can reopen the Calliham mine, located on private land. EFRCP has performed
much of the required baseline data gathering work and permit applications are
nearly ready to file. Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography The property lies some 15-17 air miles northeast of Monticello,
Utah. The Sage Plain Project property can be accessed from the north, south, and
east on paved, all-weather county roads connecting to State and U.S. highways.
The nearest towns with stores, restaurants, lodging, and small industrial supply
retailers are Monticello, Utah, 26 road miles to the west, and Dove Creek,
Colorado, 20 road miles to the southeast. Larger population centers with more
supplies and services are available farther away at Moab, Utah (61 road miles to
the north) and Cortez, Colorado (54 road miles to the southeast). The region of the Sage Plain Project is characterized by a
sparsely-vegetated, relatively flat plain. It lies in an elevation range for
6,950 to 7,200 feet, is semi-arid, and accessible year-round. The region has a
long history of mining, ranching, farming, and oil and gas production.
Therefore, even though the regional towns are small, they have adequate services
and supplies to support a project the size of the proposed Calliham mine. The
regional grid of electrical transmission and distribution lines simultaneously
supported the mine in the EFRCP project area plus the large Deremo mine operated
by Umetco Minerals, 2 miles to the southeast, and the Silver Bell and Wilson
mines, 1 1⁄2 miles to the north. The grid remains adequate for any future mine
operations by EFRCP. History The land and mineral rights ownership history was covered under
section 1.1 above. Exploration drilling by various companies in the 1960s and
1970s discovered uranium-vanadium deposits in the Sage Plain area. The historic
underground Calliham mine accessed the three private leases, but has been idle
for about 20 years. It and the nearby Sage mine (one mile to the southeast) were
operated in the 1970s to early 1980s by Atlas Minerals. The Calliham mine was
acquired by Umetco Minerals in 1988 and operated briefly in 1990-1991. Umetco
also operated the Silver Bell and Wilson mines, 1 1⁄2 miles to the north. All
mines ceased production due to depressed uranium and vanadium prices, not
because they were depleted. The Calliham is totally reclaimed. Historic
production from the Calliham by Atlas and Umetco, combined, was approximately
222,000 tons at average grades of 0.15% U3O8and 0.92%
V2O5. 134   Geological Setting The Sage Plain District (also referred to as the Egnar District
or Summit Point District) is a portion of the greater Slick Rock District. It is
the southwest continuation into Utah of the prolific Uravan Mineral Belt. Here,
the host sandstones of the upper part of the Salt Wash Member of the
Jurassic-aged Morrison Formation are not exposed. They are covered by
Cretaceous-aged sediments or the upper Morrison Formations Brushy Basin Member.
Due to the deeper burial of the mineralized Salt Wash Member in the Sage Plain
area, discovery of economic deposits here lagged many years behind the
production from the same host rocks elsewhere in the Slick Rock District a few
miles to the northeast in Colorado. At Slick Rock, mining and milling of
radium-uranium-vanadium ores from the Salt Wash has occurred since 1901. This
part of the Uravan Mineral Belt has a significantly higher ratio of
V2O5:U3O8in the ore than the
deposits farther north. Exploration The uranium-vanadium deposits at and near the project are
buried 500 to 750 feet deep. All exploration work, therefore, has been done by
drilling from the surface. Outcrop exposures of mineralized Salt Wash sandstones
2-3 miles east of the Calliham mine helped guide the initial drilling. Drilling
is discussed in more detail below. Mineralization The Morrison sediments accumulated as oxidized detritus in the
fluvial environment. However, there were isolated environments where reduced
conditions existed, such as oxbow lakes and carbon-rich point bars. During early
burial and diagenesis, the through-flowing ground water within the large,
saturated pile of Salt Wash and Brushy Basin material remained oxidized, thereby
transporting uranium in solution. When the uranium-rich waters encountered the
zones of trapped reduced waters, the uranium precipitated. Vanadium may have
been leached from the detrital iron-titanium mineral grains and subsequently
deposited along with or prior to the uranium. The thickness, the gray color, and
pyrite and carbon contents of sandstones, along with gray or green mudstone,
were recognized by early workers as significant and still serve as exploration
guides. The primary uranium mineral is uraninite (pitchblende) (UO2)
with minor amounts of coffinite (USiO4OH). Montroseite (VOOH) is the
primary vanadium mineral, along with vanadium clays and hydromica. Drilling Historic exploration drilling from the surface was conducted by
previous operators (including Hecla, Atlas, Truchas, Pioneer Uravan, and
Umetco). These companies are known to have used techniques of common practice
for uranium exploration appropriate for the region. EFRCP owns most of the
original historic drill logs and maps. In addition, EFRCP staff personally know
many of the workers of the previous operators in the Sage Plain area, as well as
the reputations of the operators themselves. This direct familiarity lends
confidence to EFRCP regarding the results of the operators and information
provided by such previous workers. Longhole drilling was done within the
underground mine during its operation. Verification and fill-in exploration
drilling by EFRCP confirmed and added to the geologic interpretation and mineral
resources at the project area. There have been approximately 313 holes drilled
on the Calliham lease, 300 on the Crain lease, and 487 on the Skidmore lease by
the prior owners. Ten holes were drilled by CPP across the three Calliham area
leased properties in December, 2011 totaling 6,465 feet. Cuttings were logged
with particular attention to sandstone color, carbon content, and interbedded mudstone characteristics. The holes were probed
using a properly calibrated natural gamma tool along with resistivity and
spontaneous potential logs when the holes contained water. An induction tool was
used in the 2011 holes that were dry. All CPP holes were also logged with a
deviation tool.Sampling and Analysis 135   Umetcos preferred method of exploration at the nearby Deremo
mine and other properties they worked in the Sage Plain area in the 1970s and
early 1980s was to rotary plug drill through the upper part of the hole, then
core through the uranium-bearing sandstone horizon. This allowed them to do
assays for both uranium and vanadium. Holes then usually were logged with a
natural gamma probe for radiometric uranium grades. EFRCP has most of the
original assay data from the Umetco drilling on the leases. EFRCP also has most
of the original gamma logs, which include the calibration factors for the
probing equipment used, from the Hecla, Atlas, Truchas, and Pioneer Uravan
drilling. Material mined from the Calliham mine was successfully milled
at the Atlas mill in Moab, Utah in the 1980s. The ore mined by Umetco in 1990-91
was milled at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, presently owned by EFI.
EFRCP is not aware of any radiological disequilibrium or unfavorable
metallurgical issues occurring during the mining and milling of the Calliham
ore. Security of Samples Core sampling methods used by previous operators is believed to
have followed proper protocol commonly used by uranium-vanadium producers in the
region in the 1970s and 1980s. Natural gamma logging equipment used by CPP in
its 2011 verification drilling, the Colorado Plateau Logging, LLC tools, were
calibrated at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test pits in Grand Junction,
Colorado on August 24, 2011. Mineral Resources Review of the historic and verification drilling data show it
supports remaining Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at the Sage Plain
Project of approximately 1,611,000 lbs. U3O8and
13,261,000 lbs. V2O5. This is contained in roughly 475,000
tons of material at an in-place diluted grade of 0.17% U3O8and 1.40% V2O5Additionally, Inferred Mineral
Resources are estimated at 11,800 tons with an in-place diluted grade of 0.16%
U3O8 and 1.20% V2O5 (36,700 lbs U3O8and 283,600 lbs V2O5). This resource estimate for
the Sage Plain Project is divided into the particular leases for reporting in
this Technical Report. The resources of the Calliham, Crain, and Skidmore leases
are accessible through the Calliham mine. The reported Mineral Resources are all
hosted in the upper sandstone interval of the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison
Formation. Uranium grades derive from equivalent U3O8 estimated from gamma logs
as well as data from historic core assays. Resources were estimated using a polygon method. The area of
influence for any one drill hole was set at a maximum of 7,854 sq. ft. (radius
of 50 feet) for Measured Resources. Indicated Resources are the areas between
the Measured Resource polygons of adjacent holes that are greater than 100 feet
apart, but no more than 200 feet, and the mineralized intercepts in those holes
correlate well. Inferred Resources are where mineralized holes are from 200 to
400 feet apart. EFRCP uses a tonnage factor of 14 cu ft/ton for mineralized Salt
Wash sandstone. A cutoff grade of 0.10% U3O8 was used
(with a few exceptions, explained in Chapter 14). The Mineral Resource totals for the entire project area are
summarized in Table 1.1. 136   Table 1.1  Summary of Measured, Indicated, and Inferred
Mineral Resources for the Sage Plain Project; rounded. Leases
    Tons of Ore
    U3O8Lbs
    Avg Grade
      (U3O8)
    V2O5Lbs
    Avg Grade
      (V2O5)Calliham
    
    
    0.16
    
    1.32Measured
    179,300
    595,600
    0.17
    4,915,000
    1.37Indicated
    10,900
    22,700
    0.10
    172,900
    0.80Inferred
    8,700
    22,000
    0.13
    165,900
    0.95Crain
    
    
    0.14
    
    1.15Measured
    60,900
    176,800
    0.15
    1,434,700
    1.18Indicated
    2,100
    3,700
    0.09
    26,100
    0.63Inferred
    1,300
    3,000
    0.11
    22,400
    0.85Skidmore
    
    
    0.18
    
    1.52Measured
    203,800
    768,000
    0.19
    6,364,200
    1.56Indicated
    18,100
    44,200
    0.12
    348,100
    0.96Inferred
    1,800
    11,700
    0.33
    95,300
    2.67Grand Total(Mea+Ind)
    475,100
    1,611,000
    0.17
    13,261,000
    1.40Grand Total(Inf))
    11,800
    36,700
    0.16
    283,600
  1.20
  Notes:
    1)
    Grades and tonnages shown as diluted amounts.Dilution is discussed in Chapter 14 of the Sage Plain
      Technical Report.2)
    Vanadium grades are based on assays where known,
      otherwise estimated at the average
      V2O5:U3O8ratios for the
      individual properties used by previous operators based on core assay data
      and past production. The Mineral Resources are located on private land in a region
of past mining success where nearby communities have long supported mining
enterprises. The State of Utah regulations are clearly stated and compliance
will be readily achievable. The main challenge to moving the project forward is
having a favorable market price for uranium and/or vanadium. Mining Operations The mining of resources in the Sage Plain Project will be by
conventional underground methods. These methods have been used very successfully
in the region for over 100 years. The nature of the Salt Wash uranium-vanadium
deposits require a random room and pillar mining configuration. The deposits
have irregular shapes and occur within several close-spaced, flat or slightly
dipping horizons. It often rolls between horizons. The use of rubber-tired
equipment allows the miners to follow the ore easily in the slight dips and to
ramp up or down to the other horizons. The deposit will be accessed from the
surface through a decline about 3,500 feet long at a gradient between 8 and 15%.
If possible, the Calliham decline will be rehabilitated; if unusable, a new
parallel decline would be driven. The Salt Wash sandstones are usually quite
competent rock and require only moderate ground support. The overlying Brushy
Basin mudstones are less competent, so the declines are often supported by
square set timber or steel arch and timber lagging. The Salt Wash deposits are
usually thinner than the mining height needed for personnel and equipment
access. Therefore, the ore is mined by a split-shooting method. The mined material will be processed at the conventional White
Mesa Mill, 54 miles away. Ore from the Calliham mine was successfully processed
there in 1991. Salt Wash ores from other districts in the Uravan Mineral Belt
were processed at the White Mesa Mill as recently as mid-2013. Exploration and Development Recommendations 137   EFRCP should continue efforts to acquire the necessary permits
to allow mining to commence quickly when the uranium and/or vanadium prices
increase to the point the project would become economic. A formal preliminary
economic assessment should be performed to determine what those prices need to
be. Although some of the exploration of the Calliham mine areas
will be performed underground as development proceeds, it is recommended that
additional surface drilling be done for the areas to the north of the majority
of the Calliham workings, particularly on the Skidmore lease. Permitting Prior to starting major permitting for the site, it is required
that an exploration permit be obtained from DOGM to reopen the Calliham Decline
and the Calliham No. 1 Vent Shaft to determine whether the decline is in good
enough shape to allow for rehabilitation. Assuming that the decline is in
reasonable shape, a summary of the three major state permits needed to reopen
the mine follows: DOGM Large Mine Permit:This permit would include operation and
  reclamation plans, as well as comprehensive descriptions of environmental and
  health and safety issues. A preliminary draft of the Large Mine Notice of
  Intent (NOI) was prepared in 2012 but not finalized or submitted.Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Mine Water Discharge Permit:The Calliham Mine would need to be dewatered during rehabilitation and
  then kept dewatered during mine operations. The DWQ requires that groundwater
  (zero) discharge permits be obtained for all ponds and surface water discharge
  permits be obtained for treating and discharging water from the site. Use of
  evaporation ponds versus water treatment was evaluated for this project and
  water treatment and discharge was selected as the preferable method for
  managing excess water.Utah Air Quality Division (AQD) Minor Permit: Given the large number of
  vent shafts and anticipated life-of-mine production greater than 100,000 tons
  of ore, this project would need an air quality permit for fugitive dust and
  radon emissions from ventilation shafts and disturbed surface areas. All three state permits likely would trigger a public comment
period and associated public meetings. This area has seen extensive uranium
mining over the years and benefited from the associated economic advantages.
Minor permits for water rights, storm water, county special use, etc. also may
be required. The San Juan County Administrator stated the only permits they need
to issue are building permits to reopen the Calliham Mine. These permits
typically take 7 to 10 days to approve. 138   Copper King Gold/Copper Project   Unless otherwise stated, the following description of the
Copper King Project is derived from the technical report dated August 24, 2012
titled, Technical Report on the Copper King Project prepared by Paul Tietz,
C.P.G. and Neil Prenn, P. Eng. of Mine Development Associates (MDA) in
accordance with NI 43-101 (the Copper King Technical Report). Each
author of the Copper King Technical Report is a qualified person and
independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. A copy of the
Copper King Technical Report is available under Strathmores profile on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com. Project  Description and Location The Copper King project is located in southeastern Wyoming,
approximately 32km west of the city of Cheyenne, on the southeastern margin of
the Laramie Range. The property covers about five square kilometers that include
the S1⁄2 Section 25, NE1⁄4 Section 35, and all of Section 36, T.14N., R.70W. Strathmore acquired its interest in the Copper King Project in
May 2012 through an agreement to acquire all of the issued and outstanding
shares of Saratoga Gold Company Ltd. (Saratoga). The property is held
through two State of Wyoming Metallic and Non-Metallic Rocks and Minerals Mining
Leases (the Copper King Leases) that extend through February 1, 2013
and February 1, 2014. Strathmore has renewed both leases for an additional 10
years. The current total rental payments are $2,240 annually with a production
royalty ranging from 5 to 10% once production has commenced, although the
Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners has the authority to reduce that
percentage. An easement agreement providing access has been negotiated with
Ferguson Ranch Inc. on the S1⁄2 Section 25, T.14N., R.70W., and also the W1⁄2
Section 30, T.14N., R.69W. Annual payments on the easement agreement are
$10,000. The agreement has been renewed for the current year. Prior to mining
development, a surface impact payment would have to be negotiated with the
lessee, which annual payment would then be split between the State of Wyoming
and the surface lessee based on a sliding scale. On July 2, 2014, the Company
contributed the Copper King Project to CK Mining Corp, a newly formed private
company, in consideration of cash and newly issued Common Shares of CK Mining
Corp., representing 50% of its issued and outstanding shares after giving effect
to such issuance. A private investor group with experience in developing gold
projects and building mining companies holds the other 50% of CK Mining Corp. There are no outstanding environmental liabilities to which the
project is subject. Strathmore completed reclamation of all drilling done in
2007-2009. The drill permit has been terminated and the bond released. 139   Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, and
Infrastructure The Copper King Project is located in Laramie County, Wyoming,
about 32km west of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Access to within 1.5km of the property is
provided by paved and maintained gravel roads, although driving conditions might
be difficult in the winter. Annual precipitation averages 43cm, of which the majority falls
as winter snows, which may hamper transportation for short periods after heavy
snowfalls. Summer temperatures are mild; subfreezing temperatures are common
during the winter. Overall, temperatures range from -37° C in the winter to 32°
C in the summer. Lodging, supplies, and labor are available in Cheyenne, a city
of about 59,500 (2010 census). A paved road is within 8km that provides direct
access into Cheyenne, which is served by Interstates 80 and 25 along with a
full-service airport. The Union Pacific main line runs through Cheyenne, and a
smaller trunk line passes by the property about 13km to the northeast.
Interstate 80 and the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad lie about 6km to
the south of the Copper King property, although there is no direct maintained
access to this portion of the transportation corridor. High-voltage power lines are located about 2.4km from the
project, and local power lines serve the scattered residences along Crystal Lake
Road. There is ample ground east and south of the Copper King project
area for mining infrastructure with a large flat area south of the mineralized
area and still on the State section. There are no significant water sources on the property. South
Crow Creek and Middle Crow Creek, both perennial streams, lie 1.6km to the south
and north. A large nearby reservoir, Crystal Lake Reservoir, lies 1.2km to the
northwest within Curt Gowdy State Park. Previous site reports (Nevin, 1973;
Mountain Lake Resources, 1997) indicate that the city, specifically the Cheyenne
Board of Utilities, would be receptive to a proposal to sell water for mine use
from this and other nearby reservoirs. MDA has not contacted the city
authorities to ascertain whether this is still true. Groundwater is <46m deep at the project site, and deep
wells, or the dewatering of a future open-pit, could serve as an adequate water
source for the mine. No hydrological studies have been completed to date on the
property. There is some low-density residential development east and west
of the Copper King Project. From about six to 11km east of the Copper King mine
there are 30 to 40 scattered homes. About 1.6km west of the mine are about five
to eight scattered homes with 15 to 20 homes along Crystal Lake Road 4km west of
the mine. The Ferguson Ranch is a working ranch located about four km northeast
of Copper King mine. Within the Copper King property, elevations range from about
2,073m to 2,225m with generally low to moderate relief. The exception is the
northwest portion of the property, which covers a moderate to steep,
northwest-facing slope that bottoms at 2,103m elevation in a northeast-flowing
intermittent stream drainage. Elevations at the Copper King mine, and within the
immediate mineral resource area, range from 2,118m to 2,188m. The currently
identified mineral resource is exposed at the surface along a
west-northwest-trending ridge, and the topography is conducive to open-pit
mining methods. Vegetation is sparse to moderate with sagebrush and prairie
grasses on the gentle south- and east-facing slopes and small conifers on the
steeper north slopes. The Company believes that the project has sufficient surface
rights to engage in all contemplated mining operations, including potential
waste disposal areas. 140   History Limited exploration and mining were conducted on the Copper
King property in the late 1880s and early 1900s. Approximately 272 tonnes of
material were reported to have been produced from a now inaccessible 48m-deep
shaft with two levels of cross-cuts. A few small adits and prospect pits with no
significant production are scattered throughout the property. Since 1930, at least nine historic (pre-Strathmore) drilling
campaigns by at least seven companies plus the U. S. Bureau of Mines
(USBM) have been conducted at the Copper King Project. American
Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) acquired the property in 1938 and was
the first known major company to drill the Copper King property. The Copper King
Mining Company (Copper King Mining) acquired the property in 1952. While the
Copper King Mining drilling was in progress, the U. S. Bureau of Mines (USBM)
became involved and in1953/1954 surveyed and mapped the property and then
drilled three diamond core holes for a total of 802m. There was no further
recorded work on the property until 1970, when ASARCO re-optioned the property,
conducted soil geochemical sampling and geologic mapping, performed additional
diamond drilling, and completed induced polarization (IP) and aeromagnetic
geophysical surveys. Henrietta Mines Ltd. (Henrietta), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Caledonia Resources Ltd., acquired rights to the property in 1972,
and a comprehensive exploration program was completed by the spring of1973. At
some point between 1973 and 1987, Henriettas interest in the property was
folded into Wyoming Gold, Inc. The Caledonia work was mentioned briefly in the
Wyoming State Geological Survey Bulletin 70. Compass Minerals, Ltd. (Compass)
acquired the property in 1993. In addition to the exploration just described,
MDA found evidence suggesting that two or three other operators may have
conducted at least some drilling at Copper King. Saratoga acquired the property in 2006. Strathmore acquired all
of the issued and outstanding shares of Saratoga on May 11, 2012 and has
conducted no exploration to date. The Company Acquired Strathmore in 2013. The
current project database contains 91 drill holes totaling 11,429m that were
drilled before Saratoga acquired the property. The most recent drilling on the property was conducted by
Saratoga, who completed a drill exploration program on the property in 2007 and
2008. Thirty-five diamond core drill holes were completed for a total of 7,762m.
The focus of the work was to confirm and potentially expand the mineralized body
outlined in the previous drill campaigns, increase the geologic and geochemical
database leading to the creation of the current geologic model and resource
estimate, and to provide material for further metallurgical testing. Neither Strathmore nor Energy Fuels has conducted exploration
on the Copper King Project to date. Geologic Setting The Silver Crown mining district, within which the Copper King
project is located, is underlain by Proterozoic rocks that make up the southern
end of the Precambrian core of the Laramie Range. Metavolcanic and
metasedimentary rocks of amphibolite-grade metamorphism are intruded by the
approximately 1.4 billion year old Sherman Granite and related felsic rocks.
Within the project area, foliated granodiorite is intruded by aplitic quartz
monzonite dikes, thin mafic dikes, and younger pegmatite dikes. Shear zones with
cataclastic foliation striking N60°E to N60°W are found in the southern part of
the Silver Crown district, including at Copper King. Copper and gold
mineralization at Copper King occurs primarily in unfoliated to mylonitic
granodiorite. The granodiorite typically shows potassium enrichment,
particularly near contacts with quartz monzonite. At Copper King, mineralization
is associated with a N60°W-trending shear zone. 141   The Copper King deposit is thought by some to be a Proterozoic
porphyry gold-copper deposit (Hausel, 1992, 1997; Carson, 1998), and is included
in a list of undeveloped porphyry copper deposits by Long (1995). Others (Klein,
1974) categorized the Copper King deposit as a structurally controlled base and
precious metal deposit in a Precambrian shear zone. Exploration Limited exploration and mining were conducted on the Copper
King property in the late 1880s and early 1900s. Approximately 272 tonnes of
material were reported to have been produced from a now inaccessible 48m-deep
shaft with two levels of cross-cuts. A few small adits and prospect pits with no
significant production are scattered throughout the property. Since 1938, at least nine historic (pre-Strathmore) drilling
campaigns by at least seven companies plus the U. S. Bureau of Mines
(USBM) have been conducted at Copper King. The current project database
contains 91 drill holes totaling 11,429m that were drilled before Saratoga
acquired the property. There are only limited, third-party references to four
historic holes, and therefore these four holes are not included in the database.
