# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001385849
**File Stem:** 0001062993-23-005315
**Filing Date:** 2023-3
**Character Count:** 1338402
**Document Hash:** b0229ec3958434301083a2a9fff247fe
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001062993-23-005315.hdr.sgml**: 20230301

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001062993-23-005315

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 8-K

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 209

**CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT**: 20230301

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Regulation FD Disclosure

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Financial Statements and Exhibits

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20230301

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20230301

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** ENERGY FUELS INC
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001385849
- **STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:** MINING, QUARRYING OF NONMETALLIC MINERALS (NO FUELS) [1400]
- **IRS NUMBER:** 000000000
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** A6
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 1231

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 8-K
- **SEC ACT:** 1934 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 001-36204
- **FILM NUMBER:** 23694609

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 225 UNION BLVD., SUITE 600
- **CITY:** LAKEWOOD
- **STATE:** CO
- **ZIP:** 80228
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** 303-974-2140

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 225 UNION BLVD., SUITE 600
- **CITY:** LAKEWOOD
- **STATE:** CO
- **ZIP:** 80228

?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"? Energy Fuels Inc.: Form 8-K - Filed by newsfilecorp.com

------

**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

Washington, D.C. 20549

**___________________________**

**FORM 8-K**

**CURRENT REPORT**

**Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  **<u>March 1, 2023</u>**

**<u>ENERGY FUELS INC.</u>**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  **<u>Ontario</u>** |  **<u>001-36204</u>** |  **<u>98-1067994</u>** |
| (State or other jurisdiction | (Commission | (IRS Employer |
| of incorporation) | File Number) | Identification No.) |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; **225 Union Blvd., Suite 600 <u>Lakewood, Colorado, United States 80228</u>** (Address of principal executive offices) (ZIP Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: **<u>(303) 974-2140</u>**

**<u>Not Applicable</u>**

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ☐ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ☐ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

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

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Title of each class** | **Trading Symbols** | **Name of each exchange on which registered** |
| Common shares, no par value | UUUU | NYSE American LLC |
|  | EFR | Toronto Stock Exchange |

---

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§ 230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§ 240.12b -2 of this chapter).

Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

------

**Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure**

Energy Fuels Inc. is releasing revised versions of the initial assessment entitled "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA," and the preliminary feasibility study entitled "Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA," (the "Revised Reports"), the previously filed versions of which were released in March 2022 (the "Prior Reports"). The Revised Reports, which are attached hereto as Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2, respectively, were prepared for the purpose of providing further information regarding the calculation of cut-off grades, and to correct certain typographical errors. The Revised Reports do not change any of the mineral resource or mineral reserve estimates contained in the Prior Reports.

Energy Fuels Inc. is also releasing a pre-feasibility study entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA," attached hereto as Exhibit 99.3.

The information furnished pursuant to this Item 7.01, including Exhibits 99.1, 99.2 and 99.3, shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.

**Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.**

(d) Exhibits.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| [99.1](exhibit99-1.htm) | [Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA](exhibit99-1.htm) |
| [99.2](exhibit99-2.htm) | [Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA](exhibit99-2.htm) |
| [99.3](exhibit99-3.htm) | [Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA](exhibit99-3.htm) |
| 104 | Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document) |

---

------

**SIGNATURES**

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
|  | **ENERGY FUELS INC.** |
|  | (Registrant) |
| Dated: March 1, 2023 | By: <u>*/s/* David C. Frydenlund</u><br>David C. Frydenlund<br>Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary |

---

------

## Exhibit 99.1

------

![](exhibit99-1xu001.jpg)<br>

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA**

**SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001**

Prepared by

SLR International Corporation

1658 Cole Blvd, Suite 100

Lakewood, CO 80401

for

Energy Fuels Inc.

225 Union Blvd., Suite 600

Lakewood, CO 80228

USA

Effective Date - December 31, 2021

Signature Date - February 22, 2022<br>Amended – February 8, 2023

Qualified Persons

Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng.

Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G.

Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP

Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP

Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G.

**FINAL**

Distribution: 1 copy - Energy Fuels Inc.

1 copy - SLR International Corporation

![](exhibit99-1xz054.jpg)

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**CONTENTS**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **1.0 SUMMARY** | **1-1** |
| 1.1 Executive Summary | 1-1 |
| 1.2 Economic Analysis | 1-6 |
| 1.3 Technical Summary | 1-11 |
| **2.0 INTRODUCTION** | **2-1** |
| 2.1 Sources of Information | 2-2 |
| 2.2 List of Abbreviations | 2-4 |
| **3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS** | **3-1** |
| 3.1 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant | 3-1 |
| **4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION** | **4-1** |
| 4.1 Location | 4-1 |
| 4.2 Land Tenure | 4-6 |
| 4.3 Required Permits and Status | 4-22 |
| 4.4 Encumbrances | 4-22 |
| 4.5 Royalties | 4-23 |
| 4.6 Other Significant Factors and Risks | 4-24 |
| **5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY** | **5-1** |
| 5.1 Accessibility | 5-1 |
| 5.2 Vegetation | 5-1 |
| 5.3 Climate | 5-2 |
| 5.4 Local Resources | 5-2 |
| 5.5 Infrastructure | 5-2 |
| 5.6 Physiography | 5-3 |
| **6.0 HISTORY** | **6-1** |
| 6.1 Prior Ownership | 6-1 |
| 6.2 Exploration and Development History | 6-2 |
| 6.3 Historical Resource Estimates | 6-4 |
| 6.4 Past Production | 6-5 |
| **7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION** | **7-1** |
| 7.1 Regional Geology | 7-1 |
| 7.2 Local Geology | 7-4 |
| 7.3 Property Geology | 7-5 |
| 7.4 Mineralization | 7-16 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | i |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES** | **8-1** |
| **9.0 EXPLORATION** | **9-1** |
| **10.0 DRILLING** | **10-1** |
| 10.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit | 10-4 |
| 10.2 Satellite Properties | 10-4 |
| 10.3 Procedures | 10-5 |
| **11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY** | **11-1** |
| 11.1 Sample Preparation and Analysis | 11-1 |
| 11.2 Sample Security | 11-7 |
| 11.3 In Situ Leach Amenability | 11-7 |
| 11.4 Bulk Density | 11-8 |
| 11.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control | 11-9 |
| 11.6 Conclusions | 11-9 |
| **12.0 DATA VERIFICATION** | **12-1** |
| 12.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit | 12-1 |
| 12.2 Satellite Properties | 12-3 |
| 12.3 Limitations | 12-5 |
| **13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING** | **13-1** |
| 13.1 Metallurgical Testing | 13-1 |
| 13.2 Opinion of Adequacy | 13-2 |
| **14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES** | **14-1** |
| 14.1 Summary | 14-1 |
| 14.2 Resource Database | 14-3 |
| 14.3 Geological Interpretation | 14-4 |
| 14.4 Drill Data Statistics | 14-4 |
| 14.5 Treatment of High-Grade Assays | 14-13 |
| 14.6 Compositing | 14-13 |
| 14.7 Search Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters | 14-13 |
| 14.8 Bulk Density | 14-14 |
| 14.9 Radiometric Equilibrium Factor | 14-15 |
| 14.10 Cut-Off Grade and GT Parameters | 14-16 |
| 14.11 Mineral Resource Classification | 14-17 |
| 14.12 GT Model Validation | 14-19 |
| 14.13 Mineral Resource Reporting | 14-21 |
| **15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES** | **15-1** |
| **16.0 MINING METHODS** | **16-1** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | ii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| 16.1 Introduction | 16-1 |
| 16.2 Mining Method | 16-2 |
| 16.3 Mining Operations | 16-2 |
| 16.4 Hydrogeology Data | 16-4 |
| 16.5 Geotechnical Data | 16-8 |
| 16.6 Life of Mine Plan | 16-8 |
| 16.7 Mine Equipment | 16-9 |
| 16.8 Mine Workforce | 16-9 |
| **17.0 RECOVERY METHODS** | **17-1** |
| 17.1 Introduction | 17-1 |
| 17.2 Chemical Reactions | 17-1 |
| 17.3 Flow and Material Balance | 17-2 |
| 17.4 Sources of Plant Liquid Effluents and Disposal Methods | 17-4 |
| 17.5 Plant Workforce | 17-4 |
| 17.6 White Mesa Mill Drying/Packaging Operation | 17-4 |
| **18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE** | **18-1** |
| 18.1 Introduction | 18-1 |
| 18.2 Access Roads | 18-1 |
| 18.3 Power | 18-1 |
| 18.4 Water Supply | 18-1 |
| 18.5 Tailings | 18-1 |
| 18.6 Mine Support Facilities | 18-1 |
| **19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS** | **19-1** |
| 19.1 Markets | 19-1 |
| 19.2 Contracts | 19-3 |
| **20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT** | **20-1** |
| 20.1 Summary | 20-1 |
| 20.2 Environmental Studies | 20-1 |
| 20.3 Project Permitting | 20-2 |
| 20.4 Environmental Requirements | 20-4 |
| 20.5 Social and Community | 20-5 |
| **21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS** | **21-1** |
| 21.1 Capital Costs | 21-1 |
| 21.2 Operating Costs | 21-4 |
| **22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS** | **22-1** |
| 22.1 Base Case (Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources) | 22-1 |
| 22.2 Alternate Case (Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources Only) | 22-8 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | iii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES** | **23-1** |
| **24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION** | **24-1** |
| **25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS** | **25-1** |
| 25.1 Geology and Mineral Resources | 25-1 |
| 25.2 Mining Methods | 25-2 |
| 25.3 Mineral Processing | 25-2 |
| 25.4 Infrastructure | 25-2 |
| 25.5 Environment | 25-3 |
| **26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS** | **26-1** |
| 26.1 Geology and Mineral Resources | 26-1 |
| 26.2 Mining Methods | 26-3 |
| 26.3 Mineral Processing | 26-3 |
| **27.0 REFERENCES** | **27-1** |
| **28.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE** | **28-1** |
| **29.0 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON** | **29-1** |
| 29.1 Grant A. Malensek | 29-1 |
| 29.2 Mark B. Mathisen | 29-2 |
| 29.3 Jeremy Scott Collyard | 29-3 |
| 29.4 Jeffery L. Woods | 29-4 |
| 29.5 Phillip E. Brown | 29-6 |
| **30.0 APPENDIX 1** | **30-1** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | iv |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**TABLES**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 1-1:PA2 Wellfield Development | 1-5 |
| Table 1-2:Base Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary | 1-9 |
| Table 1-3: Alternate Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary | 1-10 |
| Table 1-4:Attributable Mineral Resource Estimate for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex - Effective December 31, 2021 | 1-15 |
| Table 1-5:Base Case Capital Cost Estimate | 1-18 |
| Table 1-6:Base Case Operating Cost Estimate | 1-19 |
| Table 2-1:Summary of QP Responsibilities | 2-2 |
| Table 4-1:Nichols Ranch Lode Mining Claims | 4-6 |
| Table 4-2:Jane Dough Lode Mining Claims | 4-8 |
| Table 4-3:Hank Lode Mining Claims | 4-12 |
| Table 4-4:North Rolling Pin Lode Mining Claims | 4-14 |
| Table 4-5:West North Butte Lode Mining Claims | 4-16 |
| Table 4-6:East North Butte Lode Mining Claims | 4-20 |
| Table 4-7:Willow Creek Lode Mining Claims | 4-21 |
| Table 4-8:Current Reclamation Bond Summary | 4-22 |
| Table 6-1:Historic Mineral Resource Estimates | 6-5 |
| Table 10-1:Historical Drillhole Summary | 10-1 |
| Table 11-1:Radiometric Equilibrium Data | 11-7 |
| Table 12-1:EFR Drilling Database | 12-2 |
| Table 13-1:Past Production 2014 to 2021 | 13-1 |
| Table 14-1:Mineral Resource Estimate for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex - Effective Date December 31, 2021 | 14-2 |
| Table 14-2:Summary of Available Drillhole Data | 14-3 |
| Table 14-3:GT Summaries | 14-5 |
| Table 14-4:Drillhole Results | 14-5 |
| Table 14-5:Bulk Density Measurements | 14-14 |
| Table 14-6:Nichols Ranch Project Cut-off Grade | 14-16 |
| Table 14-7:Average Intercept Thickness Nichols Ranch A-Sand Zone | 14-16 |
| Table 14-8:Mineral Resource Estimate for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex - Effective Date December 31, 2021 | 14-22 |
| Table 16-1:Nichols Ranch Area Life of Mine Plan (Attributable to EFR) | 16-9 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | v |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 20-1:Environmental Permits for Operation | 20-3 |
| Table 20-2:Reclamation Bonds | 20-5 |
| Table 21-1:Base Case Capital Cost Estimate Summary | 21-1 |
| Table 21-2:SLR Capital Cost Scale Adjustment Summary | 21-2 |
| Table 21-3:SLR Capital Cost Escalation Factors | 21-3 |
| Table 21-4:SLR 2021 Escalated Base Case Capital Cost Summary | 21-3 |
| Table 21-5:Operating Cost Estimate | 21-4 |
| Table 21-6:2015 Site Operating Cost Scale Adjustment | 21-5 |
| Table 21-7:2021 SLR Operating Cost Escalation Factors | 21-5 |
| Table 21-8:SLR 2021 Escalated Base Case Operating Cost Summary | 21-5 |
| Table 21-9:Workforce Summary | 21-6 |
| Table 22-1: Base Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary | 22-4 |
| Table 22-2:Base Case All-In Sustaining Costs Composition | 22-5 |
| Table 22-3:Base Case After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis | 22-7 |
| Table 22-4: Alternate Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary | 22-10 |
| Table 22-5:Alternate Case All-in Sustaining Costs Composition | 22-11 |
| Table 26-1:PA2 Wellfield Development | 26-1 |