Also, one of the core holes re-entered and then deepened an earlier hole and so
is considered just one hole, with one surface collar location, within the
current database. All but six of the drill holes are within the current resource
area. MDA has very little information on sampling or analytical
procedures for most of the pre-Saratoga drilling campaigns. With the exception
of limited check assaying, there is no evidence of quality assurance/quality
control measures having been taken by all but the most recent previous
operators. However, drilling by five different operators since 1970 has
generally confirmed the mineralization identified by the drilling of two
companies and the USBM prior to 1970, which lends confidence to the drilling
results. Other work conducted at Copper King by previous companies has
included ground and aeromagnetic surveys as well as induced polarization
(IP) surveys along with geochemical sampling, geologic mapping, and a
number of metallurgical studies. The most recent drilling on the property was by Saratoga, who
conducted a drill exploration program in 2007 and 2008. Saratoga completed 35
diamond core drill holes for a total of 7,762m. The focus of Saratogas work was
to confirm and potentially expand the mineralized body outlined in the previous
drill campaigns, increase the geologic and geochemical database leading to the
creation of the current geologic model and resource estimate, and to provide
material for further metallurgical testing. The Company (including Strathmore) has conducted no exploration
on the Copper King project to date. Mineralization The Copper King deposit consists of a near-surface, central
core of high-grade (>1.71g Au/t) mineralization, 175m long, 50m wide, and
150m thick, associated with moderate to pervasive silicification and
near-vertical thin, sulfide-bearing quartz veins and stockwork. The high-grade
core is surrounded by a large envelope of low-grade disseminated mineralization,
760m long along its N60oW strike, up to 300m wide at the widest part,
and over 330m in thickness. The low-grade mineralization is open along strike,
both to the northwest and southeast, and also at depth, where historic core
holes have encountered mineralization to a depth of at least 305m. Gold and
copper mineralization within the lower-grade portion of the deposit is uniformly
consistent in tenor both along strike and at depth. Historic and Saratoga drill
holes have intercepted >250m of continuous gold and copper mineralization in
which over 90% of the individual gold assays range between 0.3g Au/t and
1g Au/t. grade and copper values range between 0.1% Cu and 0.3% Cu. 142   Mineralization is present as disseminated sulfides and
quartz/sulfide stockworks with malachite and chrysocolla and native copper
present at the surface and chalcopyrite, pyrite, minor bornite, primary
chalcocite, pyrrhotite, and native copper at depth. The mineralization is low in
pyrite and high in magnetite. Precious metal concentrations are directly
proportional to sulfide content, particularly chalcopyrite. Gold occurs as free
gold in grains 10 to 250 microns in size. Oxidation occurs within the upper 30m
below the topographic surface and a mixed zone of weak oxides and remnant
sulfide, often associated with increased metal grades, occurs within the core of
the deposit up to 75m below the oxide boundary. Chalcopyrite is the dominant
sulfide mineral, though chalcocite and native copper are enriched within the
mixed oxide/sulfide zone and oxide zones, respectively. Drilling The USBMs drilling indicated that the mineralization has a
fairly extensive width and length and continues to a depth of at least 312m. The
results of the pre-1955 work are summarized in the USBM Report of Investigation
No. 5139 (Soule, 1955). This early work confirmed the large-tonnage potential of
the deposit and indicated that the mineralization extends to depths greater than
305m. As of the effective date of the Copper King Technical Report, 120 drill
holes totaling 18,105m occur within the Copper King deposit area and are in the
current database. The drill total includes 62 core holes totaling 11,276m (62%
of total drill footage), 30 conventional rotary holes totaling 3,383m, 23
reverse circulation (RC) holes totaling 2,219m, and 5 holes started
with RC but finished with core that total 1,227m. Both vertical and angle holes
have been drilled, and the maximum vertical depth is 305m. All 120 drill holes,
including collar location, down-hole orientation, and analytical results, are in
the current project database. Limited data exist concerning drill procedures or
collar surveys for the drilling prior to that of Saratoga. Except for one
pre-Saratoga core hole, MDA has no evidence that any of the other holes drilled
on the Copper King property by previous operators were down-hole surveyed. All
Saratoga drill-hole collars were professionally surveyed, and all Saratoga holes
have down-hole survey data. The Saratoga data have been validated against original source
material, including collar survey files, original driller-recorded down-hole
survey data, and digital assay data direct from the laboratories. Saratogas
quality assurance/quality control measures included the use of standards and
blanks along with pulp duplicate and pulp-re-assay testing, the latter using a
second umpire laboratory. The Company (including Strathmore) has conducted no drilling on
the property to date. Historic drilling on the property is summarized below. Drilling on the Copper King Property Company
    Year
    No. of 
      holes
    Type
    Series/hole
    Total Drilled 
      (m)ASARCO
    1938
    5
    Core
    A
    427Copper King
    1952
    6
    Core
    C
    802USBM
    1953-54
    3
    Core
    B
    802ASARCO(2)
    1970
    8
    Core
    A
    874Henrietta Mines(1)
    1973
    111
    Rotary
    P-1, P-2, P5 - P7
    341Rotary/core
    P3/H5; P4/H6
    325Core
    H-1 thru H-42
  483
 143    ?(3)
    Pre-1988
    14
    ?
    BL-L1
    ?Caledonia
    1987
    25
    Percussion rotary
    (5) CK87
    3042Royal Gold?(6)
    1989
    24
    Rotary or RC
    CK89
    1544Compass
    1994
    26
    21 RC, 5 Core
    CCK
    2890?(7)
    Pre-1995
    14
    Core
    N-1
    3134Mountain Lake
    1997
    8
    RC
    MLR,MLRM
    1445Saratoga Gold
    2007 & 2008
    35
    Core
    WG07, WG08
    7762Total
    
    131
    
    
    19,660
  1)
    Some references count the two combined rotary/core holes
      as two rotary and two core holes for a total of 13 holes2)
    Hole H-3 re-entered ASARCO hole A-123)
    Hole apparently drilled by an unknown operator prior to
      December 19874)
    Not included in current database because of questions
      about the existence of these holes5)
    Some maps show these holes as K- series or 87-
    series6)
    Inferred from Hazen Research, Inc. (1989) but not
      verified and not located7)
    Hole apparently drilled by an unknown operator prior to
      December 1994. Saratogas 2007 and 2008 drill results confirmed the high-grade
mineralization and also confirmed the presence of mineralization across the
length and breadth of the deposit. All of the 2007 and 2008 holes which were
cored were down-hole surveyed for deviation. Other data collected on many of the
holes in this program were core photography, RQD and core- recovery
measurements, geologic logging, and sampling. Core recoveries averaged over 90%
with many long intervals at over 95%. Some of the core was exposed to the
weather, onsite, due to limited covered space. Sampling and Analysis To date, 120 drill holes totaling 18,105m occur within the
Copper King deposit area and are in the current database. The drill total
includes 62 core holes totaling 11,276m (62% of total drill footage), 30
conventional rotary holes totaling 3,383m, 23 reverse circulation (RC) holes
totaling 2,219m, and 5 holes started with RC but finished with core that total
1,227m. Both vertical and angle holes have been drilled, and the maximum
vertical depth is 305m. All of the drill holes were continually sampled
down-hole with most of the historic drilling on predominantly 1.5m or 3m
intervals, while the Saratoga sampling was predominantly at 1.5m intervals. All
120 drill holes, including collar location, down-hole orientation, and
analytical results, are in the current project database. The Copper King drill-hole assay database contains 8,357 gold
assays and 8,225 copper assays. Sixty percent of the analytical data within the
current database are from the Saratoga drill program. The Saratoga data have
been validated against original source material, including collar survey files,
original driller-recorded down-hole survey data, and digital assay data direct
from the laboratories. Saratogas quality assurance/quality control measures
included the use of standards and blanks along with pulp duplicate and
pulp-re-assay testing, the latter using a second umpire laboratory. Saratoga sampled the 2007 and 2008 drill core on approximate
1.5m intervals, although sample intervals did range from 0.3 to 3m as warranted
by the geology. Due to the pervasive alteration and potential for mineralization
observed throughout all drill holes, the core was continuously sampled with no
gaps in the sample sequence. The samples were collected principally by sawing
the core in half, though some intervals, due either to the hardness of the rock
or the unavailability of the saw, were split with a hydraulic splitter. One half
of the core was bagged and sent for assay, while the remaining half was placed back into the core box and put into storage. Energy
Fuels maintains all remaining core from these programs in locked storage. 144   The Saratoga core samples from the 2007 drill program were
shipped to ALS Minerals (ALS, formerly called ALS Chemex) in Elko,
Nevada for sample preparation and then on to the ALS facility in Sparks, Nevada,
for analysis for gold and a 33-element geochemical suite. Final results were
received in December 2009. The ALS sample preparation and analysis methods
requested by Saratoga were AA23 for gold and ME-ICP61 for the geochem suite.
The detection level for the analysis was 5 ppb Au, while the upper precision
level was 10 ppm Au. Samples assaying over 10 ppm were re-assayed using a fire
assay with gravimetric finish technique (ALS lab code Au-GRA21), which has an
upper precision level of 1,000 ppm Au. The ME-ICP61 analytical geochem
procedure consists of a four-acid digestion and analysis by inductively coupled
plasma (ICP) followed by atomic emission spectroscopy (AES). The
reported range for copper values using this technique is between 1 and 10,000
ppm Cu. Samples with initial values over 10,000 ppm Cu were re-run using the
same analytical techniques optimized for accuracy and precision at high
concentrations (ALS lab code CU-OG62 with an upper precision of 40 percent
Cu). After completion of analyses and temporary storage at ALS, all
of the pulps and selected coarse reject samples from mineralized intervals were
retrieved by Saratoga and are currently in storage in Elko, Nevada. Energy Fuels
continues to maintain all remaining core rejects and sample pulps from these
programs in locked storage, in Elko, NV. Neither Strathmore nor Energy Fuels have done any drilling on
the property to date. Security of Samples The drill crew, upon filling a core box, placed a wooden top
over the core, and the box was secured using strapping tape. At the end of each
drill shift, the core was transported by the drill crew into Cheyenne, WY, a
distance of about 32km, and placed in a locked commercial storage unit. The
storage unit is located within a secure, gated facility. About once per week,
the core were transported on a trailer to a logging and sampling facility in
Casper, Wyoming, a distance of about 320km. After being logged and sampled, the
remaining half-core was placed in a locked storage unit within a secure,
commercial storage facility in Casper. All remaining 2007 core holes were transported 320km to Dubois,
Wyoming, for storage and further core processing. Sampling was conducted within
an open-sided ranch shed on private property owned by Norm Burmeister, an
officer with Saratoga. The core facility was within a fenced area. After
sampling was complete, the core was transported to a commercial storage facility
and stored on racks in a locked storage unit. These same procedures were used
for the 2008 drilling. The Saratoga core is currently stored in two facilities. The
initial 11 drill holes from the 2007 campaign and the core from all eight holes
of Saratogas 2008 drilling are in a secure storage facility in Cheyenne,
Wyoming, along with remaining unsampled core from Compasss holes. Saratogas 16
remaining 2007 core holes are in a secure storage facility in Dubois, Wyoming. At the time of their report, MDA was of the opinion that the
sampling methods, security, and analytical procedures were adequate for mineral
resource estimation. Saratogas QA/QC program implemented for the 2007 and 2008
drilling included analytical standards and blanks inserted into the drill-sample
stream, duplicate assaying of selected coarse-reject samples by the primary
assay laboratory, and re-assaying of original pulps by an umpire laboratory. The
check assay analyses have shown good agreement between the ALS duplicate pulp
analyses on the original ALS coarse rejects and also between the ALS pulp
re-assays of the original American Assay samples. No significant
biases or assay variability issues were found within these data. 145   Metallurgical Testing Neither Energy Fuels nor Strathmore have conducted
metallurgical testing to date. However, the previous owner, Saratoga Gold, did a
fairly extensive test set of which the samples are currently controlled by
Energy Fuels and kept at the Riverton Office. Mineral Resource Estimates As of June 20, 2012, 120 drill holes totaling 18,105m exist in
the Copper King deposit area. The drill total includes 62 core holes totaling
11,276m (62% of total drill footage), 30 conventional rotary holes totaling
3,383m, 23 RC holes totaling 2,219m, and 5 holes started with RC but finished
with core that total 1,227m. The Copper King drill-hole assay database contains
8,357 gold assays and 8,225 copper assays. Other metals are not considered to be
economically significant and, therefore, were not estimated. Upon completion of the database validation process, MDA
constructed 26 cross sections spaced 50ft (15.24m) to 100ft (30.5m) apart and
looking northwest at 302°. The sections were spaced to best fit the existing
drilling with the tighter spacing within the center of the deposit. One set of
sections was made for lithology and then another for gold/copper. Drill-hole
information, including rock type and metal grades, along with the topographic
surface were plotted on the cross sections. Using the cross-sectional
interpretations as a framework, three-dimensional solids were created of the
gold and copper mineral domains and the quartz monzonite and lamprophyre dikes.
Grade estimation was controlled by the metal domains and the unique rock types. The Copper King density database consists of 1,338 specific
gravity measurements on Saratogas 2007-2008 drill core. MDA assigned a specific
rock type and oxidation type (oxide, mixed, or sulfide) to each density value by
correlating the specific gravity down-hole depths with the logged geology at
that same location. Unique gold and copper mineral domain models were created
based on, and guided by, the geologic/density model cross-sections. Further
analyses of the gold and copper data indicated that the dike mineralization was
consistently of a lower grade than the surrounding granodiorite. The dike and
granodiorite assays were therefore treated as separate domains for compositing
and estimation purposes resulting in two mineral domains within the model for
both gold and copper. The volume inside each mineral domain was estimated using
only composites from inside that domain. The resource block model reflects the even distribution of
metal grades occurring within a large body of disseminated and vein/stockwork
gold and copper mineralization. MDA classified the Copper King resources in
order of increasing geological and quantitative confidence into Inferred,
Indicated, and Measured categories. MDA classified the Copper King resources by
a combination of distance to the nearest sample and the number of samples, while
at the same time taking into account reliability of underlying data and
understanding and use of the geology. A summary of the total Copper King stated resources are
tabulated in the following two tables. The stated resource is fully diluted to
6.1m by 6.1m by 6.1m blocks (20ft by 20ft by 20ft) and is tabulated on a AuEq
cutoff grade of 0.514g AuEq/t (0.015oz AuEq/ton). All material, regardless of
which metal is present and which is absent, is tabulated. Because multiple
metals exist, but do not on a local scale co-exist, the AuEq grade is used for
tabulation. Using the individual metal grades of each block, the AuEq grade is
calculated using the following formula: g AuEq/t = g Au/t + (2.057143 * %Cu) 146   This formula is based on prices of $1,000.00 per ounce gold,
and $3.00 per pound copper. No metal recoveries are applied, as this is the in
situ resource. Summary Table of Copper King Resources Total Measured and Indicated Resource: Au-equiv. Cutoff
    Tons
    Tonnes
    oz Au
    g Auoz AuEq/ton
    g AuEq/t
    (millions)
    (millions)
    /ton
    /t
    oz Au
    % Cu
    lbs CuMeasured 0.015
    0.51
    15.13
    13.73
    0.018
    0.62
    272,000
    0.199
    60,120,000Indicated 0.015
    0.51
    44.62
    40.48
    0.015
    0.50
    654,000
    0.183
    162,880,000TOTAL 0.015
    0.51
    59.8
    54.2
    0.015
    0.53
    926,000
    0.187
    223,000,000
 Total Inferred Resource: Au-equiv. Cutoff
    Tons
    Tonnes
    oz Au
    g Auoz AuEq/ton
    g AuEq/t
    (millions)
    (millions)
    /ton
    /t
    oz
      Au
    % Cu
    lbs Cu0.015
    0.51
    15.6
    14.2
    0.011
    0.38
    174,000
    0.200
    62,530,000
 For the Copper King deposit, the most important observation
that can be presented to the reader is the even, consistent distribution of gold
and copper, albeit generally low-grade, throughout this potential open-pit
deposit. Approximately 85% of the total resource is classified as Measured or
Indicated due to the consistent nature of the mineralization and the current
drill spacing. It is proposed that the Copper King gold-copper deposit be
mined by open pit methods. It was concluded that the process with the highest
potential to yield good extractions of gold and copper would likely be
flotation, followed by cyanidation of the flotation tailings. This study assumed material would be processed at a rate of
10,000 tons per day. The ore-grade material would be crushed in or near the mine
and transported to the plant located close to the mine. The production schedule
indicated between 3.5 and 11.0 million tons of material will be moved annually.
Mining is planned to proceed on 20ft bench intervals. Material will be drilled
and blasted. The blasted material will be loaded by a 15cy front shovel or a
16cy loader into 100-ton trucks. The ore-grade material will be hauled to a jaw
crusher located near the pit rim. The crushed material will be transported to a
plant site. The Capital Cost estimate is expressed in terms of U.S. dollars
in first quarter 2011 costs (US$). The initial mine equipment capital cost is
estimated to be $17 million and the floatation mill capital cost is estimated to
be $81.6 million. The estimated capital cost of infrastructure is $5.4 million.
The mining cost is estimated to be $1.60 per ton of material moved. The
processing cost estimate is $7.73 per ton and the general and administrative
costs were estimated to total $0.86/ton of material processed. The pre-tax economic analysis of the project shows a 31.2% IRR,
and a NPV (5%) of $159.5 million. Exploration and Development The Company has no plans to perform any additional exploration
work or development work in 2015. 147   Permitting To date, no concentrated environmental studies have been
performed on the Copper King property. No known environmental liabilities exist
on or near the Copper King property at the time. There are no apparent fatal
flaws or excessive permitting requirements that would be prohibitive to
obtaining a Permit to Mine; however, careful planning and coordination with the
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality would streamline the permitting
process and allow for the early identification of ways to address items of
critical concern. 148   Non-Material Mineral
Properties  This section describes additional non-material mineral
properties in the Western U.S. and Newfoundland held by the Company. As these
projects are not considered material to Energy Fuels business, the Company is
pursuing the potential sale, joint venture, trade or other transaction involving
one or more of these projects. The Company holds additional non-material mineral properties in
the Western U.S. and in Newfoundland as follows: Other Colorado Plateau Projects: Overview: The Company holds the Rim mine, which is permitted and on
standby. However, the Rim will require varying degrees of additional development
and permitting for expansion prior to being put back into production. It is
located approximately 65 road miles from the Companys White Mesa mill. Haulage
of the ore from the mines to the mill is along County, State and U.S.
highways. The uranium/vanadium deposits in the Colorado Plateau District
are hosted by sandstone formations which resulted from deposition of clastic
material by braided streams. The shape and size of the mineralized zones are
extremely variable. As a result, exploration and mining have historically
involved conducting exploration to find a zone and then merely following its
erratic path, with little exploration other than development drilling in the
course of following the mineralization. The sporadic and ill-defined nature of
these deposits has traditionally resulted in a limited amount of operational
resources being dedicated to delineating future mineral resources or mineral
reserves prior to mining. Operations: The Rim mine is a combination of a shaft and decline access but
at the present time is only accessed through the decline. The Rim mine is a
mature formerly operating mine, with extensive underground workings. The mining
method at the Rim property is random room and pillar in which no set pillar
pattern is established but rather both the size of the rooms and the pillars are
variable and are defined by the deposit geometry. A typical room is about 20
feet wide with pillars as small as 12 feet square in highly mined areas. The uranium-vanadium deposits in the Rim mine occur in the
upper and middle sandstones of the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation.
The Rim Mine deposits have an unusually high V2O5:
U3O8ratio; the last milled at the White Mesa Mill had a
10:1 ratio. For the majority of these properties, Energy Fuels is in
possession of much historic mine and drill data as well as up to date mine maps. 149   Because of the limited thickness of the mineralization, mining
must be selective in order to maintain a satisfactory production grade. This is
done by following the mineralized zones closely and by the technique of split
shooting wherein the ore and waste are blasted separately in a two-stage
operation. As a result of declining uranium prices, in March 2009, Denison
placed the Rim mine on standby. The ore production from the Rim mine for 2007
through September 2012 is shown below. Mine
    2013*
    2012*
    2011*
    2010*
    2009*RimTons
    -
    -
    -
    -
    3,475% U3O8
    -
    -
    -
    -
    0.07%% V2O5
    -
    -
    -
    -
  0.70%
 No Mineral Reserve or Resource estimates have been prepared in
accordance with NI 43-101 for the Rim mine. The uranium grades shown above are
based on probe grades taken when the ore arrives at the White Mesa Mill. The
vanadium grades are based on historical uranium/vanadium ratios. Permitting: The Rim Mine was developed in the early 1970s by Atlas Minerals
and was permitted in the late 1970s and early 1980s with DOGM and the BLM when
their respective environmental programs were implemented. The mine and permits
were transferred to Energy Fuels Nuclear in 1994, then to International Uranium
(1997), then to Denison Mines (2007), and finally to Energy Fuels in 2012.
Denison restarted the mine in 2008. The mine was dewatered, but only several
thousand tons of ore were mined before it was shut down. Dewatering continued
until Energy Fuels shut the pumps down in the fall of 2012. The original mine
permits were for 13.3 acres; however, agency inspections in 2009 identified
additional areas of disturbance. An updated Large Mine NOI, which doubled as a
Plan of Operations, were submitted to the DOGM and the BLM, respectively, in
2010 for 16 acres of disturbance. This plan was approved and the bond was
increased proportionally. The facility has a surface water discharge permit and
a Small Source Exemption for air emissions. Energy Fuels plans to submit a new
construction application to DAQ prior to restarting the mine. The Company considers the Rim mine to be a non-material
property. San Rafael Project: In August 2014, The Company sold all the San Rafael Project to
Pinon Ridge Mining LLC. Willhunt: In August 2014, The Company sold all the Willhunt Project to
Pinon Ridge Mining LLC. Farmer Girl: In August 2014, The Company sold all the Farmer Girl Project to
Pinon Ridge Mining LLC. Torbyn: Energy Fuels has filed a technical report, dated January 7,
2009 titled Amended Technical Report On Energy Fuels Resources Corporations
Torbyn Property, Mesa County, Colorado, prepared by M. Hassan Alief, Certified
Professional Geologist, Alinco GeoServices, Inc. Lakewood, Colorado (the Torbyn Technical Report). A copy of the Torbyn
Technical Report is available under the Companys profile on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com. The Company has leased the Torbyn (Tenderfoot Mesa) property from
Rimrock Exploration and Development, Inc. since July 1, 2006. Four drill
projects have been completed on the Torbyn claims in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2012.
The 2007 Energy Fuels drilling is described in the Torbyn Technical Report.
Subsequent drilling (12 holes drilled in 2008 total 4,755 ft. and in 2009, six
holes were drilled which total 2,350 feet) added resources in the exploration
target areas defined in the Report by approximately 51,500 lbs. of
U3O8and 206,000 lbs. of V2O5which is notconsidered compliant at this time. The drilling in 2012 was
designed to look for extensions of the mineralization in three directions near
the mine, finding the sandstone to be very favorable in one of those directions.
More drilling is needed to enlarge the known resources near this mine in order
to make a decision as to go forward with permitting. Now only the most
prospective 40 claims remain under lease. 150   The Company considers the Torbyn project to be a non-material
property. 151   Other New Mexico Projects:  Nose Rock Project: The Nose Rock project is a uranium development project located
within the Grants Mineral Belt in the State of New Mexico northeast of the town
of Crownpoint. The Nose Rock project as a whole consists of approximately 5,000
acres of land, including 102 federal lode mining claims and six (6) State of New
Mexico Mineral Leases. On March 19, 2009, Strathmore filed on the SEDAR website at
www.sedar.com, the technical report titled "Technical Report on Section
1, T18N, R12W, Nose Rock Uranium Property, McKinley County, New Mexico," dated
February 9, 2009, prepared by M. Hassan Alief, M.Sc., CPG, in accordance with NI
43-101 (the Nose Rock Technical Report). A copy of the Nose Rock
Technical Report is available under Strathmores profile on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com. The author of the Nose Rock Technical Report is a qualified
person and is independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The Nose Rock project was acquired by the Company on August 29,
2013 as a result of the acquisition of Strathmore by Energy Fuels. Strathmore acquired the property
through mineral leases or by claim staking. The Company considers the Nose Rock project to be a
non-material mineral property. Dalton Pass Project: The Dalton Pass project is a uranium development project
located in the western part of the Grants Mineral Belt in the State of New
Mexico. The Company considered the resources here to be too low-grade and too
deep to be economical in a reasonable timeframe under the current forecast of
uranium prices. Therefore, the property was abandoned by not paying the federal
lode mining claim Fee on September 1, 2014. Church Rock Project: The Church Rock project is a uranium development project
located in the State of New Mexico. It consists of approximately 640 acres of
federal lode mining claims. 152   The Church Rock project was acquired as a result of the
acquisition of Strathmore by Energy Fuels. Strathmore
acquired the property through claim staking. An historical measured and indicated mineral resource estimate
for the Church Rock project reported by Kerr-McGee in 1979 totaled 10.9 million pounds eU3O8 based on
6,050,000 tons at an average grade of 0.09% eU3O8. Kerr
McGee's measured and indicated mineral resource categories are most likely
comparable to CIM Measured and Indicated mineral resource categories. In 1995,
Rio Algom LLC, the successor company to Kerr-McGee, prepared a resource estimate
utilizing Kerr-McGee's methodology, but using a higher cut-off grade of 5 feet
of 0.10% . Rio Algom calculated an historical measured resource estimate
totaling 5,426,000 lbs. eU3O8 based on 2,532,000 tons at an
average grade of 0.11% eU3O8, an indicated resource estimate totaling 76,000 lbs.
eU3O8 based on 34,000 tons at an average grade of 0.11%
eU3O8, and a total measured & indicated resource
estimate of 5,502,000 lbs. eU3O8 based on 2,564,000 tons
at a grade of 0.11% eU3O8. The Company cautions readers that the Company is not treating
either of these two historical resource estimates as current mineral resources.
The Kerr-McGee and Rio Algom historical measured and indicated resource
estimates stated above were completed prior to the implementation of NI 43-101.
Given the extensive mineral production in the Church Rock and Crownpoint areas
(approximately 16 million pounds), the experience and reputation of the
companies, and the quality of their historical work, the Company believes these
historical resource estimates to be relevant and reliable. However, a qualified
person has not completed sufficient work to verify and classify these historical
resource estimates as current Mineral Resources, and the Company is not treating
the historical resource estimates as current Mineral Resources or Mineral
Reserves. Additional work including confirmation drilling, sampling and chemical
assay verification, and other technical support work as deemed necessary, is
required in order to verify the historical estimates as a current mineral
resource. The Company considers the Church Rock project to be a
non-material mineral property. Marquez Project: The Marquez Project is a uranium development project located in
the eastern part of the Grants Mineral Belt in northwestern New Mexico. It
consists of approximately 14,501 acres of a private mineral lease. It was
extensively explored during the 1970s, including 384 drill holes completed, and
was being developed as a full-scale underground uranium mine by Kerr McGee and
the Tennessee Valley Authority. However, the project was later abandoned in the
1980s due prolonged weak uranium prices. Strathmore acquired rights to the
Marquez property in 2007. On June 21, 2010, Strathmore filed on the SEDAR website at
www.sedar.com, the technical report titled "Marquez Uranium Property,
McKinley County, New Mexico," dated June 10, 2010, prepared by M. Hassan Alief,
M.SC, CPG, in accordance with NI 43-101 (the Marquez Technical Report).
The Marquez Technical Report is available under Strathmores profile on SEDAR at
www.sedar.com. The author of the Marquez Technical Report is a qualified
person and is independent of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The Marquez Project was acquired by the Company on August 29,
2013 as a result of the acquisition of Strathmore by Energy Fuels.  Strathmore acquired the property
through claim staking. The Company considers the Marquez project to be a non-material
mineral property. 153   Other Wyoming Projects  Shirley Basin: The  Company’s Shirley Basin uranium properties exceed 2,500 acres of federal lode  mining claims and 680 acres in two Wyoming State Leases. Previous exploration  conducted by Utah International identified a number of mineralized areas  requiring follow-up exploration. The Shirley Basin properties  were acquired by the Company on August 29, 2013 as a result of the acquisition  of Strathmore by Energy Fuels.  Strathmore  acquired the property through claim staking. The  Company considers the Shirley Basin property to be a non-material property. Sky Project: The Sky project totals approximately 800 acres of
federal lode mining claims. The claims are within the Wind River Basin of
Wyoming. The property was originally discovered by Exxon Minerals in the 1970's
and was controlled by the Pathfinder group until the late 1980's. The Company
considered the resources here to be too low-grade and too deep to be economical
in a reasonable timeframe under the current forecast of uranium prices.
Therefore, the property was abandoned by not paying the federal lode mining
claim fee on September 1, 2014. 154   Exploration Properties Department of Energy (DOE) Lease Tracts: The Company was the successful bidder in May 2008 on four of
the DOE tracts offered for lease in the Uravan Mineral Belt in western Colorado
(C-SR-16A, C-CM-24, C-G-26, and C-G-27). Three other leases were acquired by the
Company, the second highest bidder, in 2009 when the initial lessee did not
renew (C-SR-12, C-AM-19A and C-AM-20). A fourth lease was assigned to the
Company from the initial lessee, Zenith Minerals, in 2010 (C-AM-19). A lawsuit
filed against DOE in November 2008 by non-governmental organizations alleged DOE
should have performed an EIS on each individual lease tract instead of a
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) on the combined leases. The court
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in June 2011. In the ruling, the court ordered
the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Study, which is currently
underway. The court also stayed the leases in June 2011, prohibiting any surface
disturbing work until the EIS is completed. DOE therefore suspended the annual
lease payments until the final decision on the EIS. DOE will also add onto the
end of the lease initial term the length of time it takes from the stay until
the Final EIS record of decision (ROD), assuming the decision allows
work to resume. The draft EIS was made available for public comment in February,
2013. The Final EIS was made available and the publishing in the Federal
Register of the ROD was made May 12, 2014. The DOEs preferred alternative is to
resume the leasing program as it was before the law suit. The DOE General
Counsels office and the Department of Justice attorneys will draft a motion to
the Court to have the injunction lifted. Until the Court lifts the injunction,
no annual payments to continue to hold the leases will be due until a year after
since the lease payments were made for a year in advance at the same time the
suit stayed the leases. There is the potential for mineralization on these
leases. The Company considers these properties to be non-material. HC Claims (Calamity Mesa): The Company has leased the HC claims on Calamity Mesa from
Rimrock Exploration and Development, Inc. since March 8, 2007. All but 30 claims
have been dripped from the lease. Three drill projects have been completed on
the HC claims in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The 2007 project focused on exploring
near the southwest end of the historic New Verde mine. The other two projects
were in the area just south of the historic resource north of the New Verde mine
on the adjoining DOE lease, C-G-26. The Company has maps by the previous
operator showing the mine workings and historic drilling. It will remain a
low-priority exploration project until the Court lifts the injunction against
the DOE leasing program (seeDOE Lease Tractsabove). The Company considers these properties to be non-material. Yellow Cat (Ethan and YC claim groups, plus Utah State
leases): In August 2014, the Company sold the entire Yellow Cat project to
Pinon Ridge Mining LLC. 155   Mag Pie/Dry Creek: Energy Fuels entered a Mining Lease Agreement with Sutherland
Brothers Drilling in December 2010. The property is on the north side of Gypsum
Valley and includes several historic producing mines, including some of the
Mexico group and the Sego mine. The Company terminated the lease in June 2013.
To the east of the Mag Pie property is the Dry Creek claims. One hundred claims
were staked by Denison covering a prospective area with minor historic
exploration drilling, some showing favorable conditions for uranium deposition.
In August 2013, the Company dropped all but the most prospective 18 claims. Due
to the continuing soft uranium price, no exploration funding is available for
exploring this area. Therefore, the remaining 18 claims were dropped in August
2014. The Company considers these properties to be non-material. Avocet: Denison staked five claims in 2007 in an area known to contain
a small historic deposit based on drilling by Cotter Corporation. The property
is about 41⁄2 miles southeast of the Whirlwind Mine. The Company considers these properties to be non-material. West Lisbon JV (Mesa-BZU); DAR-RAD claims: Energy Fuels and Mesa Uranium Corporation (along with its
subsidiary, BZU Holdings, Inc.) formed a joint venture, called West Lisbon LLC,
in May 2008 for future exploration on a group of 60 claims (the DAR group)
located north and west of the north end of the Lisbon Valley uranium district.
Energy Fuels is the manager for both exploration and mining on the joint venture
properties. The most prospective target is the basal channel sandstones and
conglomerates of the Triassic Chinle formation, known as the Moss Back member.
The Moss Back has produced approximately 70,000,000 lbs. of
U3O8from historic mines in the Lisbon Valley/Big Indian
District. The underlying Permian Cutler formation is also prospective,
consisting of interbedded sandstones and mudstones. There has been about
8,000,000 lbs. of uranium produced from the Cutler in the same district. An
angular unconformity exists between the Chinle and the Cutler with the Cutler
dipping steeper to the west than the Chinle beds. Deposits in the Cutler form
where Cutler sandstones are in contact with the Moss Back, and continue short
distances down dip of the contact. The Chinle and Cutler target horizons range
from about 1,000 feet to 1,350 feet deep. Historic wide-spaced exploration
drilling by Energy Fuels Nuclear in the late 1980s encountered scattered
mineralization (from 0.02% up to 0.22%eU3O8) in 50% of the
holes drilled on land now covered by the DAR claims. On December 1, 2010, an amendment was made to add 34 more
claims to the West Lisbon LLC. The RAD claims were staked by BZU Holdings in
April 2007. Mesa offered these to West Lisbon LLC under the same terms as the
DAR; that is a 50:50 shared expenditure agreement to conduct exploration. The
RAD claims lie contiguously along the east side of the DAR group. This is the
up-dip direction where the target horizons are somewhat shallower. The RAD group
boundary is less than 1⁄2 mile west of the historic producing North Alice
(slightly over 4.5 million pounds historic production), Far West, and Radon
mines. Due to the lack of data, Energy Fuels does not carry any
historic resources on the DAR claims, nor on the newly acquired RAD group.
Vanadium occurs in both the Chinle and Cutler at concentrations too low to be
economic in the northern Lisbon Valley District. No exploration drilling is
planned until there is a sustained higher price for uranium. 156   The Company considers these properties to be non-material. The
Company considered the potential here to be too low to expend any exploration
funds under the current forecast of uranium prices. Therefore, with the partner
in agreement, the property was abandoned by not paying the federal lode mining
claim fee on September 1, 2014. Cedar Mountain: Energy Fuels acquired control of this project in the 2009
acquisition of Magnum USA. It is an exploration play. It consists of one SITLA
LEASE in Section 36, T18S, R10E, S.L.M. All federal lode mining claims
surrounding the SITLA land have been abandoned. The Cedar Mountain property lies
just west of the north-plunging axis of the San Rafael Swell, about 20 miles
northwest of the San Rafael Project area. The deposit lies wholly in Section 36,
which is a plateau capped by the Buckhorn Conglomerate. Below the Buckhorn is
the Brushy Basin Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation composed of
fine-grained clastic rocks including claystone, limy claystone and mudstone,
mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone. The uranium mineralization is situated in
the upper portion of the Brushy Basin. A total of 61 holes have been drilled in
the area of the deposit. Mineralized intercepts range from 1.5 - to 68-feet
thick, but average about 25-feet thick. Corrected grades (due to disequilibrium)
range as high as 0.16% eU3O8, but average about 0.052%
eU3O8. Holes containing material grading up to 0.6%
eU3O8and 0.7% eU3O8 exist west of
and below the plateau rim and have not been off-set.Mineralization is
about 100 to 120 feet below the surface. The Company considers these properties to be non-material. Arizona Strip Properties On June 30, 2008 the Company along with Royal USA Inc. (a
subsidiary of Aldershot) completed the formation of the Arizona Strip Partners
LLC (ASP), a joint venture created to explore uranium properties on the
Arizona Strip located in Northern Arizona. The Company acquired Royal USA Inc.s
interest in the joint venture on October 1, 2012 (See Mineral Projects 
Sage Plain Project), giving the Company a 100% interest in ASP. ASP
currently owns a number of mining claims in Arizona that are in the exploration
stage, and have no underground or surface facilities. No exploration
expenditures are planned for these claims in FY 2014. The Company considers these properties to be non-material. Burnt Pond, Newfoundland: Energy Fuels holds a 100% interest in the Newfoundland property
known as Burnt Pond which is prospective for both zinc and copper, consisting of
20 mining claims totalling 725 hectares. The property is located approximately
38 kilometers east of Buchans and approximately 55 kilometers west of Grand
Falls in the Tally Pond Belt of volcanic and sedimentary rocks of central
Newfoundland. In April 2008, the Burnt Pond mining claims were transferred to
Energy Fuels Exploration, Inc. a 100%-owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc. In August 2008, Energy Fuels personnel reviewed core data
samples held by the Canadian Government and were granted permission to access
raw data from a forthcoming survey to be completed by adjacent property holders.
Following the review and interpretation of such data, the Company explored the
possibility of optioning the property to another mining company for further
exploration. The license was renewed for a third 5-year term in April 2013.
There has been no expenditure commitment on this property due to a credit built
up by excess expenditures prior to 2008. That credit will keep the license in
good standing until April 2015. The annual cost to maintain this property is
approximately $600. 157   Due to uncertainty regarding the ability to sell the property
or enter into a joint venture with another mining company operating in the same
area, the Company chose to write-off all costs incurred to date in the amount of
$0.68 million. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and
Protocols The following section details the Quality Assurance and Quality
Control (QA/QC) procedures and protocols for all exploration programs
operated by Energy Fuels. All uranium exploration technical information is obtained,
verified and compiled under a formal QA/QC assurance and quality control program
in the southwestern United States. The following details the protocols used by
all Energy Fuels staff and consultants. Processes for Determining Uranium Content by Gamma Logging Exploration for uranium deposits in the southwest United States
typically involves identification and testing of permeable sandstones within
reduced sedimentary sequences. The primary method of collecting formation is
through extensive drilling and the use of down hole geophysical probes. The down
hole geophysical probes measure natural gamma radiation, from which an indirect
estimate of uranium content can be made. The radiometric (gamma) probe measures gamma radiation which is
emitted during the natural radioactive decay of uranium. The gamma radiation is
detected by a sodium iodide crystal, which when struck by a gamma ray emits a
pulse of light. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier tube,
which outputs a current pulse. The gamma probe is lowered to the bottom of a
drill hole and data is recorded as the tool is withdrawn up the hole. The
current pulse is carried up a conductive cable and processed by a logging system
computer which stores the raw gamma cps data. If the gamma radiation emitted by the daughter products of
uranium is in balance (equilibrium) with the actual uranium content of the
measured interval, then uranium grade can be calculated solely from the gamma
intensity measurement. Down hole cps data is subjected to a complex set of
mathematical equations, taking into account the specific parameters of the probe
used, speed of logging, size of bore hole, drilling fluids and presence or
absence of and type of drill hole casing. The result is an indirect measurement
of uranium content within the sphere of measurement of the gamma detector. The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred
to as "eU3O8" for "equivalent U3O8")
is the sensitivity of the sodium iodide crystal used in each individual probe.
Each probe's sensitivity is measured against a known set of standard "test
pits," with various known grades of uranium mineralization, located at the DOEs
Grand Junction, Colorado office. The ratio of cps to known uranium grade is
referred to as the probe "K-Factor," and this value is determined for every
gamma probe when it is first manufactured and is also periodically checked
throughout the operating life of each probe. Application of the K-Factor, along
with other probe correction factors, allows for immediate grade estimation in
the field as each drill hole is logged. It is recognized that gamma logs are indirect measurements of
the amount of uranium present and must be validated. Typically, this process
consists of comparing equivalent uranium determined from gamma log
interpretations with chemical analyses of rock core recovered from core holes.
This process is subject to some degree of uncertainty because the gamma logs and
the chemical assays are obtained from different samples: core from the drill
hole itself and gamma readings from the material surrounding the hole. The age
of the sandstones and the uranium minerals in the deposits, coupled with the
groundwater regime, results in disequilibrium rarely being a problem in the
Colorado Plateau ores or in New Mexico. Analysis of chemical equilibrium of
uranium for the Grants Mineral Belt from historic drill reports and years of
production indicates that various relationships are present. In most areas and
deposits, uranium is in equilibrium, or is slightly enriched relative to gamma
determinations. Based on Kerr-McGees extensive operating experience in the
Ambrosia Lake sub-district, there were no historical concerns regarding
disequilibrium for gamma ray results at the Roca Honda deposit. Additionally,
RHR cores showed no major negative disequilibrium. The Wyoming roll front-type
deposits are considerably younger and have experienced more recent groundwater
flow than the Colorado Plateau deposits and are more prone to disequilibrium
issues. 158   At the Wyoming properties, two additional down-hole logging
methods have been employed. At Gas Hills, Strathmore used a Company-owned
Prompt-Fission-Neutron logging tool (PFN), gamma-ray probing tools, and select
chemical assays from core drilling, for the measurement of uranium in the Gas
Hills. Equivalent uranium values, expressed as eU3O8are
obtained from down-hole gamma-ray probes, assuming that uranium and its daughter
products are in radiogenic equilibrium. The probes are standardized and
calibrated using test pits operated by U.S. Department of Energy, located in
Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado. PFN analysis assesses the quantity
of uranium present surrounding a drill hole directly by measuring neutrons
fissioned from the U235isotope, thus aiding in determining any
disequilibrium which may be present. This eliminates the uncertainties due to
measuring the gamma radiation resulting from decay of uranium daughter products,
which may be subjected to selective remobilization due to the varying chemical
properties of each daughter element. PFN also samples a larger sample than the
typical 3 diameter core that is obtained for chemical analysis. Many historic
drill holes completed prior to November 2012 have been logged using the PFN
logging tool. It is anticipated that, through regular ongoing use of PFN with
its associated calibration checks and continuing checks against existing or
historical core holes, a background of validity can be achieved which will
reduce the number and frequency of future chemical-assaying. At the Sheep Mountain Project, in situ mineral grades for the
2009 drilling were determined by geophysical logging including both conventional
gamma logging and state of the art Uranium Spectrum Analysis Tool (USAT).
Crosshairs used USAT at Juniper Ridge on the 2011 drilling project, too. USAT is
a Century Geophysical logging service that directly measures uranium if
disequilibrium conditions exist. USAT employs a High Purity Germanium detector
that measures Protactinium234, the second daughter element after Uranium 238.
USAT ignores the high volume gamma rays of Bismuth 214, Lead 214, and Radium 226
that the sodium iodide crystals measure. USAT does not need to be calibrated at
calibration pits, it is calibrated against a low-power, lab-style source. Like
PFN, it is sampling the rock surrounding the bore hole with a radius of
influence of about one foot. Core Sampling, Processing, and Assaying Core samples are collected for a number of purposes:
verification of lithology as determined from geophysical logging and examination
of drill cuttings, determination of uranium content as a general check of gamma
probing to determine if gamma measurement and chemical uranium content are close
to balance (this is referred to as "radiometric disequilibrium"), whole rock
analysis, and specific geochemistry for uranium species and other minerals of
interest. Typically core is only taken over select intervals of interest as
identified from logging of drill holes. This reduces the amount of core through
barren zones or horizons of no interest and greatly reduces overall exploration
costs. Core diameter is typically 21⁄2  31⁄4 inches. For zones selected
for laboratory analyses, one half of the core will normally be used. The minimum
length of core submitted is usually one foot and the maximum length per sample
is two feet. Sample intervals are selected by geologists in the field based on
lithology, oxidation/reduction, and uranium grade (from gamma logging and from
hand-held gamma counters). 159   Core samples collected in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are
prepared at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. Samples are crushed and then
ground to -200 mesh. The sample pulps are split to 250 to 300 grams for
laboratory work. The samples collected in Wyoming have been sent to commercial
labs for analyses in accordance to industry standards. At Roca Honda, RHR
completed four pilot holes in 2007 and one geotechnical hole in 2011. These
samples were analyzed at a commercial lab, Energy Labs in Casper, Wyoming Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures Drill hole logging is conducted by Energy Fuels in-house
personnel. The logging capabilities are designed specifically to meet Energy
Fuels logging requirements in the southwest United States. The tools, and a
complete set of spares, were manufactured by Mount Sopris Instrument Company in
Golden, Colorado. Energy Fuels has retained the services of a senior geophysical
consultant to oversee training, implementation, and quality control protocols
for the southwest United States operations. All tools are checked and
calibrated before being used in the southwest United States and a variety of
system checks and standards are also established for routine checking and
calibration of tools. Drill hole logging data is stored on digital media in the
logging truck at the exploration sites. The digital data are periodically
brought in from the field locations to the Egnar, Colorado field office. The raw
and converted logging data are copied and then sent via e-mail to Energy Fuels
Denver, Colorado office, where all data is checked and reviewed. The PFN truck is stored at the Riverton, Wyoming office. It and
the natural gamma logging tools are routinely calibrated at the Casper, Wyoming
test pits maintained by the DOE. The gamma logging equipment is the same make
and type as the units used in Colorado and Utah. Samples of drill core are chosen on the basis of radiometric
data collected during core logging. This radiometric data is obtained by using a
hand held scintillometer. The general concept behind the scintillometer is
similar to the gamma probe except the radiometric pulses are displayed on a
scale and the respective count rates are recorded manually by the geologist
logging the core. The hand-held scintillometer provides quantitative data only
and cannot be used to calculate uranium grades. However, it does allow the
geologist to identify uranium mineralization in the core and to select intervals
for geochemical sampling. Additional samples are collected above and below the horizons
of interest in order to "close-off" sample intervals. Sample widths are selected
according to radiometric values and lithologic breaks or changes. All reasonable
efforts are made to ensure that splitting of the core is representative and that
no significant sampling biases occur. Once the sample intervals are identified,
an exclusive sample number is assigned each interval and recorded by the on-site
geologist. After the geological logging of the core and sample selection,
all of the selected sample intervals of drill core are split longitudinally at
the drill site. One half of the core is placed in a new sample bag along with a
sample tag corresponding to the sample number. The other half of the core is
re-assembled in the core box and stored for future reference. Samples collected
in Utah or Colorado are stored at the Egnar, Colorado office under the
supervision of the project geologists and delivered to either the White Mesa
Mill or Activation Laboratories Ltd. for preparation. As standard procedure,
field duplicates are included in assay suites sent to the laboratories, and
reference samples are used to verify laboratory controls and analytical
repeatability. The Wyoming sample splits are stored in Riverton at the Company
office. Chemical analysis for the Gas Hills drilling was performed by Hazen
Research of Golden, Colorado and Intermountain Labs of Sheridan, Wyoming. Core samples are
stored at various locked storage facilities in Wyoming and at the Company
office. 160   RHR has developed stringent in-house standard operating
procedures for core handling and decontamination of small equipment used for
sampling. ENVIRONMENTAL ANDSAFETYMATTERS The Company has adopted an Environmental, Health and Safety
Policy (the EHS Policy) that affirms Energy Fuels commitment to
environmentally responsible management and compliance with occupational health
and safety laws. Under the EHS Policy, the Company has committed to run its
operations in compliance with applicable legislation, in a manner that minimizes
the impact on our ecosystem. The EHS Policy mandates the use of regular
monitoring programs to identify risks to the environment, to the public and
Energy Fuels employees, and to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
The EHS Policy also sets out Energy Fuels requirement to train its employees
regarding environmental and health and safety compliance and best practices and
to provide adequate resources in this regard. Finally, the EHS Policy requires
regular reporting to the Board regarding the Companys compliance and the
results of the Companys monitoring. White Mesa Mill The White Mesa Mill  processed conventional ore from June to mid-August 2014. The alternate feed  circuit was operating throughout FY-2014 and is expected to continue through
mid-2015. The White Mesa Mill is expected to  begin processing conventional ore again in October 2016 through April of 2017. The Mill operations registered one lost time  accident in 2014. Prior to Energy Fuels acquisition of the US Mining Division,
chloroform contamination in the shallow aquifer at the White Mesa mill site was
discovered. The contamination appears to have resulted from the operation of a
temporary laboratory facility that was located at the site prior to and during
the construction of the mill facility, and from septic drain fields that were
used for laboratory and sanitary wastes prior to construction of the Mills
tailings cells. In April 2003, Denison commenced an interim remedial program of
pumping the chloroform contaminated water from the groundwater to the mills
tailings cells. This action enables Energy Fuels to begin cleanup of the
contaminated areas and to take a further step towards resolution of this
outstanding issue. Pumping from the wells continued in 2014. Energy Fuels is
continuing to work with the State of Utah to develop a long-term Corrective
Action Plan (CAP). A CAP is currently being prepared by the State.
While the investigations to date indicate that this chloroform contamination
appears to be contained in a manageable area, the scope and costs of final
remediation have not yet been determined and could be significant. Elevated concentrations of nitrate and chloride were observed
in some of the monitoring wells at the White Mesa Mill site in 2008 a number of
which are upgradient of the mills tailings cells. Pursuant to a Stipulated
Consent Agreement with UDEQ, Denison retained INTERA, Inc., an independent
professional engineering firm, to investigate these elevated concentrations and
to prepare a Contamination Investigation Report for submittal to UDEQ. The
investigation was completed in 2009, and the Contamination Investigation Report
was submitted to UDEQ in January 2010. INTERA concluded in the Report that: (1)
the nitrate and chloride are co-extensive and appear to originally come from the
same source; and (2) the source is upgradient of the Mill property and is not
the result of Mill activities. UDEQ reviewed the Report, and concluded that
further investigations were required before it could determine the source of the
contamination and the responsibility for cleanup. Such investigations were
performed in 2010 and 2011, but were considered to be inconclusive by UDEQ. As a
result, after the investigations, it was determined that there are site conditions that make it
difficult to ascertain the source(s) of contamination at the site, and that it
was not possible at that time to determine the source(s), causes(s),
attribution, magnitudes of contribution, and proportion(s) of the local nitrate
and chloride in groundwater. For those reasons, UDEQ decided that it could not
eliminate mill activities as a potential cause, either in full or in part, of
the contamination. The Company and UDEQ have therefore agreed that resources are
better spent in developing a CAP, rather than continuing with further
investigations as to the source(s) and attribution of the groundwater
contamination. Pursuant to a revised Stipulated Consent Agreement, Denison
submitted a draft CAP for remediation of the contamination to UDEQ in November
2011. The CAP proposes a program of pumping the nitrate contaminated groundwater
to the mills tailings cells, similar to the chloroform remedial program. UDEQ
approved the CAP on December 12, 2012. In accordance with the CAP, in 2013 the
Company commenced pumping nitrate/chloride contaminated water from four
monitoring wells for use in mill processing or discharge into the Mills process
or tailings cells. Although the contamination appears to be contained in a
manageable area, the scope and costs of final remediation have not yet been
determined and could be significant. 161   During 2011, 2012, and 2013, the White Mesa Mill reported
consecutive exceedances of groundwater compliance limits (GWCLs) under
the White Mesa Mills Groundwater Discharge Permit (GWDP) for several
constituents in several wells, and there are decreasing trends in pH in a number
of wells across the site that have caused the pH in a number of compliance
monitoring wells to have dropped below their GWCLs. These exceedances and pH
trends include wells that are up-gradient of the Mill facilities, far
down-gradient of the Mill site and at the site itself. These consecutive
exceedances of GWCLs have resulted in violations of the GWDP. Source Assessment
Reports were submitted in 2012 and 2013 addressing each exceedance and the
decreasing trends in pH at the site. UDEQ has accepted the Source Assessment
Report, and has concluded that such exceedances and decreasing trends in pH are
due to natural background influences at the site. UDEQ has agreed to revise the
GWCLs in the GWDP to account for these background influences, which would put
those constituents, including pH at the site, back into compliance. The White Mesa Mill monitors radon flux from tailings Cells 2
and 3, in the case of Cell 3 to comply with, and in the case of Cell 2, which is
in closure, consistent with, the NESHAPs requirements of the Clean Air Act. The
radon flux from Cell 2 exceeded the regulatory threshold beginning with the June
2012 sampling event and continued to climb during subsequent sampling events,
which is believed to be due to the aggressive dewatering of the slimes drain
solution level in Cell 2 to comply with the Mills GWDP. Consistent with the
regulations, the Company initiated monthly monitoring of Cell 2 radon flux in
April 2013. In order to address the Cell 2 radon exceedances, in 2013 the
Company commenced placement of additional cover materials over areas showing
high radon emissions, to mitigate the radon flux from Cell 2. Monthly monitoring
indicated that the radon flux from Cell 2 had dropped below the compliance
threshold and, by a letter dated July 23, 2014, UDEQ has determined that Cell 2
is now in compliance. Reclamation The White Mesa Mill is subject to decommissioning liabilities.