---

**FIGURES** <br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 4-1:Location Map | 4-3 |
| Figure 4-2:Land Tenure Map | 4-4 |
| Figure 4-3:White Mesa Mill Location and Property Map | 4-5 |
| Figure 7-1:Cross Section of Local Geology | 7-1 |
| Figure 7-2:Regional Geologic Map | 7-3 |
| Figure 7-3:Schematic Fluvial Point Bar System | 7-5 |
| Figure 7-4:Regional Stratigraphic Column | 7-7 |
| Figure 7-5:Nichols Ranch Radiometric Log Cross Section Log | 7-8 |
| Figure 7-6:North Rolling Pin Radiometric Log Cross Section A-A' Log | 7-10 |
| Figure 7-7:North Rolling Pin Radiometric Log Cross Section B-B' Log | 7-11 |
| Figure 7-8:West North Butte Radiometric Log Cross Section Log A-A' | 7-13 |
| Figure 7-9:East North Butte Radiometric Log Cross Section Log B-B' | 7-14 |
| Figure 7-10:Willow Creek Radiometric Log Cross Section Log C-C' | 7-15 |
| Figure 7-11:Cross Section Stacked Roll Fronts | 7-17 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | vi |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 8-1:Typical Roll Front Cross Section | 8-2 |
| Figure 8-2:Typical Roll Front (REDOX) Boundary | 8-2 |
| Figure 10-1:Historical Drillhole Location Map | 10-2 |
| Figure 10-2:EFR Drillhole Location Map | 10-3 |
| Figure 11-1:Uranium Roll Front Natural Gamma Log Configuration and Associated Geochemistry | 11-3 |
| Figure 11-2:PFN versus Natural Gamma Trace Response | 11-4 |
| Figure 13-1:Nichols Ranch Production (2014 to 2021) | 13-2 |
| Figure 14-1:Nichols Ranch - PA1 HH-1 through HH-9 A Sand 30 -100 GT Map | 14-6 |
| Figure 14-2:Nichols Ranch - PA2 HH-10 through HH-13 A Sand 30 -100 GT Map | 14-7 |
| Figure 14-3:Jane Dough Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map | 14-8 |
| Figure 14-4:Hank Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map | 14-9 |
| Figure 14-5:North Rolling Pin Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map - North Half | 14-11 |
| Figure 14-6:North Rolling Pin Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map - South Half | 14-12 |
| Figure 14-7:Nichols Ranch PA1 and PA2 Drilling | 14-20 |
| Figure 16-1:Schematic of the ISR Process | 16-1 |
| Figure 16-2:Relevant Geologic/Hydrogeologic Units in the Vicinity of the Project Area | 16-7 |
| Figure 17-1:Nichols Ranch Plant Flow Sheet | 17-3 |
| Figure 18-1:Aerial View of Infrastructure Around the Nichols Ranch Processing Plant | 18-2 |
| Figure 18-2:Site Layout | 18-3 |
| Figure 19-1:Long Term Uranium Price Forecast | 19-2 |
| Figure 22-1:Base Case Annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Production by Area | 22-3 |
| Figure 22-2:Base Case Project After-Tax Metrics Summary | 22-3 |
| Figure 22-3:Base Case Annual AISC Curve Profile | 22-6 |
| Figure 22-4:Base Case After-tax NPV 5% Sensitivity Analysis | 22-8 |
| Figure 22-5:Alternate Case Annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Production by Area | 22-9 |
| Figure 22-6:Alternate Case After-tax NPV 5% Sensitivity Analysis | 22-12 |

---

**APPENDIX TABLES AND FIGURES**

Table 30-1:Base Case Annual Cash Flow Model 30-2 <br> Table 30-2:Alternate Case Annual Cash Flow Model 30-4

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | vii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.0** **SUMMARY**

**1.1** **Executive Summary**

This Independent Technical Report (Technical Report) was prepared by Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng., Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP, Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP and Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G. of SLR International Corporation (SLR), for Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels), the parent company of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFR), with respect to the Nichols Ranch Project (Nichols Ranch or the Project), located in eastern Wyoming, USA. EFR owns 100% of the Project, with the exception of the Jane Dough area, over which EFR holds an 81% interest.

EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels, is incorporated in Ontario, Canada. EFR is a US-based uranium and vanadium exploration and mine development company with projects located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico. Energy Fuels is listed on the NYSE American Stock Exchange (symbol: UUUU) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: EFR).

This Technical Report satisfies the requirements of Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601(b)(96) Technical Report Summary. The purpose of this Technical Report is to disclose the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Project. The term PEA is used throughout this Technical Report and is consistent with an Initial Assessment (IA) under S-K 1300. Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng., Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP, Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP and Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G. are all Qualified Persons (QPs) within the meaning of both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 (SLR QPs).

This Technical Report has been amended to add the parameters related to cut-off grade calculations and to correct typographical errors. The effective date of the Mineral Resource, December 31, 2021, remains unchanged. The SLR QPs have not reviewed any additional information on the Project

Resource estimates completed over Nichols Ranch in 2015 (Beahm and Goranson, 2015) and North Rolling Pin in 2010 (Graves, 2010) have been superseded by the Mineral Resource estimates of this Technical Report which includes additional new information and analysis.

The Project includes the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex (the Complex) near the city of Caspar, Wyoming, and the White Mesa Mill (the Mill) near the city of Blanding, Utah. The Complex is currently on care and maintenance and the Mill is on a reduced operating schedule while processing materials as they become available. When in full operation, the Project is expected to produce uranium concentrate known internationally as yellowcake. A site visit was carried out to the Complex on October 28, 2021, and the Mill on November 11, 2021.

The Mill was developed in the late 1970s by Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (EFNI) as a processing option for the many small mines that are located in the Colorado Plateau region. After approximately two and a half years, the Mill ceased ore processing operations altogether due to low uranium prices. Since 1984, majority ownership interest has alternated between EFNI, Union Carbide Corporation, and Denison Mines Corporation (Denison, previously International Uranium Corporation). EFR acquired the Complex in 2015. EFR has controlled 100% of the Mill's assets and liabilities since August 2012.

The Complex includes the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit, which is comprised of the Nichols Ranch wellfield (Nichols Ranch Wellfield), Nichols Ranch plant (Nichols Ranch Plant), Jane Dough area, and Hank area, and several satellite properties. The production scenario reviewed for this Technical Report assumes that the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit will be developed as an in situ recovery (ISR) mining operation with an onsite processing plant and based on the current resource, an expected 11 year mine life. The Project will produce an average of 366 thousand pounds (klb) of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>per year on-site, which will then be trucked to the Mill for final drying and upgrading before delivery to end-users.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.1.1 Conclusions**

The SLR QPs offer the following conclusions by area.

**1.1.1.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

* The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2021. Estimated uranium grades are based on radiometric probe grades using Grade-Thickness (GT) contour methodology.

* Mineral Resources for the Complex are reported at a GT cut-off grade of 0.20 %-ft and have been depleted as of December 31, 2021.

* The total production from Nichols Ranch is 1,276,589 lb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> as of December 31, 2021.

* Total Measured + Indicated Resources for the Complex are 3.29 million tons (Mst) at an average grade of 0.106% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 6.99 million pounds (Mlb) eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Additional Inferred Resources total 650,000 tons at an average grade of 0.097% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 1.25 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

* There is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometrically determined uranium at the Complex. Furthermore, there is no evidence that radiometric disequilibrium would be expected to negatively affect the uranium resource estimates of the deposits. Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN) geophysical logging provides direct analysis of the in situ chemical uranium content and is considered by the SLR QP as reliable for the purposes of assessing radiometric equilibrium

* The SLR QP is of the opinion the historical radiometric logging, analysis, and security procedures at the Complex were adequate for use in the estimation of the Mineral Resources. The SLR QP also opines that, based on the information available, the original gamma log data and subsequent conversion to % eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values are reliable. 

* The sampling, sample preparation, and sample analysis programs are appropriate and to industry standards for the style of mineralization.

* Although continuity of mineralization is variable, drilling to date confirms that local continuity exists within individual sandstone units.

* No significant discrepancies were identified with the drilling and radiometric logging data and GT interpretations in Nichols Ranch Mining Unit.

* Nichols Ranch had near-continuous production for over five years beginning in 2014. There has been adequate drilling to develop the Mineral Resource models that have been used in the GT contour models and for successful mine planning. The Mineral Resource models at Nichols Ranch performed well during production, and the SLR QP is of the opinion that the database verification procedures for the remaining properties included in the Mineral Resource estimate (Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, Hank, and North Rolling Pin) comply with industry best practices and standards and are deemed suitable for use in mineralized material estimation.

* Significant discrepancies were identified with the coordinated location and GT contour interpretations for West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

* EFR has not completed a thorough verification of drilling data reported on the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek deposits. The SLR QP opines that although the resource estimate completed in 2008 adhered to industry best practices and standards at the time, the inability for EFR or the SLR QP to validate the model excludes it from the current resource estimate discussed in Section 14.0 of this Technical Report. The resource estimate should be regarded as historic and not relied upon until EFR completes validation of the historic drilling.

* Descriptions of recent drilling programs, logging, and sampling procedures have been well documented by EFR, with no significant discrepancies identified.

* The QA/QC procedures undertaken support the integrity of the database used for Mineral Resource estimation.

* The resource database is valid and suitable for Mineral Resource estimation under S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 standards.

* In the SLR QP's opinion, the assumptions, parameters, and methodology used for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and North Rolling Pin Mineral Resource estimate are appropriate for the style of mineralization and mining methods.

* The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the current resource estimate.

**1.1.1.2** **Mining Methods**

* The Complex is currently on care and maintenance status.

**1.1.1.3** **Mineral Processing**

* The Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed and designed to have four major solution circuits: 1) the recovery circuit, 2) the elution circuit, 3) the precipitation and filtration circuit, 4) the drying and packaging circuit. The Nichols Ranch Unit processing plant is currently constructed and operated with the first three solution circuit installed.

* Due to the absence of the on-site drying and packaging circuit, the Project proposes to truck the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> produced on-site 643 road miles to the Mill near Blanding, Utah, for drying and drumming for final delivery to end users. 

* The Mill has been in operation since 1981 and is equipped with the required equipment using a proven process for the production of uranium oxide (U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) product, called "yellowcake". In addition, although it is not part of the production schedule in this Technical Report, the Mill also has the capacity to produce vanadium pentoxide (V<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>).

* The Mill is currently on a reduced operating schedule processing materials as they become available. The Mill is currently processing Rare Earth Element (REE) materials in part of the circuit, functioning essentially as a pilot plant, therefore the facility is sufficiently staffed to initiate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> production relatively quickly.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.1.1.4** **Infrastructure**

* The Complex and the Mill are in historically important, uranium-producing regions of eastern Wyoming and southeastern Utah, respectively. All the regional infrastructure necessary to mine and process commercial quantities of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> is in place.

* EFR has operated the Mill tailings cells since 1981, under the requirements of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Radioactive Materials License.

**1.1.1.5** **Environment**

* Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and the Hank Unit are fully licensed and permitted for ISR mining by major licenses and permits issued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD), and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD). The Hank Unit is also permitted for operation by a Decision Record issued by the Bureau of Land management (BLM). 

* EFR has strong relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies and has a positive record of environmental performance at Nichols Ranch.

* The SLR QP is not aware of environmental, permitting, or social/community factors which would materially affect the Mineral Resource estimates.

**1.1.2 Recommendations**

The SLR QPs offer the following recommendations by area:

**1.1.2.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

The SLR QP offers the following recommendations regarding the data supporting the drillhole database at the Project:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Transition from a Microsoft Excel database to acQuire or a similar database.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Verify all drilling data collar coordinates as Wyoming NAD27 UTM zone 13 coordinates. EFR should also consider moving to an updated coordinate system, such as WGS 84, for use in online graphic programs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Create 3D geologic models of the Wasatch Formation and individual Sand Units for use in verifying and auditing uranium mineralization.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Use a handheld X-ray diffraction (XRF) tool to replace the scintillometer reading in order to obtain more precise mineralogical information.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Resume using PFN as a QA/QC tool to confirm disequilibrium within the Satellite Properties not yet exposed to ISR mining.

In addition, the SLR QP provides the following deposit specific recommendations:

**1.1.2.1.1** **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

*1.1.2.1.1.1 Nichols Ranch*

The SLR QP makes the following recommendations regarding advancing the Project with Production Planning and Development for Production Area 2 (PA2):

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Conduct drilling of 55 delineation to better define the mineralized trends in PA2 to meet a minimum 100 ft grid spacing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Based on the results of the 55 delineation holes, drill and install 120 development wells, associated header houses and manifold to main production pipeline for the remaining four wellfields.

Additional plant upgrades are not required to put PA2 into production. The proposed budget for bringing PA2 into production is shown in Table 1-1.

**Table 1-1:** **PA2 Wellfield Development**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Drilling (Delineation - 55 holes) | &nbsp;&nbsp; $110000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Drill and Install Wellfield (120 wells) | &nbsp;&nbsp; $1800000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Header House and Manifold Construction | &nbsp;&nbsp; $390000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total | &nbsp;&nbsp; $2300000 |

---

*1.1.2.1.1.2 Jane Dough*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Complete exploration and delineation drilling at Jane Dough, in concurrence with ongoing delineation and production well drilling at Nichols Ranch, starting in the areas most proximate to Nichols Ranch and proceeding southward.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Complete an Engineering study to define the most efficient infrastructure for production.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Install monitor wells and conduct pump tests for state and federal permit/license requirements in a phased approach as drilling will define multiple production areas (PAs).