Energy Fuels, as part of the Mill License, is required to annually review its
estimate for the decommissioning of the White Mesa Mill site and submit it to
UDEQ for approval. The estimate of closure costs for the Mill is $21.67 million
as of the date of this AIF, and financial assurances are in place for the total
amount. However, there can be no assurance that the ultimate cost of such
reclamation obligations will not exceed the estimated liability contained in the
Companys financial statements. 162   Mines The Company acquired the US Mining Division on June 29, 2012.
Since that time, the Company had five active mining operations, the Daneros, the
Beaver and Pandora mines in the La Sal Project in Utah, and the Arizona 1 and
Pinenut mines in Arizona. On October 17, 2012, the Company placed the Daneros
and Beaver mines on standby, pending improved market conditions, and the Pandora
mine was placed on standby in December 2012. There are four other mines, the Tony
M, Whirlwind, Energy Queen, and Rim, which are on care and maintenance. In 2011, Energy Fuels Arizona 1 mine received the 2010 U.S.
Department of Labors MSHA Sentinels of Safety Award in the small underground
metal mine category. In 2010, the Arizona 1 mine personnel worked a total of
56,417 injury-free hours. The Daneros mine in Utah was recognized as a runner up
with a total of 23,674 injury-free hours. The Sentinels of Safety Award
acknowledges the men and women at those mines in the United States that have
worked the most employee-hours without experiencing a lost-time injury. There was one lost time accident at the mining operations in
FY-2014. Reclamation All of the Companys mines in the U.S. are subject to closure
and reclamation liabilities. The estimate of the reclamation costs for the
various mining operations in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming is
$5.06 million. Financial bonds are in place for the total amount. EMPLOYEES At December 31, 2014, the Company had a total of 124 active
employees in the United States. None of the Companys employees are unionized. In the United States, the Company also retains the services of
White Mesa Inc., an independent local native-owned company that provides the
services of additional personnel to the White Mesa Mill and some mine operations
when in full operation. GOVERNMENTREGULATION U.S. Uranium Industry Uranium milling in the U.S. is primarily regulated by the NRC
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Its primary
function is to ensure the protection of employees, the public and the
environment from radioactive materials and it also regulates most aspects of the
uranium recovery process. The NRC regulations pertaining to uranium recovery
facilities are codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. On August 16, 2004, the State of Utah became an Agreement State
for the regulation of uranium mills. This means that the primary regulator for
the White Mesa Mill is now UDEQ rather than the NRC. At that time, the mills
NRC Source Material License was transferred to the State and became a
Radioactive Materials License. The State of Utah incorporates, through its own
regulations or by reference, all aspects of Title 10 pertaining to uranium
recovery facilities. The Mill License was due for renewal on March 31, 2007.
Energy Fuels predecessor submitted its application for renewal of the license
on February 28, 2007. A draft renewal license was published for comment by UDEQ
in the 4th quarter of 2011, and is expected to be re-published for comment in 2015.
UDEQ is currently in the process of reviewing the public comments and performing
additional environmental reviews. Energy Fuels expects that the renewed license
will be issued by UDEQ by the end of FY 2015. During the period that the State
is reviewing the license renewal application, the Mill can continue to operate
under its existing Radioactive Materials License. The mills license was
initially issued in 1980 and was renewed in 1987 and 1997. 163   When the State of Utah became an Agreement State, it required
that a GWDP be put in place for the White Mesa Mill. The GWDP is required for
all similar facilities in the State of Utah, and specifically tailors the
implementation of the State groundwater regulations to the Mill site. The State
of Utah requires that every operating uranium mill have a GWDP, regardless of
whether or not the facility discharges to groundwater. The GWDP for the Mill was
finalized and implemented in March 2005. The GWDP required that the Mill add
over 40 additional monitoring parameters and 15 additional monitoring wells at
the site. The GWDP came up for renewal in 2010, and is currently in the renewal
process. During the review period the Mill can continue to operate under its
existing GWDP. The White Mesa Mill also maintains permit approvals for air
emissions with the UDEQ, Division of Air Quality. Uranium mining is subject to regulation by a number of agencies
including (1) local county and municipal government agencies; (2) the applicable
state divisions responsible for mining and protecting the environment within
Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming; (3) the BLM and the USFS on
public lands under their jurisdiction; (4) the U.S. Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA); (5) the EPA for radon emissions from underground mines;
and (6) other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corp. of Engineers, DOE), where certain conditions exist. In addition, the heap
leach facility at the Sheep Mountain project will be subject to regulation under
the NRC, as a uranium processing facility and for permanent disposal of the
resulting tailings. A review of the major permit for each mine is included above
under Mineral Projects. Energy Fuels is required to have export licenses issued by the
NRC for its uranium exports. Such licenses are obtained by the Company as
required. Land Tenure United States The Companys land holdings in the U.S. are held either by
leases from the fee simple owners (private parties or the State) or unpatented
mining claims located on property owned and managed by the U.S. Federal
Government. Annual fees must be paid to maintain unpatented mining claims, but
work expenditures are not required. Holders of unpatented mining claims are
generally granted surface access to conduct mineral exploration and mining
activities. However, additional mine permits and plans are generally required
prior to conducting exploration or mining activities on such claims. On July 9, 2009, BLM issued a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal
(2009 Notice) under which it proposed that a total of approximately one
million acres of public lands around the Grand Canyon National Park be withdrawn
from location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872 (the Mining Law),
subject to valid existing rights. In the 2009 Notice, BLM stated that the
purpose of the withdrawal, if determined to be appropriate, would be to protect
the Grand Canyon watershed from any adverse effects of locatable hardrock
mineral exploration and mining. The 2009 Notice segregated the lands from
location and entry under the mining laws for up to two years to allow time for
various studies and analyses, including appropriate National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. In order to allow more time for BLM to
complete its NEPA analysis, the U.S. Department of the Interior (the
DOI) published Public Land Order 7773 on June 21, 2011, which effected
a six-month emergency withdrawal of the area. The emergency withdrawal prevented the lands from opening to
location and entry under the Mining Law upon expiration of the two-year
segregation while the DOI completed the decisionmaking process on the proposed
withdrawal. The emergency withdrawal was effective July 21, 2011 to January 20,
2012. During the two-year segregation and six month emergency withdrawal, the
BLM, along with its cooperating agencies, completed various studies and analyses
of resources in the withdrawal area, including an EIS under NEPA. These studies
and analyses were undertaken to provide the basis for the final decision
regarding whether or not to proceed with the proposed withdrawal or to select an
alternative action. Based on this analysis, on January 9, 2012, the DOI
announced its final decision to withdraw from location and entry under the
Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, the total of approximately one
million acres of lands originally proposed in the 2009 Notice (the Withdrawn
Lands), for a 20-year period. Lawsuits challenging this decision have been
filed by various industry groups and interested parties. 164   No new mining claims may be filed on the Withdrawn Lands and no
new plans of operations may be approved, other than plans of operations on
mining claims that were valid at the time of withdrawal and that remain valid at
the time of plan approval. Whether or not a mining claim is valid must be
determined by a mineral examination conducted by BLM or USFS, as applicable. The
mineral examination, which involves an economic evaluation of a project, must
demonstrate the existence of a locatable mineral resource and that the mineral
resource constitutes the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. All of the Companys Arizona Strip properties, with the
exception of its Wate Project, Moonshine Springs property and certain
exploration properties held by the Companys subsidiary, Arizona Strip Partners
LLC, are located within the Withdrawn Lands. A mineral examination on the
Companys EZ Complex will need to be completed by BLM, in conjunction with its
review of the Companys proposed PO for that project. Mineral examinations are
not required for the Companys Arizona 1 and Pinenut mines, which have
previously approved POs and are currently undergoing mining activities, or have
undergone mining activities before and after the Withdrawal. Although the
Companys Canyon Project also has an approved PO, and a mineral examination is
not required, the USFS performed a mineral examination on that project in 2012
and concluded that the Canyon Projects claims constitute valid existing rights.
The USFS also concluded that no additional approvals are required on the Canyon
Project. The Company believes that all of its material Arizona Strip
projects within the Withdrawn Lands are on valid mining claims that will each
withstand a mineral examination. However, market conditions may postpone or
prevent the performance of mineral examinations on certain properties and, if a
mineral examination is performed on a property, there can be no guarantee that
the mineral examination would not result in one of more of the Companys mining
claims being considered invalid, which could prevent a project from proceeding. 165    RISKFACTORS
 There are a number of factors that could negatively affect
Energy Fuels business and the value of its securities, including the factors
listed below. The following information pertains to the outlook and conditions
currently known to Energy Fuels that could have a material impact on the
financial condition of Energy Fuels. Other factors may arise in the future that
are currently not foreseen by management of Energy Fuels that may present
additional risks in the future. Current and prospective security holders of
Energy Fuels should carefully consider these risk factors. URANIUM ANDVANADIUMPRICEFLUCTUATIONS The results of the Companys operations are significantly
affected by the market price of uranium and vanadium which are cyclical and
subject to substantial price fluctuations. The Companys earnings and operating
cash flow are and will be particularly sensitive to the change in the long and
short term market price of uranium and vanadium. Among other factors, these
prices also affect the value of the Companys resources, reserves and
inventories, as well as the market price of the Companys common shares. Market prices are affected by numerous factors beyond the
Companys control. With respect to uranium, such factors include, among others:
demand for nuclear power; political and economic conditions in uranium producing
and consuming countries; public and political response to a nuclear incident;
reprocessing of used reactor fuel, the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails
and the enricher practice of underfeeding; sales of excess civilian and military
inventories (including from the dismantling of nuclear weapons; the premature
decommissioning of nuclear power plants; and from the build-up of Japanese
utility uranium inventories as a result of the Fukushima incident) by
governments and industry participants; uranium supply, including the supply from
other secondary sources; and production levels and costs of production. With
respect to vanadium, such factors include, among others: demand for steel; the
potential for vanadium to be used in advanced battery technologies; political
and economic conditions in vanadium producing and consuming countries; world
production levels; and costs of production. Other factors relating to both the
price of uranium and vanadium include: levels of supply and demand for a broad
range of industrial products; substitution of new or different products in
critical applications for the Companys existing products; expectations with
respect to the rate of inflation; the relative strength of the US dollar and of
certain other currencies; interest rates; global or regional political or
economic crises; regional and global economic conditions; and sales of uranium
and vanadium by holders in response to such factors. If prices should decline
below the Companys cash costs of production and remain at such levels for any
sustained period, the Company may determine that it is not economically feasible
to continue commercial production at any or all of the Companys mines or other
facilities and may also be required to look for alternatives other than cash
flow to maintain the Companys liquidity until prices recover. The Companys
expected levels of production and business activity are dependent on the
Companys and industrys expectations of uranium and vanadium prices, which may
not be realized or may change. In the event the Company concludes that a
significant deterioration in expected future uranium prices has occurred, the
Company will assess whether an impairment allowance is necessary which, if
required, could be material. The recent fluctuations in the price of many commodities is an
example of a situation over which the Company has no control and which could
materially adversely affect the Company in a manner for which it may not be able
to compensate. There can be no assurance that the price of any minerals produced
from the Companys properties will be such that any deposits can be mined at a
profit. 166   The Companys profitability is directly related to the market
price of uranium and vanadium produced. The Company may from time to time
undertake commodity and currency hedging programs, with the intention of
maintaining adequate cash flows and profitability to contribute to the long term
viability of the business. The Company anticipates selling forward in the
ordinary course of business if, and when, the Company has sufficient assets and
production to support forward sale arrangements. There are, however, risks
associated with forward sale programs. If the Company does not have sufficient
production to meet its forward sale commitments, it may have to buy or borrow
(for later delivery back from production) sufficient product in the spot market
to deliver under the forward sales contracts, possibly at higher prices than
provided for in the forward sales contracts, or potentially default on such
deliveries. In addition, under forward contracts, the Company may be forced to
sell at prices that are lower than the prices that may be available on the spot
market when such deliveries are completed. Although the Company may employ
various pricing mechanisms within its sales contracts to manage its exposure to
price fluctuations, there can be no assurance that such mechanisms will be
successful. TERMSALESCONTRACTS The Company has entered into term sales contracts for a portion
of its uranium production. Those contracts, which have historically resulted in
uranium sales at prices in excess of spot prices, have fixed terms. There can be
no guarantee that the Company will be able to extend the terms of those
contracts or enter into new term sales contracts in the future on terms and
conditions suitable to the Company. The failure to renew existing term sales
contracts or enter into new term sales contracts on suitable terms could
adversely impact the Companys operations and production decisions, and
resulting cash flows and income. GLOBALECONOMICCONDITIONS In the event of a general economic downturn or a recession,
there can be no assurance that the business, financial condition and results of
operations of the Company would not be materially adversely affected. During the
past several years, the global economy faced a number of challenges. During, the
global financial crisis of 2007-8 economic problems in the United States and
Eurozone caused a deterioration in the global economy, as numerous commercial
and financial enterprises either went into bankruptcy or creditor protection or
had to be rescued by governmental authorities. Access to public financing was
negatively impacted by sub-prime mortgage defaults in the United States, the
liquidity crisis affecting the asset-backed commercial paper and collateralized
debt obligation markets, and massive investment losses by banks with resultant
recapitalization efforts. Although economic conditions have shown improvement in
recent years, the global recovery from the recession has been slow and uneven.
The effects of the global financial crisis continue to limit growth. In
addition, increasing levels of government debt, slowing economic growth in
certain key regions including China, the threat of sovereign defaults including
Greece, and political instability in Eastern Europe continue to weigh on
markets. These factors continue to impact commodity prices, including uranium
and vanadium, as well as currencies and global debt and stock markets. These factors may impact the Companys ability to obtain
equity, debt or bank financing on terms commercially reasonable to the Company,
or at all. Additionally, these factors, as well as other related factors, may
cause decreases in asset values that are deemed to be other than temporary,
which may result in impairment losses. If these increased levels of volatility
and market turmoil continue, or there is a material deterioration in general
business and economic conditions, the Companys operations could be adversely
impacted and the trading price of the Companys securities could continue to be
adversely affected. 167   MARKETPRICE OFSHARES Securities of mining companies have experienced substantial
volatility in the past, often based on factors unrelated to the financial
performance or prospects of the companies involved. These factors include
macroeconomic conditions in North America and globally, and market perceptions
of the attractiveness of particular industries. The price of the Companys
securities is also likely to be significantly affected by short-term changes in
uranium and vanadium prices, changes in industry forecasts of uranium and
vanadium prices, other mineral prices, currency exchange fluctuation, or in its
financial condition or results of operations as reflected in its periodic
earnings reports. Other factors unrelated to the performance of the Company that
may have an effect on the price of the securities of the Company include the
following: the extent of analytical coverage available to investors concerning
the business of the Company may be limited if investment banks with research
capabilities do not follow the Companys securities; lessening in trading volume
and general market interest in the Companys securities may affect an investor's
ability to trade significant numbers of securities of the Company; the size of
the Companys public float and its inclusion in market indices may limit the
ability of some institutions to invest in the Company's securities; and a
substantial decline in the price of the securities of the Company that persists
for a significant period of time could cause the Companys securities to be
delisted from an exchange, further reducing market liquidity. If an active
market for the securities of the Company does not continue, the liquidity of an
investor's investment may be limited and the price of the securities of the
Company may decline. If an active market does not exist, investors may lose
their entire investment in the Company. As a result of any of these factors, the
market price of the securities of the Company at any given point in time may not
accurately reflect the long-term value of the Company. Securities class-action
litigation often has been brought against companies in periods of volatility in
the market price of their securities, and following major corporate transactions
or mergers and acquisitions. The Company may in the future be the target of
similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and
damages and divert management's attention and resources. GOVERNMENTALREGULATION ANDPOLICYRISKS Exploration, development, mining and milling of minerals and
the transportation and handling of the products produced are subject to
extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations governing, among other
things; acquisition of the mining interests; maintenance of claims; tenure;
expropriation; prospecting; exploration; development; mining; milling and
production; price controls; exports; imports; taxes and royalties; labor
standards; occupational health; waste disposal; toxic substances; water use;
land use; Native American land claims; environmental protection and remediation;
endangered and protected species; mine and mill decommissioning and reclamation;
mine safety; transportation safety and emergency response; and other matters.
Compliance with such laws and regulations has increased the costs of exploring,
drilling, developing, constructing, operating and closing the Companys mines
and processing facilities. It is possible that, in the future, the costs, delays
and other effects associated with such laws and regulations may impact the
Companys decision as to whether to operate existing mines, or, with respect to
exploration and development properties, whether to proceed with exploration or
development, or that such laws and regulations may result in the Company
incurring significant costs to remediate or decommission properties that do not
comply with applicable environmental standards at such time. The Company expends
significant financial and managerial resources to comply with such laws and
regulations. The Company anticipates it will have to continue to do so as the
historic trend toward stricter government regulation may continue. There can be
no assurance that future changes in applicable laws and regulations will not
adversely affect the operations or financial condition of the Company. New laws
and regulations, amendments to existing laws and regulations or more stringent
implementation of existing laws and regulations, including through stricter
license and permit conditions, could have a material adverse impact on the
Company, increase costs, cause a reduction in levels of, or suspension of,
production and/or delay or prevent the development of new mining properties. 168   Mining is subject to potential risks and liabilities associated
with pollution of the environment and the disposal of waste products occurring
as a result of mineral exploration, mining and production. Environmental
liability may result from mining activities conducted by others prior to the
Companys ownership of a property. Failure to comply with applicable laws,
regulations and permitting requirements may result in enforcement actions. These
actions may result in orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities
causing operations to cease or be curtailed, and may include corrective measures
requiring capital expenditures, installation of additional equipment or remedial
actions. Companies engaged in uranium exploration operations may be required to
compensate others who suffer loss or damage by reason of such activities and may
have civil or criminal fines or penalties imposed for violations of applicable
laws or regulations. Should the Company be unable to fully fund the cost of
remedying an environmental problem, it might be required to suspend operations
or enter into interim compliance measures pending completion of the required
remedy, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company. To the extent
that the Company is subject to uninsured environmental liabilities, the payment
of such liabilities would reduce otherwise available earnings and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, the Company does not have
coverage for certain environmental losses and other risks as such coverage
cannot be purchased at a commercially reasonable cost. Compliance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations requires significant expenditures
and increases mine development and operating costs 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. The development of mines and
related facilities is contingent upon governmental approvals that are complex
and time consuming to obtain and which, depending upon the location of the
project, involve multiple governmental agencies. The duration and success of
such approvals are subject to many variables outside the Companys control. Any
significant delays in obtaining or renewing such permits or licenses in the
future could have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, the
international marketing of uranium is subject to governmental policies and
certain trade restrictions, such as those imposed by the suspension agreement
between the United States and Russia. Changes in these policies and restrictions
may adversely impact the Companys business. PUBLICACCEPTANCE OFNUCLEARENERGY ANDCOMPETITION
FROMOTHERENERGYSOURCES Growth of the uranium and nuclear industry will depend upon
continued and increased acceptance of nuclear technology as a means of
generating electricity. Because of unique political, technological and
environmental factors that affect the nuclear industry, including the risk of a
nuclear incident, the industry is subject to public opinion risks that could
have an adverse impact on the demand for nuclear power and increase the
regulation of the nuclear power industry. Nuclear energy competes with other
sources of energy, including oil, natural gas, coal, hydro-electricity and
renewable energy sources. These other energy sources are to some extent
interchangeable with nuclear energy, particularly over the longer term.
Sustained lower prices of oil, natural gas, coal and hydroelectricity may result
in lower demand for uranium concentrates. Technical advancements in renewable
and other alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar power, could make
these forms of energy more commercially viable and put additional pressure on
the demand for uranium concentrates. URANIUMINDUSTRYCOMPETITION ANDINTERNATIONALTRADERESTRICTIONS The international uranium industry, including the supply of
uranium concentrates, is competitive. The Company markets uranium in direct
competition with supplies available from a relatively small number of uranium
mining companies, from nationalized uranium companies, from uranium produced as
a byproduct of other mining operations, from excess inventories, including
inventories made available from decommissioning of nuclear weapons, from reprocessed
uranium and plutonium, from used reactor fuel, and from the use of excess
Russian enrichment capacity to re-enrich depleted uranium tails held by European
enrichers in the form of UF6. A large quantity of current World
production is inelastic, in that uranium market prices have little effect on the
quantity supplied. The supply of uranium from Russia and from certain republics
of the former Soviet Union is, to some extent, impeded by a number of
international trade agreements and policies. These agreements and any similar
future agreements, governmental policies or trade restrictions are beyond the
control of the Company and may affect the supply of uranium available in the
United States and Europe. 169   ABILITY TOMAINTAINOBLIGATIONSUNDERDEBENTURES ANDOTHERDEBT The Company may from time to time enter into arrangements to
borrow money in order to fund its operations and expansion plans, and such
arrangements may include covenants that restrict its business in some way.
Events may occur in the future, including events out of the Companys control
that would cause the Company to fail to satisfy its obligations under its
existing Debentures or other debt instruments. In such circumstances, or if the
Company were to default on its obligations under the Debentures or other debt
instruments, the amounts drawn under the Companys debt agreements may become
due and payable before the agreed maturity date, and the Company may not have
the financial resources to repay such amounts when due. Further, although most, but not all, of the Companys
reclamation obligations are bonded, and cash and other assets of the Company
have been reserved to secure a portion but not all of this bonded amount, to the
extent the bonded amounts are not fully collateralized, the Company will be
required to come up with additional cash to perform its reclamation obligations
when they occur. In addition, the bonding companies have the right to require
increases in collateral at any time upon 30-days notice to the Company, failure
of which would constitute a default under the bonds. In such circumstances, the
Company may not have the financial resources to perform such reclamation
obligations or to increase such collateral when due. ADDITIONALFUNDINGREQUIREMENTS The Company may need additional financing in connection with
the implementation of its business and strategic plans from time to time. The
exploration and development of mineral properties and the ongoing operation of
mines, requires a substantial amount of capital and may depend on the Companys
ability to obtain financing through joint ventures, debt financing, equity
financing or other means. The Company may accordingly need further capital in
order to take advantage of further opportunities or acquisitions. The Companys
financial condition, general market conditions, volatile uranium and vanadium
markets, volatile interest rates, a claim against the Company, a significant
disruption to the Companys business or operations or other factors may make it
difficult to secure financing necessary for the expansion of mining activities
or to take advantage of opportunities for acquisitions. Further, continuing
volatility in the credit markets may increase costs associated with debt
instruments due to increased spreads over relevant interest rate benchmarks, or
may affect the ability of the Company, or third parties it seeks to do business
with, to access those markets. There is no assurance that the Company will be
successful in obtaining required financing as and when needed on acceptable
terms, if at all. DILUTION FROMFURTHEREQUITYFINANCING If the Company raises additional funding by issuing additional
equity securities or securities convertible, exercisable or exchangeable for
equity securities, such financing may substantially dilute the interests of
shareholders of the Company and reduce the value of their investment. 170   NATURE OFEXPLORATION ANDDEVELOPMENT,EXPANSIONPROJECTS ANDRESTARTINGPROJECTS The exploration and development of mineral deposits, the
expansion of projects and restarting projects involves significant financial
risks. Development of any of the exploration properties in which the Company has
an interest will only follow upon obtaining satisfactory exploration results.
The exploration and development of mineral deposits involve significant
financial risks over an extended period of time, which even a combination of
careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not eliminate. While discovery
of a mine may result in substantial rewards, few properties which are explored
are ultimately developed into producing mines. Major expenses may be required to
establish mineral resources and mineral reserves by drilling and to construct
mining and processing facilities at a site. It is impossible to ensure that the
current or proposed exploration programs on the Companys mineral resource
properties will result in a profitable commercial mining operation. Whether a mineral deposit will be commercially viable depends
on a number of factors, which include, among other things: the accuracy of
reserve estimates; the particular attributes of the deposit, such as its size
and grade; ability to economically recover commercial quantities of the
minerals; proximity to infrastructure; financing costs and governmental
regulations, including regulations relating to prices, taxes, royalties;
infrastructure; land use; importing and exporting and environmental protection.