*1.1.2.1.1.3 Hank*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Complete additional drilling at Hank to access, define, and upgrade classification of the Mineral Resource.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. After drilling, complete the economic evaluation of the Hank area project.

**1.1.2.1.2** **Satellite Properties**

*1.1.2.1.2.1 North Rolling Pin*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Install additional monitor wells for future EFR hydrologic studies. Determine groundwater levels and conduct pump tests to evaluate groundwater quality and impact on possible ISR mining.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Complete additional delineation drilling to meet a minimum 100 ft grid spacing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Conduct additional radiological disequilibrium studies using PFN, Delayed Fission Neutron (DFN) logging, and/or core assays to develop a site-specific model. Also, conduct a bench scale leach tests to determine amenability to ISR.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Complete environmental baseline studies for preparation of state and federal permit/license applications.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*5.* After drilling, complete an economic evaluation of the North Rolling Pin project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Update the current drilling database with all possible historical holes.

*1.1.2.1.2.2 West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Update, verify, and certify the drilling database and ensure that all drilling, both historical and recent, is included.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Prepare an updated resource estimation upon completion of updating and verifying the database to make 2008 resource estimations current.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Install additional monitor wells for future EFR hydrologic studies. Determine groundwater levels and conduct pump tests to evaluate groundwater quality and impact on possible ISR mining.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Complete additional drilling to access the mineral resource.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Conduct additional radiological disequilibrium studies using PFN, DFN logging, and/or core assays to develop a site-specific model. Also, conduct bench scale leach tests to determine amenability to ISR.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Complete environmental baseline studies for preparation of state and federal permit/license applications.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*7.* After drilling, complete an economic evaluation of the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek project.

**1.1.2.2** **Mining Methods**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Consistent with the state and federal regulations requirements, environmental monitoring and analysis programs should be implemented to continually collect water level and water quality data when the mine site becomes fully operational.

**1.1.2.3** **Mineral Processing**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Continue the intermittent Plant operations with maintenance program.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Evaluate the Nichols Ranch Plant's historical operating data to determine possible flow sheet improvements or modifications to improve production rate/economics and make these changes before commencing production.

**1.2** **Economic Analysis**

An economic analysis was performed using the assumptions presented in this Technical Report. The SLR QP notes that, unlike Mineral Reserves, Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. This PEA is preliminary in nature, and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too geologically speculative to have modifying factors applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that this economic assessment will be realized.

The Nichols Ranch base case cash flow is based on Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources (the latter being 17% of the total). An alternative case with only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources is also presented in this Technical Report.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.2.1 Base Case (Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources)**

**1.2.1.1** **Economic Criteria**

An after-tax cash flow projection for the base case has been generated from the life of mine (LOM) schedule and capital and operating cost estimates in this Technical Report for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit (Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas), and is summarized in the Section 1.2.1.2. A summary of the key criteria is provided below.

**1.2.1.1.1** **Revenue**

* Mineral Resource used for LOM planning: 3.3 Mst at 0.114% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> with 7.54 Mlb contained U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (6.66 Mlb contained U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> attributable to EFR)

* Project areas mined (with % ownership): Nichols Ranch (100%), Jane Dough (81%), and Hank (100%) for net attributable basis of 88.3%

* An estimated 85% of the Mineral Resource will be under pattern with 71% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> recovery, equating to an effective resource recovery of 60.4%, or 4.02 Mlb recovered U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> attributable to EFR

* A total of 17% of the LOM tonnage is Inferred Mineral Resource

* Average LOM flow rate: 3,016 gallons per minute (gpm)

* Average LOM pregnant leach solution (PLS) concentration: 33 milligrams U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per liter (mg/L)

* Sold U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>: 4.02 Mlb attributable to EFR

* Avg annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> sales: 393 klb/y

* Metal price: US$65.00/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>

* Concentrate shipping cost from the Mill to customer: $760/ton U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> or $0.38/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

**1.2.1.1.2** **Capital and Operating Costs**

* One year of preproduction for wellfield development before production in Year 1. All other infrastructure necessary to resume operations at the Complex is already constructed.

* Mine life of 11 years

* LOM sustaining capital costs of $81.4 million in Q1 2021 US dollar basis

* LOM site operating cost (including preproduction wellfield and G&A costs but excluding product transport to market cost, royalties, Ad Valorem tax, and Wyoming severance tax) of $76.1 million, or $19.28/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>produced, on Q1 2021 US dollar basis

* LOM Restoration/decommissioning costs of $20.7 million in Q1 2021 US dollar basis.

**1.2.1.1.3** **Royalties and Severance Taxes**

* Royalties for the Project are applicable to approximately 30% of the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough Mineral Resources in the production schedule. Royalties are estimated using a rate of 8% of gross revenue generated over these areas.

* The Ad Valorem (or Gross Products) tax varies by county and is exclusively a volume based assessment.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

* The current Wyoming state severance tax for the privilege of extracting uranium is 4% of Gross Product value above $60.00/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. However, after the allowable wellhead deduction the effective severance tax rate can range from 0% to 5% of gross revenue, depending on the price paid. For the Project, it is estimated at approximately 2.45% of gross revenue over LOM.

**1.2.1.1.4** **Income Taxes**

The economic analysis includes the following assumptions for corporate income taxes (CIT):

* Unit of Production depreciation method was used with total allowance of $81.4 million taken during LOM

* Percentage depletion method was used with total allowance of $31.0 million taken during LOM

* Loss Carry Forwards - Income tax losses may be carried forward indefinitely but may not be used for prior tax years

* Federal tax rate of 21%

* Wyoming has no corporate income tax

**1.2.1.2** **Cash Flow Analysis**

Table 1-2 presents a summary of the Nichols Ranch base case economics at an U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $65.00/lb and production schedule with 17% Inferred Mineral Resources and 83% combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. The SLR QP notes that, unlike Mineral Reserves, Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. The economic analysis for the base case contained in this Technical Report is based, in part, on Inferred Resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred Resources are considered too geologically speculative to have modifying factors applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that this economic assessment will be realized. The SLR QP notes that with the future exploration drilling planned at the Complex, it would be reasonable to expect a significant amount of Inferred Mineral Resources to become converted into the Indicated category through a subsequent resource model.

On an after-tax basis for the base case, the undiscounted cash flow totals $41.1 million over the mine life. The after-tax Net Present Value (NPV) at 5% discount rate is $31.5 million. The SLR QP notes that after-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is not applicable as the Nichols Ranch Plant at the Complex is already constructed and already operated for a number of years. Capital identified in the economics is for sustaining operations and plant rebuilds as necessary.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**Table 1-2:** **Base Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 65.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mlb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Gross Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **262** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (12) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (39) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (26) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Selling Expense | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (2) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Production Taxes/Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (22) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(101)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Margin** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **161** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Operating Margin | &nbsp;&nbsp; % | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (17) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cash Flow** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **143** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Sustaining Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (81) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (21) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(102)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **46.1** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **31.5** |

---

The average annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> sales for the base case during the 11 years of operation (and one year of preproduction expense) is 393 klb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per year at an average All-in Sustaining Cost (AISC) of $50.43/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (or $45.30/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> excluding Restoration/ Decommissioning costs).

**1.2.1.3** **Sensitivity Analysis**

The Project is most sensitive to uranium price and recovery, and only less sensitive to operating cost and capital cost at an American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) International Class 4 level of accuracy (15% to -30% to +20% to +50%). The sensitivities to pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and metal price are nearly identical. The SLR QP notes that head grade variations in ISR mining are difficult to measure at this PEA stage and thus were not included in this sensitivity analysis.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.2.2 Alternate Case (Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources Only)**

The SLR QP also undertook an analysis of an alternative case, considering only combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources (83% of the base case production schedule). The SLR QP notes that while the alternate case does not contain Inferred Mineral Resources, Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that economic forecasts on which this PEA is based will be realized.

Using the same cost parameters and ISR mining and processing assumptions as the base case, the alternate case production schedule generates 3.3 Mlb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> over a nine year mine life.

Table 1-3 presents a summary of the Nichols Ranch alternate case economics at an U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $65.00/lb. On an after-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $27.4 million over the mine life. The after-tax NPV at 5% discount rate is $23.7 million.

**Table 1-3:** **Alternate Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mlb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Gross Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **219** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (10) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (33) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (21) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Production Taxes/Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (19) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(85)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Margin** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **133** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Operating Margin | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (16) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cash Flow** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **117** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Sustaining Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; (73) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; (17) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(90)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 43.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **37.4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23.7 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

The average annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> sales for the alternate case during the nine years of operation are 418 klb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per year at an average AISC of $52.00/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (or $47.05/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> excluding Restoration/Decommissioning costs)

The after-tax cash flow sensitivities for the alternate case are similar in magnitude to the base case with the Project being most sensitive to uranium price and recovery, and only slightly less sensitive to operating cost and capital cost at an AACE International Class 4 level of accuracy.

**1.3** **Technical Summary**

**1.3.1 Property Description and Location**

The Complex is located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, in eastern Wyoming, USA in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District of the Powder River Basin, 80 miles northeast of the city of Casper, Wyoming. The Complex is located approximately at latitude 43°42' North and longitude 106°01' West. The Mill is located in San Juan County, in southeastern Utah, USA, immediately south of the town of Blanding, Utah. The Mill is located at latitude 37°32'10.49" North and longitude 109°30'12" West. The proposed Project will produce approximately 366 klb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> annually.

**1.3.2 Land Tenure**

Excluding the Jane Dough area in which EFR owns 81%, EFR owns 100% interest in the remaining areas which comprise the Complex land holdings totaling 10,755 acres and the Mill land holdings totalling 5,389 acres.

The Complex is divided into two primary areas, the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and the Satellite Properties.

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit includes the following:

* **Nichols Ranch Area** (approximately 740 acres)

* **Jane Dough Area** (approximately 3,680 acres)

* **Hank Area** (approximately 2,250 acres)

Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough are contiguous, and the Hank area is located approximately six miles north of Nichols Ranch.

EFR currently controls four additional properties (the Satellite Properties) which are known to have significant mineralization, but not currently included in the mine permit. These include:

* **North Rolling Pin (NRP) Area** (approximately 1,180 acres)

* **West North Butte (WNB) Area** (approximately 2,360 acres)

* **East North Butte (ENB) Area** (approximately 325 acres)

* **Willow Creek (WC) Area** (approximately 220 acres)

**1.3.3 History**

The Complex is an advanced stage project which is licensed to operate by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). Construction of the processing facility began in 2011. Plant construction and initial wellfield installation was competed in 2014 and operations were initiated in April 2014. Production of 1,265,805 pounds of uranium oxide has been reported from initiation of production through December 31, 2019, via ISR mining.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.3.4 Geology and Mineralization**

**1.3.4.1** **Geologic Setting**

The Complex is located in the Powder River Basin, which is a large structural and topographic depression sub-parallel to the trend of the Rocky Mountains. The Basin is bounded on the south by the Hartville Uplift and the Laramie Range, on the east by the Black Hills, and on the west by the Big Horn Mountains and the Casper Arch. The Miles City Arch in southeastern Montana forms the northern boundary of the Basin.

The Powder River Basin is an asymmetrical syncline with its axis closely paralleling the western basin margin. During sedimentary deposition, the structural axis (the line of greatest material accumulation) shifted westward resulting in the Basin's asymmetrical shape.

Uranium mineralization at the Complex deposits is hosted by the Eocene Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch Formation was deposited in a multi-channel fluvial and flood plain environment. The climate at the time of deposition was wet tropical to subtropical with medium stream and river sediment load depositing most medium grained materials. The source of the sediments, as evidenced by abundant feldspar grains in the sandstones, was the nearby Laramie and Granite Mountains.

Within the Complex, there is a repetitive transgressive/regressive sequence of sandstones separated by fine-grained horizons composed of siltstone, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, and poorly developed thin coal seams. The fine-grained materials were deposited in flood plain, shallow lake (lacustrine), and swamp environments. Ultimately, deposition of the Wasatch Formation was a function of stream bed load entering the basin and subsidence from within the basin. However, in the central part of the Powder River Basin, long periods of balanced stability occurred. During these periods the stream gradients were relatively low and allowed for development of broad (0.5 mi to 6.0 mi wide) meander belt systems, associated over-bank deposits, and finer grained materials in flood plains, swamps, and shallow bodies of water.

Meander belts in the Wasatch Formation are generally 5 ft to 30 ft thick. The A Sand at Nichols Ranch area is made up of three to four stacked meander belts and the F Sand at Hank area has two to three stacked meander belts. Individual meander belt layers will rarely terminate at the same location twice. Meanders have been noted to frequently terminate in the interior of a belt system but are more likely to terminate somewhere closer to the edge of the meander stream valley. The net effect for fluvial sands is to generally thin away from the main axis of the meander belt system. The A Sand meander belt system at Nichols Ranch area is approximately four miles wide. At Hank, the F Sand meander belt system is smaller than Nichols Ranch at approximately one and a half miles wide.