The development, expansion and restarting of projects are also subject to the
successful completion of engineering studies, the issuance of necessary
governmental permits, the availability of adequate financing, that the correct
estimation of engineering and construction timetables and capital costs for the
Companys development and expansion projects, including restarting projects on
standby, and such construction timetables and capital costs not being affected
by unforeseen circumstances. The effect of these factors cannot be accurately
predicted, but the combination of these factors may result in the Company not
receiving an adequate return on invested capital. It is possible that actual costs and economic returns of
current and new mining operations may differ materially from the Companys best
estimates. It is not unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations to
experience unexpected problems during the start-up phase, take much longer than
originally anticipated to bring into a producing phase, and to require more
capital than anticipated. THECOMPANYSMINERALRESERVES ANDRESOURCES AREESTIMATES Mineral reserves and resources are statistical estimates of
mineral content, based on limited information acquired through drilling and
other sampling methods, and require judgmental interpretations of geology.
Successful extraction requires safe and efficient mining and processing. The
Companys mineral reserves and resources are estimates, and no assurance can be
given that the estimated reserves and resources are accurate or that the
indicated level of uranium or vanadium will be produced. Such estimates are, in
large part, based on interpretations of geological data obtained from drill
holes and other sampling techniques. Actual mineralization or formations may be
different from those predicted. Further, it may take many years from the initial
phase of drilling before production is possible, and during that time the
economic feasibility of exploiting a discovery may change. Mineral reserve and resource estimates for properties that have
not commenced production are based, in many instances, on limited and widely
spaced drill-hole information, which is not necessarily indicative of the
conditions between and around drill holes. Accordingly, such mineral resource
estimates may require revision as more drilling information becomes available or
as actual production experience is gained. It should not be assumed that all or
any part of the Companys mineral resources constitute or will be converted into
reserves. Market price fluctuations of uranium or vanadium as applicable, as
well as increased production and capital costs or reduced recovery rates, may
render the Companys proven and probable reserves unprofitable to develop at a particular
site or sites for periods of time or may render mineral reserves containing
relatively lower grade mineralization uneconomic. 171   ENVIRONMENTALREGULATORYREQUIREMENTS
ANDRISK The Company is required to comply with environmental protection
laws and regulations and permitting requirements promulgated by federal agencies
and various states and counties in which the Company operates, in connection
with mining and milling operations. The uranium industry is subject not only to
the worker health and safety and environmental risks associated with all mining
businesses, but also to additional risks uniquely associated with uranium mining
and milling. The Company expends significant resources, both financial and
managerial, to comply with these laws and regulations. The possibility of more
stringent regulations exists in the areas of worker health and safety, storage
of hazardous materials, standards for heavy equipment used in mining or milling,
the disposition of wastes, the decommissioning and reclamation of exploration,
mining, milling and in-situ sites, climate change and other environmental
matters, each of which could have a material adverse effect on the cost or the
viability of a particular project. The Company cannot predict what environmental legislation,
regulations or policies will be enacted or adopted in the future or how future
laws and regulations will be administered or interpreted. The recent trend in
environmental legislation and regulation is generally toward stricter standards,
and this trend is likely to continue in the future. This recent trend includes,
without limitation, laws and regulations relating to air and water quality, mine
reclamation, waste handling and disposal, the protection of certain species and
the preservation of certain lands. These regulations may require the acquisition
of permits or other authorizations for certain activities. These laws and
regulations may also limit or prohibit activities on certain lands. Compliance
with more stringent laws and regulations, as well as potentially more vigorous
enforcement policies, stricter interpretation of existing laws and stricter
permit and license conditions, may necessitate significant capital outlays, may
materially affect the Companys results of operations and business or may cause
material changes or delays in the Companys intended activities. There can be no
assurance of the Companys continued compliance or ability to meet stricter
environmental laws and regulations and permit or license conditions. Delays in
obtaining permits and licenses could impact expected production levels or
increases in expected production levels. The Companys operations may require additional analysis in the
future including environmental, cultural and social impact and other related
studies. Certain activities require the submission and approval of environmental
impact assessments. The Company cannot provide assurance that it will be able to
obtain or maintain all necessary permits that may be required to continue
operations or exploration and development of its properties or, if feasible, to
commence construction or operation of mining facilities at such properties on
terms that enable operations to be conducted at economically justifiable costs.
If the Company is unable to obtain or maintain, licenses, permits or other
rights for development of its properties, or otherwise fails to manage
adequately future environmental issues, its operations could be materially and
adversely affected. OPPOSITION TOMINING MAYDISRUPTBUSINESSACTIVITY In recent years, governmental and non-governmental agencies,
individuals, communities and courts have become more vocal and active with
respect to their opposition of certain mining and business activities including
with respect to production at the Company's facilities, such as the White Mesa
Mill and the Canyon Project. This opposition may take on forms such as road
blockades, applications for injunctions seeking work stoppages, refusals to
grant access to lands or to sell lands on commercially viable terms, lawsuits
for damages or to revoke or modify licenses and permits, issuances of
unfavourable laws and regulations, and other rulings contrary to the Companys
interest. These actions can occur in response to current activities or in respect of mines that are decades old.
In addition, these actions can occur in response to activities of the Company or
the activities of other unrelated entities. Opposition to the Companys
activities may also result from general opposition to nuclear energy. Opposition
to the Companys business activities are beyond the Companys control. Any
opposition to the Companys business activities may cause a disruption to the
Companys business activities and may result in increased costs and this could
have a material adverse effect on the Companys business and financial
condition. 172   COMPETITION FORPROPERTIES ANDEXPERIENCEDEMPLOYEES The Company competes with other mining companies and
individuals for capital, mining interests on exploration properties and
undeveloped lands, acquisitions of mineral resources and reserves and other
mining assets, which may increase its cost of acquiring suitable claims,
properties and assets, and the Company also competes with other mining companies
to attract and retain key executives and employees. There can be no assurance
that the Company will continue to be able to compete successfully with its
competitors in acquiring such properties and assets or in attracting and
retaining skilled and experienced employees. The mining industry has been
impacted by increased worldwide demand for critical resources such as input
commodities, drilling equipment, tires and skilled labour, and these shortages
have caused unanticipated cost increases and delays in delivery times, thereby
impacting operating costs, capital expenditures and production schedules. LITIGATION ANDOTHERLEGALPROCEEDINGS The Company is subject to litigation and other legal
proceedings arising in the normal course of business and may be involved in
disputes with other parties in the future which may result in litigation. The
causes of potential future litigation and legal proceedings cannot be known and
may arise from, among other things, business activities, environmental laws,
permitting and licensing activities, volatility in stock prices or failure to
comply with disclosure obligations. The results of litigation and proceedings
cannot be predicted with certainty, and may include potential injunctions
pending the outcome of such litigation and proceedings. If the Company is unable
to resolve these disputes favourably, it may have a material adverse impact on
the Companys financial performance, cash flow and results of operations. DECOMMISSIONING ANDRECLAMATION As owner and operator of the White Mesa Mill and numerous
uranium and uranium/vanadium mines located in the United States and certain
exploration properties, and for so long as the Company remains an owner thereof,
the Company is obligated to eventually reclaim or participate in the reclamation
of such properties. Most, but not all, of the Companys reclamation obligations
are bonded, and cash and other assets of the Company have been reserved to
secure a portion but not all of this bonded amount. Although the Companys
financial statements will record a liability for the asset retirement
obligation, and the bonding requirements are generally periodically reviewed by
applicable regulatory authorities, there can be no assurance or guarantee that
the ultimate cost of such reclamation obligations will not exceed the estimated
liability to be provided on the Companys financial statements. Further, to the
extent the bonded amounts are not fully collateralized, the Company will be
required to come up with additional cash to perform its reclamation obligations
when they occur. Decommissioning plans for the Companys properties have been
filed with applicable regulatory authorities. These regulatory authorities have
accepted the decommissioning plans in concept, not upon a detailed performance
forecast, which has not yet been generated. As the Companys properties approach
or go into decommissioning, further regulatory review of the decommissioning
plans may result in additional decommissioning requirements, associated costs
and the requirement to provide additional financial assurances. It is not possible to predict what level
of decommissioning and reclamation (and financial assurances relating thereto)
may be required in the future by regulatory authorities. 173   TECHNICALINNOVATION ANDOBSOLESCENCE Requirements for the Companys products and services may be
affected by technological changes in nuclear reactors, enrichment and used
uranium fuel reprocessing. These technological changes could reduce the demand
for uranium. In addition, the Companys competitors may adopt technological
advancements that give them an advantage over the Company. PROPERTYTITLERISK The Company has investigated its rights to explore and exploit
all of its material properties and, to the best of its knowledge, those rights
are in good standing. However, no assurance can be given that such rights will
not be revoked, or significantly altered, to the Companys detriment. There can
also be no assurance that the Companys rights will not be challenged or
impugned by third parties, including by local governments. The validity of unpatented mining claims on U.S. public lands
is sometimes difficult to confirm and may be contested. Due to the extensive
requirements and associated expense required to obtain and maintain mining
rights on U.S. public lands, the Company's U.S. properties are subject to
various title uncertainties which are common to the industry or the geographic
location of such claims, with the attendant risk that there may be defects in
its title. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has withdrawn certain
lands around the Grand Canyon National Park from location and entry under the
Mining Laws. All of the Companys material Arizona Strip properties, other than
the Wate Property, are located on these withdrawn lands. No new mining claims
may be filed on the withdrawn lands and no new plans of operations may be
approved, other than plans of operations on mining claims that were valid at the
time of withdrawal and that remain valid at the time of plan approval. Whether
or not a mining claim is valid must be determined by a mineral examination
conducted by BLM or USFS, as applicable. The mineral examination, which involves
an economic evaluation of a project, must demonstrate the existence of a
locatable mineral resource and that the mineral resource constitutes discovery
of a valuable mineral deposit. The Company believes that all of its material
Arizona Strip projects are on valid mining claims that would withstand a mineral
examination. Further, the Companys Arizona 1 and Pinenut mines have approved
plans of operations which, absent modification, would not require a mineral
examination. Although the Companys Canyon Project also has an approved plan of
operations, which, absent modification, would not require a mineral examination,
the USFS performed a mineral examination at that mine in 2012, and concluded
that the underlying mining claims were valid existing rights. However, market
conditions may postpone or prevent the performance of mineral examinations on
certain other properties and, if a mineral examination is performed on a
property, there can be no guarantee that the mineral examination would not
result in one or more of the Companys mining claims being considered invalid,
which could prevent a project from proceeding. Certain of the Company’s  properties, or significant portions
thereof, such as Section 16 of the Roca Honda property, are State mineral leases
that have fixed terms. There can be no guaranty that the Company will be able to
renew or extend such leases on favorable terms or at all. The failure to renew
any such leases could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its
operations. ACCESS TOPROPERTIES The Company is currently in the process of negotiating access
rights to certain of its properties, such as Section 16 of the Roca Honda
project and the Wate Project, with private landholders. There can be no guaranty that the Company will be able to negotiate such access
rights on favorable terms or at all. The failure to negotiate such access rights
could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its operations. 174   FOREIGNCURRENCYRISKS The Companys operations are subject to foreign currency
fluctuations. The Companys operating expenses and revenues are primarily
incurred in U.S. dollars, while some of its cash balances and expenses are
measured in Canadian dollars. The fluctuation of the Canadian dollar in relation
to the U.S. dollar will consequently have an impact upon the profitability of
the Company and may also affect the value of the Companys assets and
shareholders equity. ACQUISITION ANDPOST-ACQUISITIONSUCCESS The proposed acquisition or Uranerz by the Company may not
be completed as anticipated, and, as a result the Company may not realize the
anticipated benefits from that transaction, and will have expended significant
transaction costs to no avail. In addition, the Company may not realize the
anticipated benefits of acquiring the US Mining Division in 2012 or completing
the Strathmore Acquisition in 2013, due to integration and operational
challenges, and to decreases in commodity prices that have required the Company
to place a number of acquired mines on standby and to defer permitting and
development activities on certain other acquired assets, until market conditions
warrant otherwise. The success of the Company following those acquisitions will
depend in large part on the success of the Companys management in integrating
the US Mining Division and the Strathmore assets into the Company. The failure
of the Company to achieve such integration and to mine or advance such assets
could result in the failure of the Company to realize the anticipated benefits
of the Denison Acquisition and Strathmore Acquisition and could impair the
results of operations, profitability and financial results of the Company. PRODUCTIONESTIMATES ANDPRODUCTIONEFFICIENCY The Company may from time to time prepare estimates of future
production or increases in production for particular operations, or relating to
the Companys ability to increase production in response to increases in
commodity prices, as market conditions warrant or otherwise. No assurance can be
given that any such production estimates will be achieved nor can assurance be
given that production or production increases will be achieved in a cost
effective or timely manner. Failure to achieve production estimates or failure
to achieve production in a cost effective or timely manner could have an adverse
impact on the Companys future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and
financial condition. These production estimates are based on, among other
things, the following factors: the accuracy of mineral reserve estimates; the
accuracy of assumptions regarding ground conditions and physical characteristics
of ores, such as hardness and presence or absence of particular metallurgical
characteristics; the accuracy of estimated rates and costs of mining and
processing; assumptions as to future commodity prices; assumptions relating to
changes in laws, regulations or policies, or lack thereof, that could impact the
cost and time required to obtain regulatory approvals, licenses and permits;
assumptions relating to obtaining required licenses and permits in a timely
manner, including the time required to satisfy environmental analyses,
consultations and public input processes; assumptions relating to challenges to
or delays in the licensing and permitting process; and assumptions regarding any
appeals or lack thereof, or injunctions or lack thereof, relating to any
approvals, licenses or permits. The Companys actual production may vary from estimates for a
variety of reasons, including, among others: actual ore mined varying from
estimates of grade, tonnage, dilution and metallurgical and other
characteristics; short term operating factors relating to the mineral reserves,
such as the need for sequential development of ore bodies and the processing of
new or different ore grades; risk and hazards associated with mining; natural phenomena, such as inclement
weather conditions, underground floods, earthquakes, pit wall failures and
cave-ins; unexpected labor shortages or strikes; varying conditions in the
commodities markets; and delays in obtaining or denial, challenges or appeals of
regulatory approvals, licenses and permits or renewals of existing approvals,
licenses or permits. 175   DEPENDENCE ONISSUANCE OFMILLLICENCEAMENDMENTS ANDRENEWALS The Company maintains regulatory licenses and permits in order
to operate its White Mesa Mill, all of which are subject to renewal from time to
time and are required in order for the Company to operate in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. In addition, depending on the Companys
business requirements, it may be necessary or desirable to seek amendments to
one or more of its licenses or permits from time to time. While the Company has
been successful in renewing its licenses and permits on a timely basis in the
past and in obtaining such amendments as have been necessary or desirable, there
can be no assurance that such license and permit renewals and amendments will be
issued by applicable regulatory authorities on a timely basis or at all in the
future. MINING,MILLING ANDINSURANCE The operations of the Company are subject to all of the hazards
and risks normally incidental to exploration, development and mining of mineral
properties, and milling, including: environmental hazards; industrial accidents;
labor disputes, disturbances and unavailability of skilled labor; encountering
unusual or unexpected geologic formations; rock bursts, pressures, cave-ins,
flooding; periodic interruptions due to inclement or hazardous weather
conditions; technological and processing problems, including unanticipated
metallurgical difficulties, ground control problems, process upsets and
equipment malfunctions; the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw
materials and consumables used in the Companys production processes; the
ability to procure mining equipment and operating supplies in sufficient
quantities and on a timely basis; and other mining, milling and processing
risks, as well as risks associated with the Companys dependence on third
parties in the provision of transportation and other critical services. Many of
the foregoing risks and hazards could result in damage to, or destruction of,
the Companys mineral properties or processing facilities, personal injury or
death, environmental damage, delays in or interruption of or cessation of
production from the Companys mines or processing facilities or in its
exploration or development activities, delay in or inability to receive
regulatory approvals to transport its uranium concentrates, or costs, monetary
losses and potential legal liability and adverse governmental action. In
addition, due to the radioactive nature of the materials handled in uranium
mining and processing, additional costs and risks are incurred by the Company on
a regular and ongoing basis. While the Company may obtain insurance against certain risks in
such amounts as it considers adequate, the nature of these risks are such that
liabilities could exceed policy limits or could be excluded from coverage. There
are also risks against which the Company cannot insure or against which it may
elect not to insure. The potential costs which could be associated with any
liabilities not covered by insurance or in excess of insurance coverage or
compliance with applicable laws and regulations may cause substantial delays and
require significant capital outlays, adversely affecting the future earnings,
financial position and competitive position of the Company. No assurance can be
given that such insurance will continue to be available or will be available at
economically feasible premiums or that it will provide sufficient coverage for
losses related to these or other risks and hazards. This lack of insurance
coverage could result in material economic harm to the Company. 176   REPLACEMENT OFMINERALRESERVES ANDRESOURCES ANDAVAILABILITY OFALTERNATEFEEDMATERIALS The Companys mineral reserves and resources at its Roca Honda,
Arizona Strip, EZ Complex, Sage Plain, Henry Mountains, Daneros, Sheep Mountain,
Gas Hills, Juniper Ridge, Whirlwind, and La Sal projects are the Companys
primary sources (and potential sources) of uranium concentrates. Unless other
mineral reserves and resources are discovered or extensions to existing ore
bodies are found, the Companys sources of production for uranium concentrates
will decrease over time as its current mineral reserves and resources are
depleted. There can be no assurance that the Companys future exploration,
development and acquisition efforts will be successful in replenishing its
mineral reserves and resources. In addition, while the Company believes that
many of its properties will eventually be put into production, there can be no
assurance that they will be or that they will be able to replace current
production. The Company also produces uranium from processing alternate
feed materials at its White Mesa Mill. There can be no assurance that additional
sources of alternate feed materials will be forthcoming in the future on
commercially acceptable terms or otherwise, or that the Company will be
successful in receiving all required regulatory approvals, licenses and permits
on a timely basis to allow for the receipt and processing of any such alternate
feed materials. CREDITRISK The Companys sales of uranium and vanadium products expose
the Company to the risk of non-payment. The Company manages this risk by
monitoring the credit worthiness of its customers and requiring pre-payment or
other forms of payment security from customers with an unacceptable level of
credit risk. DEPENDENCE ONKEYPERSONNEL ANDQUALIFIED ANDEXPERIENCEDEMPLOYEES The Companys success will largely depend on the efforts and
abilities of certain senior officers and key employees, some of which are
approaching retirement. Certain of these individuals have significant experience
in the uranium industry. The number of individuals with significant experience
in this industry is small. While the Company does not foresee any reason why
such officers and key employees will not remain with the Company, other than
through retirement, if for any reason they do not, the Company could be
adversely affected. The Company has not purchased key man life insurance for any
of these individuals, other than for the Chief Executive Officer. The Companys success will also depend on the availability of
qualified and experienced employees to work in the Companys operations and the
Companys ability to attract and retain such employees. The number of
individuals with relevant mining and operational experience in this industry is
small. DISCLOSURE ANDINTERNALCONTROLS Internal controls over financial reporting are procedures
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. Disclosure controls and
procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a
company in reports filed with securities regulatory agencies is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis and is accumulated and
communicated to a companys management, including its chief executive officer
and chief financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only
reasonable, not absolute, assurance with respect to the reliability of
reporting, including financial reporting and financial statement preparation. 177   DEPENDENCE ONBUSINESSPARTNERS,GOVERNMENT ANDTHIRDPARTYCONSENTS The Company has a number of joint ventures and other business
relationships relating to its properties and projects, including key projects,
such as the Roca Honda Gas Hills and Wate projects, which can restrict the
ability of the Company to act unilaterally with respect to those projects in
certain circumstances. There can be no assurances that the Company will be able
to maintain relationships with its joint venture and business partners to allow
for satisfactory permitting, development, mining or milling relating to any such
projects. The Companys operations are also dependent from time to time on
receiving government and other third party consents and approvals. There can be
no assurances that all such consents and approvals will be forthcoming when
required. CONFLICTS OFINTEREST Some of the directors of the Company are also directors of
other companies that are similarly engaged in the business of acquiring,
exploring and developing natural resource properties. Such associations may give
rise to conflicts of interest from time to time. In particular, one of the
consequences will be that corporate opportunities presented to a director of the
Company may be offered to another company or companies with which the director
is associated, and may not be presented or made available to the Company. The
directors of the Company are required by law to act honestly and in good faith
with a view to the best interests of the Company, to disclose any interest which
they may have in any project or opportunity of the Company, and to abstain from
voting on such matter. Conflicts of interest that arise will be subject to and
governed by the procedures prescribed in the Companys Code of Ethics and by the
Business Corporations Act (Ontario). LABORRELATIONS None of the Companys operations directly employ unionized
workers who work under collective agreements. However, there can be no assurance
that employees of the Company or its contractors do not become unionized in the
future, which may impact mill and mining operations. Any lengthy work stoppages
may have a material adverse impact on the Companys future cash flows, earnings,
results of operations and financial condition. INFRASTRUCTURE Mining, processing, development and exploration activities
depend, to a substantial degree, on adequate infrastructure. Reliable roads,
bridges, power sources and water supply are important determinants affecting