At the North Rolling Pin area, the mineralized sand horizon (F Sand) occurs within the Wasatch Formation at an approximate depth from surface ranging from 51 ft to 403 ft and averaging 282 ft to the top of the mineralization. Generally, the depth of mineralization decreases from the northeast to the southwest due mainly to topography along which the surface elevation decreases from approximately 5,180 ft to approximately 4,800 ft. The F Sand primarily consists of two stacked sand sets, termed the Upper and Lower F Sands that each average 20 ft to 25 ft thick

The mineralized sand horizons occur within the lower part of the Wasatch Formation, at an approximate depth from surface ranging from 482 ft to 1,012 ft at West North Butte, 540 ft to 660 ft at East North Butte, and 172 ft to 567 ft at Willow Creek. The host sands are primarily arkosic in composition, friable, and contain trace carbonaceous material and organic debris. There are local sandy mudstone/siltstone intervals with the sandstones, and the sands may thicken or pinch-out in some locations. Mineral resources are located in the Eocene age Wasatch Formation in what is identified as the A, B, C and F host sand units of the WNB area, the A and B host sands of the ENB area and in the A and F host sand units of the WC area.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.3.4.2** **Mineralization**

The uranium mineralization is composed of amorphous uranium oxide, sooty pitchblende, and coffinite, and is deposited in void spaces between detrital sand grains and within minor authigenic clays. The host sandstone is composed of quartz, feldspar, accessory biotite and muscovite mica, and locally occurring carbon fragments. Grain size ranges from very fine to very coarse sand but is medium-grained overall. The sandstones are weakly to moderately cemented and friable. Pyrite and calcite are associated with the sands in the reduced facies. Hematite or limonite stain from pyrite are common oxidation products in the oxidized facies. Montmorillonite and kaolinite clays from oxidized feldspars are also present in the oxidized facies (Uranerz, 2010a). The uranium being extracted is hosted in a sandstone, roll front deposit at a depth ranging from 400 ft to 800 ft.

**1.3.4.3** **Deposit**

Wyoming uranium deposits are typically sandstone roll front uranium deposits as defined in the "World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification", (IAEA, 2009). The key components in the formation of roll front type mineralization include:

* A permeable host formation:

* Sandstone units of the Wasatch Formation.

* A source of soluble uranium:

* Volcanic ash flows coincidental with Wasatch deposition containing elevated concentration of uranium is the probable source of uranium deposits for the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District.

* Oxidizing groundwaters to leach and transport the uranium:

* Groundwaters regionally tend to be oxidizing and slightly alkaline.

* Adequate reductant within the host formation:

* Conditions resulting from periodic hydrogen sulfide (H<sub>2</sub>S gas) migrating along faults and subsequent iron sulfide (pyrite) precipitation created local reducing conditions.

* Time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface.

* Uranium precipitates from solution at the oxidation/reduction boundary (REDOX) as uraninite (UO<sub>2</sub>, Uranium oxide), which is dominant, or coffinite (USiO<sub>4</sub>, uranium silicate).

* The geohydrologic regime of the region has been stable over millions of years with groundwater movement controlled primarily by high-permeability channels within the predominantly sandstone formations of the Tertiary.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.3.5 Exploration Status**

On October 15, 1951, J. D. Love discovered uranium mineralization in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District in the Wasatch Formation on the south side of North Pumpkin Butte in the west central portion of the Powder River Basin. The mineralization was one of eight areas recommended in April 1950 for investigation in the search for uranium bearing lignites and volcanic tuffs. In response to this recommendation, an airborne radiometric reconnaissance of most of these areas was undertaken by the USGS in October 1950. The uranium mineralization discovered by J. D. Love was in the vicinity of an aerial radiometric anomaly identified from this survey (Love, 1952).

Early mining focused on shallow oxidized areas using small open pit mines. Primary exploration methods included geologic mapping and ground radiometric surveys. Modern exploration and mining in the district have focused on deeper reduced mineralization.

Rotary drilling on the Complex is the principal method of exploration and delineation of uranium mineralization. Drilling can generally be conducted year-round on the Project.

As of the effective date of this Technical Report, EFR and its predecessor companies have completed a total of 3,942 drillholes across the Complex over the course of several drilling programs that began in 1960. Of the 3,942 drillholes recorded, EFR drilling database contains 3,504 drillholes totaling 2,363,890 ft drilled of which 449 totaling 281,126 ft have been completed by EFR since acquiring the Project in 2015. The drill record includes both Rotary and Diamond Drill (DD) drilling, monitor wells, and injection and production wells. No drilling has occurred across the properties since December 5, 2016.

**1.3.6 Mineral Resources**

Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300, which are consistent with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI43-101.

The SLR QP has reviewed and accepted the Mineral Resource estimate prepared by EFR for the Complex. Resource estimates were completed with the following effective dates using the GT contour method and audited by the SLR QP for accuracy and completeness:

* Nichols Ranch Mining Unit:

* Nichols Ranch by EFR in 2021

* Jane Dough and Hank by Uranerz in 2015

* Satellite Properties:

* North Rolling Pin by TREC in 2010

The effective date of this Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2021. The U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Mineral Resource for the Complex is reported at a GT cut-off grade of 0.20 %-ft and have been depleted as of December 31, 2021. The total production from Nichols Ranch is now 1,276,589 pounds eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.as of December 31, 2021.

Total Measured + Indicated Resources for the Complex are 3.294 Mst at an average grade of 0.106% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 6.988 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Additional Inferred Resources total 0.65 Mst at an average grade of 0.097% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 1.256 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, of which 1.176 Mlb is attributable to EFR. A summary of the Mineral Resource estimate is presented in Table 1-4..

The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**Table 1-4:** **Attributable Mineral Resource Estimate for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex - Effective December 31, 2021**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project** 

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Project Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>**(ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Attrib. Basis**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Attributable**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Recovery**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.187 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 71.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3283000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.106 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6946693 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 88.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6141663 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Measured + Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3294000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.106** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6987833** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **88.5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6182803** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **60.4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.097 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1256000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1176200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Measured Mineral Resource includes reduction for production through December 31, 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR for Nichols Ranch, Hank, and North Rolling Pin, and are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Mineral Resources are 81% attributable to EFR and 19% attributable to United Nuclear Corp in parts of Jane Dough, and are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Mineral Resource estimates are based on a GT cut-off of 0.20 %-ft

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The cut-off grade is calculated using a metal price of $65/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, operating costs of $19.28/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, and 60.4% recovery (based on 71% process recovery and 85% under wellfield).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Mineral Resources are based on a tonnage factory of 15.0 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (Bulk density 0.0667 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> or 2.13 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**1.3.7 Mineral Reserves**

There are no current Mineral Reserves at the Complex.

**1.3.8 Mining Method**

The production schedule in this Technical Report is based on ISR mining of the uranium mineralization at the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit section of the Complex (Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas). ISR is an injected-solution mining process that reverses the natural processes that originally deposited the uranium in the sandstones. On-site ground water is being fortified with gaseous oxygen and introduced to the zones of uranium mineralization through a pattern of injection wells. The solution dissolves the uranium from the sandstone host.

The uranium-bearing solution is brought back to surface through production wells where the uranium is concentrated at a central processing plant and dried into yellowcake for market.