capital and operating costs. The Company considers the existing infrastructure
to be adequate to support its proposed operations. However, unusual or
infrequent weather phenomena, sabotage, government or other interference in the
maintenance or provision of such infrastructure could adversely affect the
operations, financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 178    DIVIDENDS
 The Company has not paid dividends in the past and it does not
expect to pay dividends in the near future. Any earnings generated will be
dedicated to finance further growth. The Board of Directors of the Company will
determine if and when dividends will be declared and paid in the future based on
the Companys financial position at the relevant time. DESCRIPTION OFCAPITALSTRUCTURE
 GENERALDESCRIPTION OFCAPITALSTRUCTURE The authorized capital of the Company consists of an unlimited
number of Common Shares, an unlimited number of Preferred Shares issuable in
series, and an unlimited number Series A Preferred Shares. The holders of Common Shares are titled to vote, to receive
dividends and to receive, subject to the right of holders of any other class of
shares, the remaining property of the Company upon liquidation, dissolution or
winding up of the Company. The Preferred Shares issuable in series will have the
rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions assigned to the particular
series upon the board of directors of the Company approving their issuance,
subject to the Companys Articles of Incorporation. The Series A Preferred
Shares are non-redeemable, non-callable, non-voting and do not have a right to
dividends. As of December 31, 2014, there were 19,677,522 Common Shares
issued and outstanding (not including 20,920 treasury shares (the Treasury
Shares) held by a subsidiary of the Company. See Treasury Shares
below. As of the date hereof, the Company had an aggregate of 19,677,522 Common
Shares issued and outstanding (not including the Treasury Shares). The Common
Shares trade on the TSX under the Symbol EFR. As at December 31, 2014, 902,620 Common Shares are issuable
pursuant to currently outstanding stock options granted pursuant to the
Companys Stock Option Plan and 2,793 in connection with the acquisition of
Strathmore, which options are exercisable at share prices ranging from Cdn$7.60
to Cdn$44.22. The Company also has a number of warrants outstanding, as
described under Market for Securities below. In addition, on July 24, 2012, the Company issued
Cdn$22,000,000 principal amount of convertible debentures (the
Debentures). The Debentures will mature on June 30, 2017 and are
convertible into Common Shares of the Company at the option of the holder at a
conversion price, subject to certain adjustments, of Cdn$15.00 per Common Share
at any time prior to redemption or maturity. The Debentures are listed for
trading on the TSX under the symbol EFR.DB. As at December 31, 2014 up to
1,466,667 Common Shares were issuable upon conversion of the Debentures. Subject
to any required regulatory approval and provided no event of default (as defined
in the indenture governing the Debentures) has occurred and is continuing, the
Company has the option to satisfy its obligation to repay the $1,000 principal
amount of the Debentures, in whole or in part, due at redemption or maturity, by
delivering that number of Common Shares obtained by dividing the $1,000
principal amount of the Debentures maturing or to be redeemed as applicable, by
95% of the volume-weighted average trading price of the Common Shares on the TSX during the 20 consecutive
trading days ending five trading days preceding the date fixed for redemption or
the maturity date, as the case may be. 179   RIGHTSPLAN A shareholder rights plan (the Rights Plan) was
approved by the Board of Directors on February 3, 2009 and adopted by the
shareholders of the Company on March 19, 2009. The Rights Plan has an initial term of three years. The
provisions of the Rights Plan are set out in an agreement dated as of February
2, 2009 between the Company and CIBC Mellon Trust Company, as Rights Agent, as
previously filed by the Company. At the Companys annual meeting of shareholders
held on February 10, 2012, the shareholders of the Company approved the renewal
of the Rights Plan for a further three years. The Rights Plan will expire at the
annual meeting of shareholders of the Company to be held in 2015, unless a
renewal of the Rights Plan is approved by shareholders of the Company at that
time. The Rights Plan is designed to ensure the fair treatment of
shareholders in connection with any take-over bid for Common Shares of the
Company. The Rights Plan seeks to provide shareholders with adequate time to
properly assess a take-over bid without undue pressure. It also provides the
Board with more time to fully consider an unsolicited take-over bid and, if
applicable, to explore other alternatives to maximize shareholder value. MARKET FORSECURITIES
 COMMONSHARES The Common Shares in the capital of the Company are listed for
trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under the symbol EFR and
in the United States on the NYSE MKT under the symbol UUUU. Prior to March 19,
2007, the Common Shares were listed and traded on the TSX Venture Exchange. The table below sets out the low and high prices for the
securities of the Company on the TSX for the calendar months commencing January
1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014 along with the volume of common shares
traded for the months indicated: Month
    High (Cdn$)
    Low (Cdn$)
    Volume Traded
      (Daily Average)January 2014
    $9.20
    $6.10
    103,895February 2014
    $11.90
    $7.32
    70,629March 2014
    $13.03
    $9.84
    90,862April 2014
    $10.87
    $8.40
    46,314May 2014
    $8.89
    $7.15
    35,355June 2014
    $8.70
    $7.51
    26,671July 2014
    $8.68
    $7.26
    45,827August 2014
    $8.50
    $7.93
  21,485
 180    Month
    High (Cdn$)
    Low (Cdn$)
    Volume Traded
      (Daily Average)September 2014
    $8.50
    $7.22
    21,160October 2014
    $7.50
    $6.24
    14,895November 2014
    $8.98
    $6.88
    26,489December 2014
    $8.49
    $6.97
  15,557
 WARRANTS The following table describes the outstanding warrants of the
Company as at December 31, 2014: Number of Warrants Outstanding and
      Exercisable as at December 31, 2014
    Exercise Price
    Expiry Date230,000(1)
    $32.50
    March
      31, 2015355,005(2)
    $13.25
    June
      21, 2015464,859(3)
    $9.50
    June
      15, 201519,915(4)
    $9.00
    June
      15, 20159,290(5)
    $8.00
  October 16, 2015
 Notes: (1)
    In connection with the March 31, 2011 public offering,
      230,000 share purchase warrants were issued each of which is exercisable
      into one Common Share of the Company at a price of Cdn$32.50 per
    share.(2)
    These warrants were issued in connection with the equity
      private placement of 710,010 non-transferable subscription receipts on
      June 21, 2012. Each subscription receipt was exchangeable upon completion
      of the acquisition of the US Mining Division of Denison into one Common
      Share and one-half of one warrant. Each whole warrant entitles the holder
      to purchase one additional Common Share at a price of Cdn$13.25 until June
      22, 2015.(3)
    These warrants were issued in connection with the June
      2013 Private Placement. Each warrant entitles the holder to purchase one
      additional Common Share at a price of Cdn$9.50 until June 15,
  2015.(4)
    These warrants were issued as compensation to the
      underwriters in connection with the June 2013 private placement. Each of
      these warrants entitles the holder to purchase one additional Common Share
      at a price of Cdn$9.00 until June 15, 2015.(5)
    These warrants were issued as compensation to the
      underwriters in connection with the October 15th, 2013 private
      placement. Each of these warrants entitles the holder to purchase one
      additional Common Share at a price of Cdn$8.00 until October 16,
    2015. DEBENTURES The Debentures issued in July 2012 were listed and posted for
trading on the TSX under the trading symbol EFR.DB on July 27, 2012. The
following table sets forth the reported market price ranges for the Debentures
for the year ended December 31, 2014, along with the volume of Debentures traded
for the months indicated, as reported by the TSX: 181    Month
    High (Cdn$)
    Low (Cdn$)
    Volume TradedJanuary 2014
    89.50
    85.00
    51,000February 2014
    98.00
    88.00
    3,694,000March 2014
    100.25
    95.50
    176,000April 2014
    100.00
    94.00
    2,780,000May 2014
    96.00
    94.00
    661,000June 2014
    94.20
    92.00
    73,000July 2014
    92.25
    92.25
    7,000August 2014
    94.00
    92.50
    32,000September 2014
    94.05
    90.01
    131,000October 2014
    92.27
    85.00
    210,000November 2014
    90.00
    86.00
    128,000December 2014
    86.00
    83.00
  107,000
 PRIORSALES The following table sets out the prior sales of securities of
the Company not listed on the TSX or any other exchange since January 1, 2014: Date Issued/Granted
    Number of Securities
    Security
    Price Per SecurityJanuary 23, 2014
    307,250
    Stock options to purchase
      Common Shares exercisable at Cdn$9.05 per share
    n/aFebruary 28, 2014 and March 10, 2014
    8,949
    Common Shares issued upon
      exercise of compensation warrants previously issued to underwriters in
      October 16, 2013 bought deal offering
    9.50March 20, 2014
    30,679
    Common Shares issued upon
      exercise of compensation warrants previously issued to underwriters in
      October 16, 2013 bought deal offering
    9.00March 20, 2014
    21,673
    Common Shares issued upon
      exercise of compensation warrants previously issued to underwriters in
      October 16, 2013 bought deal offering
    8.00April 4, 2014
    15,000
    Common Shares issued upon
      exercise of stock options previously issued under the Energy Fuels Stock
      Option Plan
    8.75January 28, 2015
    133,150
    Stock options to purchase
      Common Shares exercisable at Cdn$5.85 per share
  n/a
 182    Date Issued/Granted
    Number of
      Securities
    Security
    Price Per
      SecurityJanuary 28, 2015
    153,850
    Restricted Stock Units issued
      at Cdn$5.85 per share
    n/a
 ESCROWEDSECURITIES As at December 31, 2014, there are no securities of the Company
held in escrow. TREASURYSHARES As a result of the Companys acquisition of Titan, the Company
acquired ownership of 20,920 shares of the Companys Common Shares. Such shares
are treated as treasury shares as at December 31, 2014. DIRECTORS ANDOFFICERS
 DIRECTORS The following table sets forth the name and municipality of
residence, the office (if any) held with the Company, the Common Shares of the
Company beneficially owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, for each of
the officers and directors of the Company, as well as the members of each
committee of the Board of Directors: Name andMunicipality of Residence
    Office Held
    DirectorSince(1)
    Number of Common SharesBeneficially Owned or OverWhich Control or
      Directionis Exercised(2)J. Birks Bovaird(3)Ontario, Canada
    Chairman and Director
    2006
    5,192Stephen P. Antony(4)Colorado, USA
    President, CEO and Director
    2009
    19,957Paul A. Carroll (6)Ontario, Canada
    Director
    2010
    NilLarry Goldberg(6)Ontario, Canada
    Director
    2012
    NilMark E. Goodman(4)(5)Ontario,
      Canada
    Director
    2010
    NilBruce D. Hansen(3)(6)Colorado, USA
    Director
    2007
  2,600
 183    Ron F. Hochstein(4)(5)British Columbia,
      Canada
    Director
    2012
    23,368Joo Soo Park Seoul, Korea
    Director
    2015
    NilRichard Patricio(3)(5)Ontario, Canada
    Director
    2012
    7,720
 Notes: (1)
    Directors are elected annually and hold office until a
      successor is elected at a subsequent annual meeting of the Company, unless
      a directors office is earlier vacated in accordance with the by-laws of
      the Company.(2)
    The information as to Common Shares beneficially owned or
      over which the directors exercise control or direction not being within
      the knowledge of the Company has been furnished by the respective nominees
      individually.(3)
    Member of the Compensation Committee.(4)
    Member Environment, Health and Safety
Committee.(5)
    Member of Governance and Nominating Committee.(6)
    Member Audit Committee. J. Birks Bovaird For a majority of his career, Mr. Bovairds focus has been the
provision and implementation of corporate financial consulting and strategic
planning services. He was previously the Vice President of Corporate Finance for
one of Canadas major accounting firms. He currently is the Chair of
NunaMinerals A/S, a public mining exploration and development company listed on
the Copenhagen Exchange (NUNA.CO). He is a director of Noble Minerals
Exploration (TSX.V:NOB) where he is Chair of the Nominating, Compensation and
Governance Committee, as well as a member of the Audit Committee. He is also the
Chair of the board of directors of GTA Resources and Mining Inc., as well as a
member of the Audit Committee. He has previously been involved with numerous
public resource companies, both as a member of management and as a director. He
is a graduate of the Canadian Director Education Program and holds an ICD.D
designation. Stephen P. Antony Mr. Antony is a registered professional engineer in a number of
states in which the Corporation holds properties. He is a graduate of the
Colorado School of Mines, and holds a Masters of Business Administration from
the University of Denver. Over the last 38 years, Mr. Antony has held
increasingly senior positions in both the technical and managerial sectors of
the mining business. He first entered the uranium business with Mobil Oils
Mining and Mineral group in the mid 1980s, during which time he developed the
reclamation plan for Mobils El Mesquite ISR operation in south Texas. He joined
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. ("EFN") in 1986 as the company was growing to
become the largest U3O8 producer in the US, peaking at
more than five million pounds annually. Mr. Antony served as director of
Technical Services for the company where he authored many of the feasibility
studies which provided justification for the expansion of EFNs highly
successful Breccia Pipe Mine projects in the Arizona Strip. Subsequent to his
employment with EFN, Mr. Antony held a brief position with Power Resources, Inc.
("PRI") as Vice President of Business Development. He then consulted to
Cameco Corp. on due diligence prior to their acquisition of PRI, which Cameco
undertook as part of their strategy to become a significant ISR uranium producer
in the US. Mr. Antony was most recently Chief Operating Officer of EFI,
responsible for the daily operations of the Corporation, including all aspects
of uranium property exploration, ore production and mill processing. He was
appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation on April 1,
2010. 184   Paul A. Carroll Mr. Carroll has had a lengthy business career in the  mining industry, both as a lawyer and as a director and/or officer of many  mining companies. He has been engaged in  the mineral exploration and mining industry in Canada, the U.S., Mexico,  Central and South America, Africa, China, Russia and Kazakhstan. Mr. Carroll is  President of Carnarvon Capital Corporation, a corporate management and advisory  company based in Toronto, Canada.  Companies with which he has been extensively involved include Dundee  Corporation, a full-service investment bank, Corona Corporation, where he was a  member of the Executive Committee, Zemex Corporation, Royex Gold Mining  Corporation, Campbell Resources Inc., Cobra Emerald Mines Ltd., Lacana Mining  Corporation where he was Chair, Arcon International Resources plc where he was  Chair, Tahera Corporation, World Wide Minerals Ltd. where he is President and  Chief Executive Officer, Poco Petroleums Ltd., Mascot Gold Mines Ltd., United  Keno Hill Mines Ltd., Repadre Capital Corporation (now IAMgold Corporation),  Crowflight Minerals Inc., War Eagle Mining Company Inc. and Mammoth Resources  Corporation. From 2004 to 2005, as one  of the committee of “independent directors” thereof, Mr. Carroll was a director  of Argus Corporation Limited and Hollinger Inc. (“Hollinger”) and in 2005 he  was Chief Executive Officer. He was a  director of The Uranium Institute (now the World Nuclear Association) in 1998. In addition to the Corporation, Mr. Carroll  is currently a director of the following companies: World Wide Minerals Ltd.  (TSX, CDN, OTC); War Eagle Mining Company Inc. (TSX-V) and Mammoth Resources  Corp. (TSX-V). Mr. Carroll serves on the  Audit Committee of War Eagle Mining Company Inc., as well as of the Corporation. Lawrence A. Goldberg Mr. Goldberg is a Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA, CA).
He is currently Chief Financial Officer of JSN Jewellery Inc. From May 2013 to
May 2014 he was Chief Financial Officer of Blue Goose Capital Corp., a private
organic food company. From May 2012 to May 2013 he was Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Operating Officer of Arcestra Inc., a private software company. From
August 2010 to September 2011, Mr. Goldberg was the Chief Financial Officer of
ZENN Motor Company Inc., a TSX-V listed energy storage technology company. From
February 2000 to August 2010, Mr. Goldberg was the Chief Financial Officer of
Mega Uranium Ltd., a uranium exploration company listed on the TSX, and of
Pinetree Capital Ltd., a TSX-listed investment company. From May 2004 to
December 2009, Mr. Goldberg was the CFO of Brownstone Ventures Inc. (now called
Brownstone Energy Inc.), an energy company listed on the TSX-V. Mark E. Goodman Mr. Goodman has worked in the financial services and mining
industry since 1992. He began his career working for Dundee Corporation and has
held numerous positions within that organization. In 2005 he founded Cogitore
Resources Inc., a base metal exploration company active in Northern Quebec. He
has also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of both Valdez Gold and
Cogitore Resources. Mr. Goodman is currently a Vice President of Dundee
Corporation. He sits on the board of directors of the following publicly and
privately held companies: Cogitore Resources Inc. (TSX-V); Corona Gold Corp.
(TSX); Dundee Energy (TSX); Focused Capital Corp. (TSX-V); Focused Capital II
(TSX-V); Ryan Gold Corp (TSX-V); Odyssey Resources Inc. (TSX-V); Nighthawk Gold
Corp. (TSX-V) and Dynamic Venture Opportunities Fund (Ontario Labour Sponsored
Fund). Bruce D. Hansen Mr. Hansen is currently Chief Executive Officer and a director
of General Moly Inc., a position he has held since 2007. Prior to that, Mr.
Hansen was Senior Vice-President, Operations Services and Development with
Newmont Mining Corporation. He worked with Newmont for ten years holding
increasingly senior roles, including CFO from 1999 to 2005. Prior to joining
Newmont, Mr. Hansen spent 12 years with Santa Fe Pacific Gold, where he held
increasingly senior management roles including Senior Vice President of
Corporate Development and Vice President Finance and Development. Mr. Hansen
also serves as a Director for General Moly Inc. and ASA Gold & Precious
Metals Ltd., and he is on the Audit Committee of ASA Gold. Mr. Hansen holds a
Masters of Business Administration from the University of New Mexico and a
Bachelor’s  of Science Degree in Mining Engineering from the Colorado School of
Mines. Mr. Hansen is also a director of ASA Gold and Precious Metals Ltd.
(NYSE). 185   Ron F. Hochstein Mr. Hochstein is currently President and Chief  Executive Officer of Lundin Gold Inc., a position he has held since December  2014. Mr. Hochstein is also currently  Chief Executive Officer of Denison Mines Corp., and previously served as its  President and Chief Executive Officer since 2009.  Prior to this Mr. Hochstein served as  President and Chief Operating Officer of Denison Mines Corp. since 2006, when  International Uranium Corporation ("IUC") and Denison Mines Inc.  combined to form Denison Mines Corp. Mr.  Hochstein served as President and Chief Executive Officer of IUC from 2000 to  2006 after serving as Vice President Corporate Development and Vice President  and Chief Operating Officer. Prior to  joining IUC Mr. Hochstein was a Project Manager with Simons Mining Group and  was with Noranda Minerals as a metallurgical engineer. Mr. Hochstein is a Professional Engineer and  holds a Masters of Business Administration from the University of British  Columbia and a Bachelor of Science in Mineral Processing from the University of  Alberta. Mr. Hochstein is a Director of  Denison Mines Corp. (TSX, NYSE MKT) and Lundin Gold Inc. (TSX, OMX). He is also a Director and serves on the Audit  Committee of Sprott Resource Corp. (TSX). Joo Soo Park Since 2012, Mr. Park has been Team Leader and General Manager,
Overseas Resources Development Department for KEPCO, an international electric
power company headquartered in Korea. From 2007 to 2012, Mr. Park was Senior
Manager, Korea Electric Power Research Institute for KEPCO, and from 2002 to
2007, Mr. Park was Senior Manager, Kum-ho Nuclear Power Plant Construction
Division for KEPCO. Mr. Park has been with KEPCO for nearly twenty five years,
and has been involved in many domestic and overseas projects for KEPCO. Mr. Park
has a business degree from Chungnam National University, Korea, and a Masters of
Business Administration from Helsinki School of Economics, Finland. Richard J. Patricio Since March 2015, Mr.  Patricio has been the Chief Executive Officer and President of Mega Uranium  Ltd., where he previously was, since 2005, the Executive Vice President,  Corporate Affairs. In addition, Since  February 2015, Mr. Patricio is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinetree Capital  Ltd., where he previously was the Vice President of Corporate and Legal Affairs  since 2005. Prior to joining Pinetree,  Mr. Patricio worked as in-house General Counsel for a senior TSX listed  manufacturing company. Prior to that, Mr. Patricio practiced law at Osler  Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto where he focused on mergers and  acquisitions, securities law and general corporate transactions. In addition to  his legal and corporate experience, Mr. Patricio has built a number of mining  companies with global operations. He holds senior officer and director  positions in several junior mining companies that are listed on the TSX,  TSX-Venture, AIM, ASX and New York exchanges. Mr. Patricio is a lawyer  qualified to practice in the Province of Ontario. Prior to the Corporation’s  acquisition of Titan Uranium Inc., Mr. Patricio was a director of Titan. Mr.  Patricio is also a director of Caledonia Mining Corp. (TSX, AIM, NASDAQ-OTCQX),  Terreno Resources Corp. (TSX-V), U3O8 Corp. (TSX, OTCQX), Mega Precious Metals  Inc. (TSX-V), Macusani Yellowcake Ltd. (TSX-V), Macarthur Minerals Ltd. (TSX)  and Toro Energy Ltd. (ASX). He formerly served as a Director for Santa Maria  Petroleum Inc. (formerly Quetzal Energy Ltd.), X-Terra Resources Corporation,  Dejour Enterprises Ltd., Titan Uranium Inc., Mooncor Oil & Gas Corp., and  Vesta Capital Corp. 186   EXECUTIVEOFFICERS The following table sets forth the name and municipality of
residence, and the office held with the Company, for each of the executive
officers of the Company: Name andState of Residence
    Office Held
    Held Position SinceStephen P. Antony Colorado, USA
    President, CEO and Director
    2009Daniel G. Zang Colorado, USA
    Chief Financial Officer and
      Controller
    2014Harold R. Roberts Colorado, USA
    Executive Vice President and
      Chief Operating Officer
    2012David C. Frydenlund Colorado, USA
    Senior Vice President, General
      Counsel and Corporate Secretary
  2012
 Stephen P. Antony  President and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Antony is a registered professional engineer in a number of
States in which the Company holds properties. He is a graduate of the Colorado
School of Mines, and holds a Masters of Business Administration from the
University of Denver. Over the last 38 years Mr. Antony has held increasingly
senior positions in both the technical and managerial sectors of the mining
business. He first entered the uranium business with Mobil Oils Mining and
Mineral group in the mid 1980s, during which time he developed the reclamation
plan for Mobils El Mesquite ISR operation in south Texas. He joined EFN in 1986
as the company was growing to become the largest
U3O8producer in the US, peaking at more than five million
pounds annually. Mr. Antony served as director of Technical Services for the
company where he authored many of the feasibility studies which provided
justification for the expansion of EFNs highly successful Breccia Pipe mine
projects in the Arizona Strip. Subsequent to his employment with EFN, Mr. Antony
held a brief position with Power Resources, Inc (PRI) as Vice President of
Business Development. He then consulted to Cameco Corp. on due diligence prior
to their acquisition of PRI, which Cameco undertook as part of their strategy to
become a significant ISR uranium producer in the US. Mr. Antony was most
recently Chief Operating Officer of Energy Fuels, responsible for the daily
operations of the Company, including all aspects of uranium property
exploration, ore production and mill processing. He was appointed President and
CEO on April 1, 2010. Daniel G. Zang  Chief Financial Officer Mr. Zang is Chief Financial Officer for Energy Fuels. He has
many years of experience as Chief Financial Officer, Controller, Chief
Accounting Officer and other positions with a number of public and private
companies, including Controller and Treasurer of General Moly, Inc. and Vice
President and Controller of Cyprus Copper Company, an operating division of
Cyprus Minerals Company that earned annual revenues in excess of $1 billion.
Prior to his coming to Energy Fuels, Mr. Zang served as Deputy Chief Financial
Officer of Umami Sustainable Seafood Inc. in San Diego, California from 2012 to
2013, and Chief Financial Officer of Umami from 2010 to 2012. Prior to Umami,
Mr. Zang was a Senior Finance and Accounting Professional based in Littleton,
Colorado from 2009 to 2010. From 2007 to 2009, Mr. Zang was Controller and
Treasurer for General Moly Inc. 187   Harold R. Roberts  Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer Mr. Roberts is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer for Energy Fuels. He was previously the Executive Vice President  U.S.
Operations for Denison Mines Corp. from 2006 to 2012. Prior to his employment
with Denison, Mr. Roberts was the President of Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
Throughout his career Mr. Roberts has held various positions related to
operations oversight, project development, and permitting of mining operations.
Mr. Roberts obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from
Montana State University in 1975, and is a Registered Professional Engineer in
several western states. Mr. Roberts is a director and serves on the audit
committee of Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (TSX.V: VUI). David C. Frydenlund  Senior Vice President, General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary Mr. Frydenlund is Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary of Energy Fuels. Mr. Frydenlunds responsibilities include
all legal matters relating to the Companys activities. His expertise extends to
NRC, EPA, State and Federal regulatory and environmental laws and regulations.
From 1997 to July 2012, Mr. Frydenlund was Vice President Regulatory Affairs,
Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Denison Mines Corp., and its predecessor
International Uranium Corporation (IUC), and was also a director of IUC from
1997 to 2006 and Chief Financial Officer of IUC from 2000 to 2005. From 1996 to
1997, Mr. Frydenlund was a Vice President of the Lundin Group of international
public mining and oil and gas companies, and prior thereto was a partner with
the Vancouver law firm of Ladner Downs (now Borden Ladner Gervais) where his
practice focused on corporate, securities and international mining transactions
law. David holds a bachelor’s  degree from Simon Fraser University, a master’s degree from the University of Chicago and a law degree from the University of
Toronto. As at the date of this AIF, the directors and executive
officers of the Company, as a group, beneficially own, directly or indirectly,
or exercise control or direction over an aggregate of 73,531 Common Shares,
representing approximately 0.37% of the currently outstanding Common Shares. No
single director or officer beneficially owns or controls or directs, directly or
indirectly, one percent or more of the Common Shares as of the date of this AIF.
The information as to Common Shares beneficially owned or directed by the
directors and officers, not being within the knowledge of the Company, has been
furnished by each such individual. CEASETRADEORDERS ANDBANKRUPTCIES Except as set out below, to the knowledge of the Company no
director or executive officer of the Company is, as at the date of this AIF or
has been, within the ten years before the date of this AIF, a director, chief
executive officer or chief financial officer of any company that: (a)
    was subject to a cease trade or order similar to a cease
      trade order, or an order that denied the relevant company access to any
      exemptions under Canadian securities legislation, for a period of more
      than 30 consecutive days, that was issued while the director or executive
      officer was acting in the capacity as director, chief executive officer or
      chief financial officer, or(b)
    was subject to an cease trade or order similar to a cease
      trade order, or an order that denied the relevant company access to any
      exemptions under Canadian securities legislation, for a period of more
      than 30 consecutive days, that was issued after the director or executive
      officer ceased to be a director, chief executive officer or chief
      financial officer and which resulted from an event that occurred while
      that person was acting in the capacity as director, chief executive
      officer or chief financial officer. 188   Mr. Bovaird was a director of HMZ Metals Inc. (HMZ) at
the time a management cease trade order was issued on September 6, 2005
requiring the directors, officers and insiders of HMZ to cease all trading in,
or acquisition of, the securities of HMZ due to HMZs failure to file its
interim financial statements for the six month period ended June 30, 2005. The
management cease trade order issued on September 6, 2005 expired on October 20,
2005. The management cease trade order issued on April 3, 2006 expired and was
replaced with a permanent management cease trade order dated April 17, 2006,
which was allowed to expire on June 2, 2008. Mr. Bovaird was also an independent
director of Fort Chimo Minerals Inc. (Fort Chimo) at the time a
management cease trade order was issued on June 5, 2007 requiring the directors,
officers and insiders of Fort Chimo to cease all trading in, or acquisition of,
the securities of Fort Chimo due to Fort Chimos failure to file its interim
financial statements for the three month period ended March 31, 2007. The
management cease trade order was allowed to expire on July 9, 2007 after Fort
Chimo remedied the filing default. Mr. Carroll is a director and President and Chief Executive
Officer of World Wide Minerals Ltd., a Canadian public company which is subject
to an issuer cease trade order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission on
May 9, 2011 for failure to file financial statements and has not been revoked. Mr. Hochstein was a director  of Sirocco Mining Inc. (“Sirocco”). Pursuant to a plan of arrangement completed on January 31, 2014,  Canadian Lithium Corp. acquired Sirocco. The final step in the plan of arrangement transaction was the  amalgamation of Canadian Lithium Corp. and Sirocco to form RB Energy Inc  (“RBI”). On October 13, 2014, RBI  announced that, among other things, the Board of Directors of RBI had approved  a filing on October 14, 2014, for an Initial Order to commence proceedings  under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). On October 15, 2014, RBI further announced  that the Quebec Superior Court had issued an Amended and Restated Initial Order  in respect of RBI and certain of its subsidiaries under the CCAA. RBI is now under the protection of the  Court. KPMG LLP has been appointed  monitor under the Court Order. The TSX  de-listed RBI’s common shares effective at the close of business on November  24, 2014 for failure to meet the continued listing requirements of the  TSX. Since that time, RBI’s common  shares have been suspended from trading. To the knowledge of the Company, no director or executive
officer of the Company, or a shareholder holding a sufficient number of
securities of the Company to affect materially the control of the Company: (a)
    is, as at the date of this AIF or has been, within the
      ten years before the date of this AIF, a director or executive officer of
      any company that, while that person was acting in that capacity, or within
      a year of that person ceasing to act in that capacity, became bankrupt,
      made a proposal under any legislation relating to bankruptcy or insolvency
      or was subject to or instituted any proceedings, arrangement or compromise
      with creditors or had a receiver, receiver manager or trustee appointed to
      hold its assets, or(b)
    has, within the ten years before the date of this AIF,
      become bankrupt, made a proposal under any legislation relating to
      bankruptcy or insolvency, or become subject to or instituted any
      proceedings, arrangement or compromise with creditors, or had a receiver,
      receiver manager or trustee appointed to hold the assets of the director,
      executive officer or shareholder. PENALTIES ORSANCTIONS Other than as set out herein, to the knowledge of the Company,
no director or officer of the Company, or a shareholder holding a sufficient
number of securities of the Company to affect materially the control of the
Company, has been subject to any penalties or sanctions imposed by a court
relating to Canadian securities legislation or by a Canadian securities
regulatory authority or has entered into a settlement agreement with a Canadian
securities regulatory authority or any other penalties or sanctions imposed by a
court or regulatory body that would likely be considered important to a
reasonable investor in making an investment decision. 189   CONFLICTS OFINTEREST Some of the Companys directors are also directors and officers
of other natural resource companies and, consequently, there exists the
possibility for such directors and officers to be in a position of conflict
relating to any future transactions or relationships between the Company or
common third parties. However, the Company is unaware of any such pending or
existing conflicts between these parties. Any decision made by any of such
directors and officers involving the Company are made in accordance with their
duties and obligations to deal fairly and in good faith with the Company and
such other companies and their obligations to act in the best interests of
Energy Fuels shareholders. In addition, each of the directors of the Company
discloses and refrains from voting on any matter in which such director may have
a conflict of interest. None of the present directors or senior officers of the
Company, and no associate or affiliate of any of them, has any material interest
in any transaction of the Company or in any proposed transaction which has
materially affected or will materially affect the Company except as described
herein. THEAUDITCOMMITTEE
 AUDITCOMMITTEECHARTER A copy of the Companys Audit Committee Charter is annexed to
this AIF as Appendix A. COMPOSITION OF THEAUDITCOMMITTEE The current members of the Audit Committee of the Company are
Lawrence A. Goldberg, Paul A. Carroll, and Bruce D. Hansen. Lawrence A. Goldberg
is the Chair of the Audit Committee. The directors of the Company have
determined that each member of the Audit Committee is considered to be
independent and financially literate within the meaning of National
Instrument 52-110  Audit Committees (the NI 52-110). RELEVANTEDUCATION ANDEXPERIENCE Lawrence A. Goldberg, is a Chartered Professional
Accountant (CPA, CA) and currently Chief Financial Officer of JSN Jewellery Inc.
From May 2013 to May 2014 he was Chief Financial Officer of Blue Goose Capital
Corp., a private organic food company. From May 2012 to May 2013 he was Chief
Financial Officer and COO of Arcestra Inc., an orgnic food company, from June
2012 to May 2013. From August 2010 to September 2011, Mr. Goldberg was the Chief
Financial Officer of ZENN Motor Company Inc., a TSX-V listed energy storage
technology company. From February 2000 to August 2010, Mr. Goldberg was the
Chief Financial Officer of Mega Uranium Ltd., a uranium exploration company
listed on the TSX and of Pinetree Capital Ltd. From May 2004 to December 2009,
Mr. Goldberg was the Chief Financial Officer of Brownstone Ventures Inc. (now
called Brownstone Energy Inc.). See also “Directors and Officers – Directors –  Lawrence A. Goldberg” above. Paul A. Carroll,is President of Carnarvon
Capital Corporation, a corporate management and investment company, and
President and CEO of World Wide Minerals Ltd., a former uranium mining and
marketing company. He is a member of the Ontario Bar and has had a 50 year legal
career, commencing in 1965 when he joined Smith Lyons, which grew to become a
major Toronto law firm. In 2001, Smith Lyons was merged into Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, which was then
Canadas largest law firm. Mr. Carroll retired from the active practice of law
in 2003. He has been a director and officer of many publicly traded and
privately held companies, in the mining, oil and gas, real estate and financial
services industries, including Dundee Corporation, World Wide Minerals Ltd.,
International Corona Corp. and Zemex Corp. See also Directors and Officers 
Directors  Paul A. Carroll above. 190   Bruce D. Hansen, holds a Masters of Business
Administration from the University of New Mexico and a Bachelor’s  of Science
Degree in Mining Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. Mr. Hansen is
currently Chief Executive Officer and a director of General Moly Inc., a
position he has held since 2007. Mr. Hansen also serves as a Director for
General Moly Inc. and ASA Gold & Precious Metals Ltd. He was Senior
Vice-President, Operations Services and Development with Newmont Mining
Corporation until November, 2006. He worked with Newmont for ten years holding
increasingly senior roles including CFO from 1999 to 2005. See also
Directors and Officers  Directors  Bruce D. Hansen above. RELIANCE ONCERTAINEXEMPTIONS During the Companys most recently completed financial year,
the Company has not relied on the exemptions contained in sections 2.4, 3.2,
3.3(2), 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 or Part 8 of NI 52-110. AUDITCOMMITTEEOVERSIGHT At no time since the commencement of the most recently
completed financial year of the Company was a recommendation of the Audit
Committee to nominate or compensate an external auditor not adopted by the
directors of the Company. PRE-APPROVALPOLICIES ANDPROCEDURES The Audit Committee has not adopted specific policies and
procedures for the engagement of non-audit services. EXTERNALAUDITORSERVICEFEES The aggregate fees billed to the Company by the Companys
external auditors in each of the last two fiscal years for (i) audit services
(Audit Fees), (ii) assurance and related services by the external auditor that
are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the
Companys financial statements and that are not included in Audit Fees
(Audit-Related Fees), (iii) professional services rendered by the Companys
external auditor for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning (Tax Fees),
and (iv) products and services provided by the Company's external auditor, other
than Audit Fees, Audit-Related Fees and Tax Fees (All Other Fees), are as
follows: Year Ended
    Audit Fees(1)
      (Cdn$)
    Audit-Related Fees(2)(Cdn$)
    Tax Fees(3)
      (Cdn$)
    All Other Fees(4)December 31, 2014
    $462,000
    Nil
    $36,694
    NilDecember 31, 2013
    $565,500
    Nil
    $303,852
  Nil
 Notes: (1)
    Aggregate fees billed for services provided in auditing
      the Companys annual financial statements.(2)
    Aggregate fees not included in audit fees that are
      billed by the auditors for the assurance and related services that are
      reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the
      Companys statements or as related to a prospectus.(3)
    Aggregate fees billed by the auditors for professional
      services rendered for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning. In 2014
      fees reflect tax planning. 2013 fees reflect organizational structure and
      tax planning.(4)
    Aggregate fees billed by the auditors for products and
      services not included in the foregoing categories. 191   Pursuant to the Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee
has the responsibility to review and approve the fees charged by the external
auditors for audit services, and to review and approve all services other than
audit services to be provided by the external auditors, and associated fees. LEGALPROCEEDINGS ANDREGULATORYACTIONS
 Except as described below, the Company is not currently a party
to, nor was it a party to during the last financial year, and none of the
Companys property is or was the subject of, any material legal proceedings, and
the Company knows of no such legal proceedings that are contemplated. The
Company is not subject to any penalties or sanctions and has not entered into
any settlement agreements with a court or securities regulatory authority.
However, from time to time, the Company may become party to routine litigation
incidental to its business. WHITEMESAMILL In November, 2012, the Company was served with a Plaintiffs
Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries resulting from
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was
contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at
the White Mesa Mill. The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit,
and therefore does not believe it will materially affect the Companys financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. In January, 2013, the Company
filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural
matters relating to this claim. In January, 2013, the Ute Mountain Ute tribe filed a Petition
to Intervene and Request for Agency Action challenging the Corrective Action
Plan approved by the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ) relating to nitrate contamination in the shallow aquifer at the
White Mesa Mill site. This challenge is currently being evaluated, and may
involve the appointment of an administrative law judge to hear the matter. The
Company does not consider this action to have any merit. If the petition is
successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify or replace the
existing Corrective Action Plan. At this time, the Company does not believe any
such modification or replacement would materially affect the Companys financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the scope and costs of
remediation under a revised or replacement Corrective Action Plan have not yet
been determined and could be significant. In April 2014, the Grand Canyon Trust filed a citizen suit in
federal district court for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at the White
Mesa Mill. In October 2014, the plaintiffs were granted leave by the court to
add further purported violations to their April 2014 suit. The Complaint, as
amended, alleges that radon from one of the Mills tailings impoundments
exceeded the standard; that the mill is in violation of a requirement that only
two tailings impoundments may be in operation at any one time; and that certain
other violations related to the manner of measuring and reporting radon results
from one of the tailings impoundments occurred in 2013. The Complaint asks the
court to impose injunctive relief, civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day per
violation, costs of litigation including attorneys fees, and other relief. The
Company believes the issues raised in the Complaint are being addressed through
the proper regulatory channels and that the Company is currently in compliance
with all applicable regulatory requirements relating to those matters. The
Company intends to defend against all issues raised in the Complaint. 192   CANYONPROJECT In March, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand
Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Havasupai Tribe (the Plaintiffs)
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (the
District Court) against the Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab National
Forest and the U.S. Forest Service (the USFS) seeking an order (a)
declaring that the USFS failed to comply with environmental, mining, public
land, and historic preservation laws in relation to the Companys Canyon mine,
(b) setting aside any approvals regarding exploration and mining operations at
the Canyon mine, and (c) directing operations to cease at the mine and enjoining
the USFS from allowing any further exploration or mining-related activities at
the Canyon mine until the USFS fully complies with all applicable laws. In April
2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was denied
by the District Court in September, 2013. In October 2013, the Plaintiffs
appealed the District Courts Order to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, and filed two Emergency Motions for an Injunction Pending Appeal. In
November 2013, the Company entered into a stipulation agreement with the
Plaintiffs, which was extended in November 2014, under which the Company has
agreed to keep shaft sinking operations on standby until the earlier of the date
the District Court issues a final appealable order on the merits of the
Plaintiffs claims, or April 15, 2015, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to stay
their appeal and Emergency Motions. In the meantime, proceedings on the merits
of the case are ongoing. Oral arguments were heard on March 18, 2015, and a
judgment is expected by the end of second quarter 2015. If the Plaintiffs are
successful on the merits, the Company may be required to maintain the mine on
standby pending resolution of the matter. Such a required prolonged stoppage of
mine development and mining activities could have a significant impact on future
operations of the Company. ROCAHONDA In January, 2014 the Acoma Pueblo filed a notice of appeal and
separately filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, in the Eleventh Judicial
District Court of McKinley County, New Mexico, challenging the permit to dewater
certain aquifers underlying the Companys proposed Roca Honda uranium mine site.
The Company does not believe the appeal and Complaint have merit and intends to
defend against those actions. If the appeal is successful, the likely outcome
would be remand of the permit back to the State Engineer for reconsideration or
possible withdrawal of the permit. The Company does not believe any such outcome
would materially affect the Companys financial position, results of operations
or cash flows. At the request of the parties, on July 10, 2014, the Court issued
an Order staying these proceedings for 90 days, which was extended by the Court
on October 10, 2014 and January 12, 2015, in each case for a further 90 days,
pending settlement negotiations of the parties. On February 27, 2015, the
parties settled this dispute, and the Acoma Pueblo has agreed to dismiss its
appeal and Complaint. INTEREST OFMANAGEMENT&
      OTHERS INMATERIALTRANSACTIONS
 Other than as disclosed above and elsewhere in this AIF, no
insider of the Company has any interest in material transactions involving the
Company. 193    TRANSFERAGENTS ANDREGISTRARS
 The registrar and transfer agent for the Common Shares of the
Company is CST Trust Company, Inc., at its offices in Toronto, Ontario. MATERIALCONTRACTS
 The following are material contracts of the Company, other than
contracts entered into in the ordinary course of business, that are material to
the Company and which were entered into within the most recently completed
financial year, or before the most recently completed financial year but are
still in effect as of the date of this Annual Information Form: 1.
    The Warrant Indenture dated as of June 21, 2012 between
      the Company and CIBC Mellon Trust Company providing for the issue of up to
      355,005 common share purchase warrants.2.
    The Convertible Debenture Indenture dated as of July 24,
      2012 between the Company and BNY Trust Company of Canada providing for the
      issue of the Debentures.3.
    The Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement)
      between the Company and Uranerz Energy Corporation dated January 4, 2015.
      Under the agreement, upon satisfaction of certain conditions, a subsidiary
      of the Company will merge with and into Uranerz, and as a result Uranerz
      will continue as the surviving operating corporation and as a wholly owned
      subsidiary of the Company. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders
      of Uranerz will receive 0.255 common shares of the Company for each share
      of Uranerz Common Shares held. The Merger Agreement contains customary
      deal support provisions, including a reciprocal break fee, customary
      non-solicitation covenants by Uranerz, and the right for the Company to
      match superior offers. The transaction is expected to close in
      mid-2015.4.
    Subscription Agreement dated December 31, 2012 between
      the Company and Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (VUI), whereby the
      Company agreed to acquire 9,439,857 common shares of VUI at a price of
      Cdn$0.42 per share, for an aggregate subscription price of
      Cdn$3,964,739.94. The subscription price was satisfied by the Company by a
      combination of Cdn$250,000 cash and the issuance of 437,028 common shares
      of the Company. As a result of the transaction the Company acquired 16.5%
      of VUI. Under the subscription agreement, for so long as the Company owns
      at least 9.9% of the outstanding shares of VUI, the Company has the right
      to participate in equity financings in order to maintain its percentage
      ownership. In addition, for so long as the Company owns at least 5% of the
      outstanding shares of VUI, increasing to 9.9% after 2 years, the Company
      has the right to nominate one director for election or appointment to the
    Board of Directors of VUI 194    INTERESTS OFEXPERTS
 NAMES OFEXPERTS Douglas C. Peters, Certified Professional Geologist, of Peters
Geosciences, Golden, Colorado prepared the Whirlwind Technical Report, the La
Sal Project Technical Report, and the Sage Plain Project Technical Report and
the Daneros Mine Technical Report. Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., Principal Engineer of BRS
Engineering prepared the Sheep Mountain Technical Report and the Juniper Ridge
Technical Report. M. Hassan Alief, Certified Professional Geologist of Alinco
GeoServices, Inc. prepared the Torbyn Technical Report, the Nose Rock Technical
Report, and the Marquez Technical Report. Thomas C. Pool, P.E. and David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo. of RPA
prepared the Arizona Strip Technical Report. Barton G. Stone CPG., Robert Michaud, P.Eng., Stuart E.
Collins, P.E. and Mark B. Mathisen CPG. of RPA and Harold R Roberts P.E., COO
Energy Fuels prepared the Roca Honda Technical Report. David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo. and Christopher Moreton, Ph.D.,
P.Geo. of RPA prepared the EZ1 and EZ2 Technical Report. William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng., Douglas H. Underhill, Ph.D,
C.P.G. and Thomas C. Pool, P.E. of RPA prepared the Henry Mountains Technical
Report. Richard L. Nielsen, Ph.D., CPG, Thomas C. Pool, P.E., Robert L.
Sandefur, P.E. and Matthew P. Reilly, P.E. of CAM prepared the Gas Hills
Technical Report. Paul Tietz, Certified Professional Geologist, and Neil Prenn,
Registered Professional Engineer of Mine Development Associates prepared the
Copper King Technical Report. Terence P. McNulty, P.E., D.Sc. prepared the Juniper Ridge
Technical Report. Allan V. Moran, C.P.G. and Frank A. Daviess, MAusIMM, prepared
the Wate Project Technical Report. 195   INTERESTS OFEXPERTS To the knowledge of management of the Company, as at the date
hereof, none of the experts, or designated professionals of the experts (as that
term is defined in NI 51-102F2), named above under Names of Experts had
any registered or beneficial interest, direct or indirect, in any securities or
other property of the Company or its associates or affiliates when the experts
prepared their respective reports and did not and will not receive any such
interests after the date of their respective technical reports. The Companys independent auditors for fiscal 2014, KPMG LLP,
have audited the consolidated financial statements of Energy Fuels Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2014 and the fifteen-month period ended
December 31, 2013. In connection with their audit, KPMG LLP has confirmed that
they are independent with respect to the Company (and its related entities)
within the meaning of the relevant rules and related interpretations prescribed
by the relevant professional bodies in Canada and any applicable legislation or
regulation and under all relevant US professional and regulatory standards. Richard White, CPG#08792, Chief Geologist and Director of Exploration and
Technical Services of the Company, who is a qualified person within the
meaning of this term in NI 43-101, has prepared sections of this AIF that are of
a scientific or technical nature pertaining to the Companys mineral projects,
and has verified the data disclosed therein. To the knowledge of the Company,
Richard White is the registered or beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of
less than one percent of the outstanding Common Shares. ADDITIONALINFORMATION
 Additional information relating to the Company may be found on
SEDAR at www.sedar.com. Additional information including directors and
officers remuneration and indebtedness, principal holders of the Companys
securities and securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation
plans is available in the Companys management information circular for the most
recent annual meeting of shareholders. Additional financial information is provided in the 2014 Annual
Financial Statements and 2014 Annual MD&A. A copy of this AIF, as well as the 2014 Annual Financial
Statements, the 2014 Annual MD&A and such other information and
documentation that the Company makes available via SEDAR, can be found at
www.sedar.com. In addition, certain of this information is
distributed to shareholders in connection with Energy Fuels Annual General
Meeting of Shareholders. The Company will provide any of the foregoing documents
subject to its rights to require people who are not security holders of the
Company to pay a reasonable charge. Copies of these documents may be obtained by
writing to: Energy Fuels Inc. 225 Union Blvd.,
Suite 600 Lakewood CO USA 80228 196    EXHIBIT1CORPORATEORGANIZATIONCHART AS OFMARCH18, 2015
  E-1    APPENDIXA
 CHARTER OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE The responsibilities and composition requirements of audit
committees are as set out in the Canadian Securities Administrators National
Instrument 52-110-Audit Committees ("NI 52-110"), the rules of the NYSE MKT
Company Guide (the Company Guide), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), and
the rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). Audit Committee Mandate The Audit Committee (the "Committee") is a committee
established and appointed by and among the Board of Directors of the Company
(the Board) to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities
of the Company. In so doing, the Committee provides an avenue of communication
among the external auditor, management, and the Board. The Committee's purpose
is to ensure the integrity of financial reporting and the audit process, and
that sound risk management and internal control systems are developed and
maintained. In pursuing these objectives the Audit Committee oversees relations
with the external auditor, reviews the effectiveness of the internal audit
function, and oversees the accounting and financial reporting processes of the
Company and audits of financial statements of the Company. Responsibilities The Committee's primary duties and responsibilities are as
follows: 1.
    The appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of
      the external auditor engaged for the purpose of preparing or issuing an
      auditor's report or performing other audit, review or attest services for
      the Company, including approval, prior to the auditors audit, of the
      auditors work plan and scope of the auditors review and all related
      fees. The external auditor shall report directly to the
  Committee.2.
    Assume direct responsibility for overseeing the work of
      the external auditor engaged to prepare or issue an audit report or
      perform other audit, review or attest services for the Company, including
      the resolution of disagreements between management and the external
      auditor regarding financial reporting.3.
    Pre-approve all non-audit services to be provided to the
      Company or its subsidiaries by the Companys external auditor.4.
    Review the Company's annual and interim financial
      statements, Managements Discussion, and Analysis (MD&A) and annual
      and interim earnings press releases, and any other set of financial
      statements which will be released to shareholders, other security holders
      or regulatory agencies and/or which will form part, either directly or by
      reference, of any prospectus, offering circular, information circular,
      annual information form (AIF), annual reports filed with the SEC or any
      legal filing, before such documents are publicly disclosed by the
      Company. A-1    5.
    The Committee must satisfy itself that adequate
      procedures are in place for the review of the Company's public disclosure
      of financial information extracted or derived from the Company's financial
      statements, other than the public disclosure referred to in 4 above, and
      must periodically assess the adequacy of those procedures.6.
    Establish procedures (the Whistleblower Policy)
    for:(i)
    the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints
      received by the Company regarding accounting, internal accounting
      controls, or auditing matters; and(ii)
    the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of
      the Company of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing
      matters.  7.
    Review and approve the Company's hiring policies
      regarding partners, employees and former partners and employees of the
      present and former external auditor of the Company.8.
    Ensuring the receipt from the external auditor of a
      formal written statement delineating all relationships between the auditor
      and the Company, consistent with Independence Standards Board Standard 1,
      and actively engaging in a dialogue with the auditor with respect to any
      disclosed relationships or services that may impact the objectivity and
      independence of the auditor and for taking, or recommending that the full
      Board take, appropriate action to oversee the independence of the external
      auditor.9.
    Prior to the completion of the annual audit, and at any
      other time deemed advisable by the Committee, review and discuss with
      management and the external auditor the quality of the Companys
      accounting policies and financial statement presentation, including
      (without limitation), the following:(a)
    all critical accounting policies and practices to be
      used, including (without limitation) the reasons why certain estimates or
      policies are or are not considered critical and how current and
      anticipated future events may impact those determinations as well as an
      assessment of any proposed modifications by the external auditor that were
      not made;(b)
    all alternative accounting treatments for policies and
      practices that have been discussed by management and the external auditor;
      and(c)
    other material written communications between the
      external auditor and management, including (without limitation) any
      management letter, schedule of unadjusted differences, the management
      representation letter, report on internal controls, as well as the
      engagement letter and the independence letter.  10.
    Review annually the accounting principles and practices
      followed by the Company and any changes in the same as they occur, and
      review new accounting principles of the Chartered Professional Accountants
      of Canada and the International Accounting Standards Board which have a
      significant impact on the Companys financial reporting as reported to the
      Committee by management.11.
    Review the status of material contingent liabilities,
      potentially significant tax issues, and any errors or omissions in the
      current or prior years financial statements which appear material, as
      reported to the Committee by management. A-2    12.
    Oversee managements design, testing, and implementation
      of the Companys internal controls and management information systems and
      review the adequacy and effectiveness thereof.13.
    Oversee and enforce the Code of Ethics for the Chief
      Executive Officer, senior financial officers and other officers of the
      Company, subject to supervision by the Board.14.
    Inquire of management and the external auditor as to any
      activities that may or may not appear to be illegal or unethical and
      review with management and the external auditor any frauds reported to the
      Committee.15.
    Report and make recommendations to the Board as the
      Committee considers appropriate. Authority of the Committee The Committee shall have the authority to engage independent
counsel and other advisors as it determines necessary to carry out its duties
and to set and pay the compensation for any advisors engaged by it. The
Committee shall also have the authority to communicate directly with the
external auditor. Composition The Committee members shall meet the requirements of the
Ontario Securities Commission (the OSC), the Toronto Stock Exchange (the
TSX), the SEC and the NYSE MKT. The Audit Committee shall consist of at least
three (3) Directors. All members of the Audit Committee shall be independent
in accordance with the NI 52-110, the rules of the Company Guide and Rule 10A-3
of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Chair
of the Audit Committee shall be financially literate as set forth in NI 52-110
and at least one member of the Committee must qualify as an Audit Committee
Financial Expert as defined from time to time by the SEC. A quorum shall consist
of not less than two (2) members of the Audit Committee. The Board shall designate the Chair of the Committee annually.
Any member of the Committee may be removed or replaced at any time by the Board.
Any member of the Committee ceasing to be a director or ceasing to qualify as a
member under any applicable law, rule or regulation shall cease to be a member
of the Committee. Subject to the foregoing, each Member of the Committee shall
hold office as such until the next annual appointment of members to the
Committee after his or her election. Any vacancy occurring in the Committee
shall be filled at the next meeting of the Board. Remuneration No member of the Committee may earn fees from the Company or
any of its subsidiaries other than directors' fees or committee member fees
(which fees may include cash, options or other in-kind consideration ordinarily
available to directors). For greater certainty, no member of the Committee shall
accept any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from the Company. Meetings & Operating Procedures 
    The Committee shall meet at least four times annually for
      regular meetings, or more frequently as circumstances dictate for special
      meetings. The times of and places where meetings of the Committee shall be
      held and the calling of and procedures at such meetings shall be
      determined from time to time by the Committee. Special meetings shall be
      convened whenever requested by the external auditor, the Chair, or any two members of the
      Audit Committee in accordance with the Ontario Business Corporations
      Act. A-3    
    Regular meetings shall be called by the Chair of the
      Committee so as to allow the Committee to review the annual and interim
      consolidated financial statements of the Company prior to approval of the
      statements by the Board and prior to the release of the annual financial
      statements, the MD&A or the interim reports to shareholders, as
      applicable.
    Notice of every such meeting shall be given in writing
      not less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the date fixed for the
      meeting, and shall be given to the external auditor of the Company, so
      that the auditor shall be titled to attend and be heard thereat.
    The Committee may invite such officers, directors and
      employees of the Company as it may see fit from time to time to attend at
      meetings of the Committee and assist thereat in the discussion and
      consideration of any matter. The Committee shall meet privately with the
      external auditor without management present, at each regular meeting.
    A quorum shall be a majority of the members.
    In the absence of the Chair of the Committee, the members
      shall appoint an acting Chair.
    The Committee shall maintain minutes or other records of
      its meetings and activities. A copy of the minutes of each meeting of the
      Committee shall be made available, upon request, to each member of the
      Committee and to each Director of the Company.
    The Chair of the Committee shall prepare and/or approve
      an agenda in advance of each meeting.
    The Committee, in consultation with management and the
      external auditors, shall develop and participate in a process for review
      of important financial topics that have the potential to impact the
      Company's financial policies and disclosures.
    The Committee shall communicate its expectations to
      management and the external auditor with respect to the nature, timing and
      extent of its information needs. The Committee expects that written
      materials will be received from management and the external auditor in
      advance of meeting dates.
    The Committee should meet privately in executive session
      at least quarterly with management, the external auditor and as a
      committee to discuss any matters that the Committee or each of these
      groups believe should be discussed.
    In addition, the Committee or at least its Chair should
      communicate with management and the external auditor quarterly to review
      the Company's financial statements and significant findings based upon the
      auditor's limited review procedures.
    The Committee shall annually review, discuss and assess
      its own performance. In addition, the Committee shall periodically review
      its role and responsibilities.
    The Committee expects that the external auditor, in
      discharging its responsibilities to the shareholders, shall be accountable
      to the Board through the Committee. The external auditor shall report all
      material issues or potentially material issues to the Committee. A-4   Review Procedures 
    The Committee shall review and reassess the adequacy of
      this Charter at least annually, submit any proposed changes to the Board
      for approval and ensure that it is in compliance with TSX, OSC, SEC and
      NYSE MKT regulations. A-5    APPENDIXB
 Glossary of Terms Note: The terms related to mineral resources and mineral
reserves presented herein are as defined in CIM DEFINITION STANDARDS on Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on
Reserve Definitions, adapted by CIM Council, December 11, 2005. Any terms not defined in this Glossary of Terms are defined in
the body of this AIF. Any capitalized terms contained in the below definitions
are defined elsewhere in this Glossary of Terms. 2009 NoticeThe Notice of Proposed Withdrawal issued
by the BLM on July 9, 2009 regarding the withdrawal of one million acres of
public lands around the Grand Canyon National Park from location and entry under
the Minong Law of 1972. 2012 PFSThis term refers to the technical report
dated April 13, 2012 titled Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County,
Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101
Technical Report, prepared by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., Principal Engineer
of BRS Engineering in accordance with NI 43-101 (See also Sheep Mountain
Technical Report). 2014 Annual MD&AManagements Discussion and
Analysis of Energy Fuels Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014. AECThis term refers to the Atomic Energy
Commission, the U.S. federal agency that fostered and controlled the peace time
development of atomic science and technology from 1945 to 1974. Most of the
functions of the AEC were later assigned to the NRC. AIFThis 2014 Annual Information Form of Energy
Fuels Inc. dated March 18, 2015 and relating to the year ended December 31,
2014. AldershotAldershot Resources Ltd., a British
Columbia corporation Arizona 1 MineThis term refers to the Companys
Arizona 1 mine, a uranium mine located in northern Arizona, USA, as more
particularly described in the Arizona 1, Canyon and Pinenut Technical Report. Arizona 1, Canyon and Pinenut Technical ReportThis
term refers to the technical report dated June 27, 2012 titled Technical Report
on the Arizona Strip Uranium Project, Arizona, U.S.A., prepared by Thomas C.
Pool, P.E and David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo. of RPA in accordance with NI 43-101. B-1   Arizona Strip or Arizona Strip DistrictA uranium
district located in northern Arizona largely bounded on the north by the
Arizona/Utah state line; on the east by the Colorado River and Marble Canyon; on
the west by the Grand Wash Cliffs; and on the south by a midpoint between the
city of Flagstaff and the Grand Canyon. The area encompasses approximately
13,000 square miles. ASPArizona Strip Partners LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and former
joint venture between subsidiaries of the Company and Aldershot. ASRArizona Strip Resources JV LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, which is a joint venture between ASP and High Plaints Uranium
Inc. AtlasAtlas Minerals Corp. BLMThe U.S. Bureau of Land Management Board of DirectorsThis term refers to the board of
directors of the Company Canyon ProjectThis term refers to the Companys
Canyon Project, a development-stage uranium mine located in northern Arizona,
USA, as more particularly described in the Arizona 1, Canyon and Pinenut
Technical Report. CAMChlumsky, Armbrust & Meyer LLC, an
independent geological and engineering consulting firm CAPCDThis term refers to the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division of CDPHE CAPEXThis term refers to capital expenditures. CDPHEThe Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment CDRMSThe Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining
and Safety Colorado Plateau or Colorado Plateau DistrictA
mining district encompassing approximately 20,000 square miles, straddling the
border of southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado B-2   Common SharesCommon shares in the capital of the
Company as constituted on the date of this AIF, after giving effect to the Share
Consolidation CompanyEnergy Fuels Inc., an Ontario corporation
(see also Energy Fuels). ConocoContinental Oil Company ContinentalContinental Uranium Corporation Copper King ProjectThis term refers to the
Companys Copper King Project, a gold/copper project, located in southeast
Wyoming, USA, as more particularly described in the Copper King Technical
Report. Copper King Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated August 24, 2012 titled, Technical Report on the Copper
King Project prepared by Paul Tietz, C.P.G. and Neil Prenn, P. Eng. of Mine
Development Associates (MDA) prepared in accordance with NI 43-101. CPPColorado Plateau Partners LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and
former joint venture between subsidiaries of the Company and Aldershot. Daneros MineThis term refers to the Companys
Daneros Mine, a recently producing mine located in southeast Utah as more
particularly described in the Daneros Mine Technical Report. Daneros Mine Technical ReportThis term refers to
the technical report dated July 18, 2012 titled The Daneros Mine Project, San
Juan County, Utah, U.S.A., prepared by Douglas C. Peters, Certified
Professional Geologist, of Peters Geosciences, Golden, Colorado in accordance
with NI 43-101. DebenturesThis term refers to the 22,000
floating-rate convertible unsecured subordinated debentures onissued pursuant to
and governed by the Convertible Debenture Indenture dated as of July 24, 2012
between the Company and BNY Trust Company of Canada. DenisonDenison Mines Corp., an Ontario corporation DMHCDenison Mines Holdings Corp., a Delaware
corporation, which was acquired from Denison in 2012. DMHC is now named Energy
Fuels Holdings Corp. and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. DMODesignated Mining Operation B-3   DOEThe U.S. Department of Energy DOIThe U.S. Department of the Interior DRCThe Utah Division of Radiation Control. DundeeDundee Resources Limited, a subsidiary of
Dundee Corporation. DynatecDynatec Mining Corporation EAEnvironmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA EF HoldingsEnergy Fuels Holdings Corp. (formerly
Denison Mines Holdings Corp.), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. EFNEnergy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. EFRCEnergy Fuels Resources Corporation, a formerly
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that was sold by the Company in November
2014. EF WyomingEnergy Fuels Wyoming Inc., a Nevada
corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. EF Wyoming was
acquired as a part of the Titan acquisition and was formerly known as Titan
Uranium USA Inc. EHS PolicyThe Environment, Health and Safety Policy
of the Company EISEnvironmental Impact Statement in accordance
with NEPA EMCEnergy Metals Corporation Energy FuelsEnergy Fuels Inc., an Ontario
corporation (see also Company) Energy Queen Technical ReportThis term refers to
the technical report dated March 15, 2011 titled Updated Technical Report on
Energy Fuels Resources Corporations Energy Queen Project, San Juan County,
Utah, prepared by Douglas C. Peters, Certified Professional
Geologist, of Peters Geosciences, Golden, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101. B-4   EPAThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPPEnvironmental Protection Plan eU3O8This term refers
to equivalent U3O8grade derived by gamma logging of drill
holes. ExxonExxon Minerals Company EZ1 and EZ2 Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated June 27, 2012 titled Technical Report on the EZ1 and EZ2
Breccia Pipes, Arizona Strip District, U.S.A., prepared by David A. Ross,
P.Geo., and Christopher Moreton, Ph.D, P.Geo of RPA in accordance with NI 43-101. Farmer Girl Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical Report dated December 16, 2008 titled Amended Technical Report on
Energy Fuels Resources Corporations Farmer Girl Property, Montrose County,
Colorado, prepared by M. Hassan Alief, Certified Professional Geologist, Alinco
GeoServices, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101. FeVFerrovanadium FONSIFinding of No Significant Impact in accordance
with NEPA. FUSRAPMeans Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program, a U.S. Government program aimed at cleaning up former defense program
sites. FY-2011The financial year of the Corporation ended
September 30, 2011 FY-2012The financial year of the Corporation ended
September 30, 2012 FY-2013The 15-month financial period of the
Corporation ended December 31, 2013 FY-2014The financial year of the Corporation ended
December 31, 2014 Gas Hills ProjectThis term refers to the Companys
Gas Hills Project, a uranium project, located in central Wyoming, USA, as more
particularly described in the Gas Hills Technical Report. B-5   Gas Hills Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated March 22, 2013 titled National Instrument 43-101
Technical Report Update of Gas Hills Uranium Project Fremont and Natrona
Counties, Wyoming, USA, prepared by Richard L. Nielsen, PhD., CPG, Thomas C.
Pool, P.E., Robert L. Sandefur, P.E., and Matthew P. Reilly, P.E., prepared in
accordance with NI 43-101. GWCLGroundwater Compliance Limit GWDPGroundwater Discharge Permit HeclaHecla Mining Corporation Henry Mountains Technical ReportThis term refers to
the technical report dated June 27, 2012 titled Technical Report on the Henry
Mountains Complex Uranium Property, Utah, U.S.A., prepared by William E.
Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng., Douglas H. Underhill, Ph.D., C.P.G. and Thomas C. Pool,
P.E. of RPA in accordance with NI 43-101. Henry Mountains ComplexThis term refers to the
Companys Henry Mountains complex of mineral properties, a development-stage
uranium mine located in southeastern Utah, USA, as more particularly described
in the Henry Mountains Technical Report. HEUHighly Enriched Uranium Historical EstimateA historical estimate means an
estimate of the quantity, grade or metal or mineral content of a deposit that an
issuer has not verified as a current mineral resource or mineral reserve, and
which was prepare before the issuer acquiring, or entering into an agreement to
acquire an interest in the property that contains the deposit. IFRSInternational Financial Reporting Standards as
issued by the International Accounting Standards Board Indicated Mineral ResourceAn Indicated Mineral
Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or
quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a
level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical
and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic
viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable
exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from
locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are
spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably
assumed. Inferred Mineral ResourceAn Inferred Mineral
Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or
quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited
sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade
continuity. The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as
outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes B-6   IRRInternal Rate of Return ISRIn-Situ Recovery IUCInternational Uranium Corporation Juniper Ridge ProjectThis term refers to the
Companys La Sal Project, a uranium project including standby mines, located in
southeastern Utah, USA, as more particularly described in the La Sal Technical
Report. Juniper Ridge Technical ReportThis term refers to
the technical report dated January 27, 2014 titled Juniper Ridge Uranium
Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, U.S.A., prepared by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E,
P.G. and Terence P. McNulty, P.E., D.Sc., in accordance with NI 43-101. KEPCOKorea Electric Power Corporation La Sal ProjectThis term refers to the Companys La
Sal Project, a uranium project including standby mines, located in southeastern
Utah, USA, as more particularly described in the La Sal Technical Report. La Sal Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated March 26, 2014 titled Technical Report on La Sal
District Project (Including the Pandora, Beaver, and Energy Queen Projects), San
Juan County, Utah, U.S.A., prepared by Douglas C. Peters, CPG., in accordance
with NI 43-101. Lynx-RoyalLynx-Royal JV LLC, a subsidiary of
Aldershot and former joint venture partner of the Company in ASP and CPP. Magnum USAMagnum Minerals USA Corp., a Nevada
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. MCBOCCMontrose County Board of County Commissioners Measured Mineral ResourceA Measured Mineral
Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or
quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established
that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate
application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning
and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based
on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered
through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough to confirm both
geological and grade continuity. B-7   MegaMega Uranium Ltd., an Ontario corporation MergerThe proposed acquisition of Uranerz by the
Company, pursuant to the Merger Agreement. Merger AgreementThe Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated January 4, 2015 among the Company, Uranerz and Merger Sub, which provides
for a business combination whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into Uranerz,
and as a result Uranerz will continue as the surviving operating corporation and
as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company Merger SubEFR Nevada Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company Mill or White Mesa MillThis term refers to the
Companys White Mesa mill, located near the town of Blanding, Utah in
southeastern Utah, the only operating uranium processing facility in the United
States. Mill LicenseThe Radioactive Materials License
issued by the State of Utah for the White Mesa Mill. Mineral ReserveA Mineral Reserve is the
economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource
demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must
include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and
other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic
extraction can be justified. A Mineral Reserve includes diluting materials and
allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined. Mineral ResourceA Mineral Resource is a
concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or
natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals,
coal, and industrial materials in or on the Earths crust in such form and
quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for
economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics
and continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from
specific geological evidence and knowledge. Mining LawThe Mining Law of 1872 MUCMagnum Uranium Corp., a British Columbia
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. NEPAThe National Environmental Policy Act NESHAPSNational Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants B-8   NI 43-101National Instrument 43-101  Standards
of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, promulgated by the Canadian Securities
Administrators. NI 52-110 InstrumentNational Instrument 52-110 
Audit Committees, promulgated by the Canadian Securities Administration NPVNet Present Value NRCThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYSE MKTThe stock exchange operated by the NYSE MKT
LLC on which the Common Shares are listed under the trading symbol UUUU OBSSOre Bearing Sandstone Offtake AgreementThe Companys contract with
KEPCOs subsidiary to deliver 350,000 pounds (±10%) per year from 2010 to 2015
inclusive. Other Technical ReportsCollectively, the Willhunt
Technical Report, the Farmer Girl Technical Report, and the Torbyn Technical
Report PathfinderPathfinder Mines Corporation Phelps DodgePhelps Dodge Corporation Pinenut MineThis term refers to the Companys
Pinenut mine, a producing uranium mine located in northern Arizona, USA, as more
particularly described in the Arizona 1, Canyon and Pinenut Technical Report. Piñon Ridge MillThe Companys formerly owned Piñon
Ridge uranium and vanadium processing facility, a 500 ton per day mill proposed
for western Montrose County, Colorado, USA, which was sold by the Company in
November 2014. Pioneer UravanPioneer Uravan Inc. PlateauPlateau Resources Inc. B-9   POPlan of Operations Pre-Feasibility StudyA Pre-Feasibility Study is a
comprehensive study of the viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a
stage where the mining method, in the case of underground mining, or the pit
configuration, in the case of an open pit, has been established and an effective
method of mineral processing has been determined, and includes a financial
analysis based on reasonable assumptions of technical, engineering, legal,
operating, economic, social, and environmental factors and the evaluation of
other relevant factors which are sufficient for a Qualified Person, acting
reasonably, to determine if all or part of the Mineral Resource may be
classified as a Mineral Reserve. Probable Mineral ReserveA Probable Mineral Reserve
is the economically mineable part of an Indicated, and in some circumstances, a
Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility
Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing,
metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the
time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. Proven Mineral ReserveA Proven Mineral Reserve is
the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at
least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate
information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant
factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is
justified. QA/QCQuality Assurance and Quality Control Qualified PersonA Qualified Person means an
individual who is an engineer or geoscientist with at least five years of
experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral
project assessment, or any combination of these; has experience relevant to the
subject matter of the mineral project and the technical report and is a member
or licensee in good standing of a professional association of geoscientists
and/or engineers meeting the criteria set out in NI 43-101. RedpathJ.D. Redpath Corporation Rights PlanThe Shareholder Rights Plan of the
Company approved by the Board of Directors on February 3, 2009 and adopted by
the shareholders of the Company on March 19, 2009. RFIRequest for Information from CDPHE in the Piñon
Ridge Mill permitting process RILORReclamation in Lieu of Royalty performed on
DOE lease tracts. RODRecord of Decision prepared in accordance with
NEPA. B-10   Roca Honda ProjectThis term refers to the Companys
Roca Honda Project, a uranium project, located in northwestern New Mexico, USA,
as more particularly described in the Roca Honda Technical Report. RHRRoca Honda Resources LLC, a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, in which a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company holds a 60% membership interest which was
acquired on August 30, 2013. Roca Honda Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated February 27, 2015 titled "Technical Report on the Roca Honda
Project, McKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A.", prepared by Barton G. Stone,
C.P.G., Robert Michaud, P.Eng., Stuart E. Collins, P.E., and Mark B. Mathisen,
C.P.G., all of Roscoe Postle Associates. RPARoscoe Postle Associates Inc., an independent
geological and engineering consulting firm. Sage Plain ProjectThis term refers to the Companys
Sage Plain project, including the historic Calliham mine, located in
southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado, USA, as more particularly described
in the Sage Plain Technical Report. Sage Plain Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated March 18, 2015 titled Updated Technical Report on
Sage Plain Project (Including the Calliham Mine), San Juan County, Utah USA
prepared by Douglas C. Peters, Certified Professional Geologist, of Peters
Geosciences, Golden, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101. San Rafael Project or San Rafael Uranium ProjectThis term refers to the Companys San Rafael uranium project, located in
eastern Utah, USA, as more particularly described in the San Rafael Technical
Report. San Rafael Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated March 21, 2011 titled NI 43-101 Technical Report on the
San Rafael Uranium Project (Including the: Deep Gold Uranium Deposit and the
Down Yonder Uranium Deposit) Emery County, Utah, prepared by O. Jay Gatten,
Utah Professional Geologist in accordance with NI 43-101. SaratogaSaratoga Gold Company Ltd., a former
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company incorporated under the laws of British
Columbia, which was acquired by the Company on August 30, 2013, and wound up in
February 2015. SEDARThe System for Electronic Data Analysis and
Retrieval Sheep Mountain ProjectThis term refers to the
Companys Sheep Mountain project, a uranium development project located in
central Wyoming, USA, as more particularly described in the Sheep Mountain
Technical Report. B-11   Sheep Mountain Technical ReportThis term refers to
the technical report dated April 13, 2012 titled Sheep Mountain Uranium
Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study,
National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, prepared by Douglas L. Beahm,
P.E., P.G., Principal Engineer of BRS Engineering in accordance with NI 43-101
(see also 2012 PFS). SITLA Lease or Utah SITLA LeaseMineral lease on
lands administered by the State of Utah School and Institutional Lands Trust
Administration Skidmore LeaseA 20-year mining lease previously
held by the Company in the Sage Plain Project. StrathmoreStrathmore Minerals Corp., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, incorporated under the laws of British Columbia which
was acquired by the Company on August 30, 2013. Subscription ReceiptsThe subscription receipts
issued by the Company in a June 21, 2012 private placement, which subscription
receipts were exchanged for Common Shares and warrants of the Company. Sunday ComplexA complex of mines previously owned
by the Company on the Colorado Plateau in southwest Colorado including the
Sunday, West Sunday, St. Jude, Carnation and Topaz mines. Technical ReportsCollectively, the Arizona 1,
Canyon and Pinenut Technical Report, the Daneros Mine Technical Report, the
Henry Mountains Technical Report, the La Sal Project Technical Report, the
Whirlwind Technical Report, the Sheep Mountain Technical Report, the Sage Plain
Technical Report, EZ1 and EZ2 Technical Report, the San Rafael Technical Report,
and the Other Technical Reports. TitanTitan Uranium Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, incorporated under the laws of Canada which was acquired by the
Company on February 29, 2012. Torbyn Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated January 7, 2009 titled Amended Technical Report on
Energy Fuels Resources Corporations Torbyn Property, Mesa County, Colorado,
prepared by M. Hassan Alief, Certified Professional Geologist, Alinco
GeoServices, Inc. Lakewood, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101. TownsThe Towns of Telluride and Ophir, Colorado,
USA and San Miguel County, Colorado, USA. TSXThe Toronto Stock Exchange U3O8Triuranium
octoxide, the form of uranium typically produced at the White Mesa Mill, often
called yellowcake. B-12   UDEQUtah Department of Environmental Quality UDOGMUtah Department of Oil, Gas and Minerals UECUtah Energy Corp., a Delaware corporation, and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (now called EFR White Canyon Corp.) UmetcoUmetco Minerals Corporation, a subsidiary of
Union Carbide Corporation Union CarbideUnion Carbide Corporation UPCUranium Power Corp., a British Columbia
corporation, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. UranerzUranerz Energy Corporation Uravan Mineral BeltA zone of uranium and vanadium
deposits located in eastern Utah and western Colorado. The Uravan Mineral Belt
is the most historically significant uranium producing district in U.S. history. US Mining DivisionAll of the assets of Denison
located in the United States. All of these assets were acquired by the Company
on June 29, 2012. USFSU.S. Forest Service UWQDUtah Water Quality Division of UDEQ UxCThe Ux Consulting Company V2O5Vanadium pentoxide,
the form of vanadium typically produced at the White Mesa Mill, also called
blackflake. Wate ProjectThis term refers to the Companys Wate
Project, a breccia pipe deposit in the permitting stage, located in northern
Arizona, USA, as more particularly described in the Wate Technical Report. Wate Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated March 10, 2015 titled NI 43-101 Technical Report on
Resources Wate Uranium Breccia Pipe  Northern Arizona, USA, prepared by Allan
Moran, C.P.G., AIPG and Frank A. Daviess, MAusIM, RM SME, both of SRK
Consulting (US), Inc., in accordance with NI 43-101. B-13   WEO 2012The World Energy Outlook 2012 prepared by
the International Energy Agency. WCULWhite Canyon Uranium Ltd., an Australian
corporation, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. WDEQWyoming Department of Environmental Quality Western NuclearWestern Nuclear Inc. Whirlwind MineThis term refers to the Companys
Whirlwind mine, an standby uranium mine located in west-central Colorado and
east-central Utah, USA, as more particularly described in the Whirlwind
Technical Report. Whirlwind Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated March 15, 2011 titled Updated Technical Report on Energy
Fuels Resources Corporations Whirlwind Property (Including Whirlwind, Far West,
and Crosswind Claim Groups and Utah State Metalliferous Minerals Lease
ML-49312), Mesa County, Colorado and Grand County, Utah, prepared by Douglas C.
Peters, Certified Professional Geologist, of Peters Geosciences, Golden,
Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101. White Canyon DistrictAn historic uranium district
located in southeastern Utah west of the town of Blanding. White Mesa Mill or MillThis term refers to the
Companys White Mesa mill, located near the town of Blanding, Utah in
southeastern Utah, the only operating uranium processing facility in the United
States. Willhunt Technical ReportThis term refers to the
technical report dated November 30, 2008 titled Amended Technical Report on
Energy Fuels Resources Corporations Willhunt Property, San Miguel County,
Colorado, prepared by Douglas C. Peters, Certified Professional Geologist,
Peters Geosciences, Golden, Colorado in accordance with NI 43-101. Withdrawn LandsOne million acres of lands withdrawn
from location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872 near the Grand Canyon
National Park. WNAThe World Nuclear Association Wyoming GoldWyoming Gold Mining Company, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company incorporated under the laws of the State
of Wyoming, which was acquired by the Company on August 30, 2013. B-14