ISR mining and milling utilizes the five steps described below. The first three steps describe the mining process while steps 4 and 5 describe the milling (i.e., processing and refinement).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. A solution called lixiviant (typically containing water mixed with oxygen and/or hydrogen peroxide, as well as sodium bicarbonate or carbon dioxide) is injected through a series of wells into the mineralized zones to dissolve and to complex the uranium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. The lixiviant with uranium in solution is then collected in a series of recovery wells, through which it is pumped to a processing plant, where the uranium is extracted from the solution through an ion-exchange process.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Once the uranium has been extracted, the lixiviant is fortified and reused in the wellfield. Typically, 99% of the solution is reused. The remaining percentage is waste which is disposed of in deep injection wells within EPA exempted aquifers.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. The uranium extract is then further purified, concentrated, and dried to produce a material, which is called "yellowcake" because of its yellowish color.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Finally, the yellowcake is packed in 55-gallon drums to be transported to a uranium conversion facility, where it is processed through the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle to produce fuel for use in nuclear power reactors.

Due to the absence of the on-site drying and packaging circuit, the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> slurry produced on-site will be trucked 643 road miles to the Mill near Blanding, Utah, for drying and drumming for final delivery to end users.

A production schedule has been developed for this Technical Report with a mine life of 11 years producing an average of 366 klb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per year.

**1.3.9 Mineral Processing**

**1.3.9.1** **Nichols Ranch Plant**

The Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed and designed to have four major solution circuits: 1) the recovery circuit, 2) the elution circuit, 3) the precipitation and filtration circuit, 4) the drying and packaging circuit. The first three solution circuits are constructed and operated from 2014 to 2019. Due to the absence of the on-site drying and packaging circuit, the Project proposes to truck the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>produced on-site 643 road miles to the Mill near Blanding, Utah, for drying and drumming for final delivery to end users.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-16 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

The Nichols Ranch Plant's recovery circuit includes the flow of lixiviant from the wellfield to the sand filters, or directly to the ion exchange (IX) columns, and back to the wellfield. The uranium that is liberated underground is extracted in the ion exchange system of the process plant. The bleed from the circuit is permanently removed from the lixiviant flow to create a "cone of depression" in the wellfield's static water level and ensure that the lixiviant is contained by the inward movement of groundwater within the designated recovery area. The bleed is disposed of by means of injection into two deep, approved, Class I - Non Hazardous disposal wells. The volume of the concentrated bleed is approximately 0.5% to 1.5% of the circulating lixiviant flow for the Nichols Ranch area and projected to be 2.5% to 3.5% for the Hank area.

The elution circuit consists of transferring the uranium loaded resin bed contained in an IX column into an elution column and to circulate a briny-carbonated solution through the resin bed to remove the uranium from the ion exchange resin until it is completely stripped. The barren or eluted ion exchange resin is then transferred back from the elution column to the IX column.

The uranium concentration in the eluate will be built up at a controlled concentration range of between 20 g/L to 40 g/L. This uranium rich eluate is ready for the de-carbonation process that occurs in the uranium precipitation circuit.

The precipitation and filtration circuit starts when the eluate is treated with acid to destroy the carbonate portion of the dissolved uranium complex. In addition to adding the acid slowly, a common defoamer may be used to reduce the foaming activity. The precipitation reagents, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide, are added to the eluate to start precipitating uranium yellowcake. The yellowcake slurry is then filtered, washed, and loaded into a slurry trailer. When full, the yellowcake slurry trailer is transported by road to the Mill in Blanding, Utah, where it will be unloaded, dried, and drummed for final delivery to end users.

**1.3.9.2** **White Mesa Mill**

Yellowcake produced at the Nichols Ranch Plant will only be dried and packaged at the Mill.

The Mill is currently on a reduced operating schedule processing materials as they become available. The Mill is currently processing Rare Earth Element (REE) materials in part of the circuit, functioning essentially as a pilot plant, therefore the facility is sufficiently staffed to initiate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> production relatively quickly.

**1.3.10 Project Infrastructure**

The Complex previously operated from 2014 to 2019 and is located within uranium-producing regions of central Wyoming. All the infrastructure necessary to mine and process significant commercial quantities of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> is in place.

The Infrastructure items include:

* The Complex, near Casper, Wyoming , and Mill near Blanding, Utah

* A power line is reaching the Complex from a substation located 15 miles away on HI 50.

* The Complex water is non potable and comes from 2 of on-site water wells.

* Propane gas is used for heating and is delivered by vendors to the Complex.

* Property access by maintained dirt roads, paved roads, and highways

* Finished U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> yellowcake can be transported by truck to customer facilities nationwide

* Accommodations for employees

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-17 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

* Local and State infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, airports, equipment suppliers, fuel suppliers, and communication systems

**1.3.11 Market Studies**

The majority of uranium is traded via long-term supply contracts, negotiated privately without disclosing prices and terms. Spot prices are generally driven by current inventories and speculative short-term buying. Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC. An accepted mining industry practice is to use "Consensus Forecast Prices" obtained by collating commodity price forecasts from credible sources, with the long-term forecast price used for estimating Mineral Reserves, and 10% to 20% higher prices used for estimating Mineral Resources.

For Mineral Resource estimation and cash flow projections, EFR selected a U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $65.00/lb, on a Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) basis to customer facility, based on independent forecasts. The SLR QP considers this price to be reasonable and consistent with industry practice.

**1.3.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations**

Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and the Hank areas are fully licensed and permitted for ISR mining and processing by major licenses and permits issued by the NRC, the WDEQ/LQD, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division (WDEQ/WQD), and the WDEQ/AQD. Portions of the Hank area, totaling 280 acres, are on public lands managed by the BLM. This area is permitted for operation by the BLM and a FONSI and Decision Record were issued in July 2015. Nichols Ranch and the Hank areas consist of 3,370 acres and Jane Dough has approximately an additional 3,680 acres which have been approved and amended to the permitted Project boundary.

EFR has strong relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies and has a positive record of environmental performance at Nichols Ranch. The SLR QP is not aware of environmental, permitting, or social/community, factors which would materially affect the mineral resource estimates.

**1.3.13 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates**

The base case capital cost estimate summarized in Table 1-5 covers the life of the Project and includes sustaining capital and restoration/decommissioning capital in Q1 2021 US dollar basis. These cost estimates are based on 2015 estimates for a 6.3 Mlb production schedule that has been adjusted by the SLR QP to 4.0 Mlb for this Technical Report and escalated to a Q1 2021 US dollar basis using subscription-based Mining Cost Services (MCS) cost indices (Infomine, 2021). The SLR QP is of the opinion that the inflationary indices since Q1 2021 are too volatile to apply against a long lived asset.

**Table 1-5:** **Base Case Capital Cost Estimate**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61327 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Trunkline | &nbsp;&nbsp; 227 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Soft Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12721 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-18 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - CPP Buildout | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4990 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - Hank Pipeline | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2177 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Sustaining Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **81442** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20664 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **102105** |

---

The average LOM operating cost of $24.5568/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> produced for the base case is summarized in Table 1-6 in Q1 US dollar basis. The production cost estimate of $18.91/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> is based on 2015 estimates for a 6.3 Mlb production schedule that has been adjusted by the SLR QP to 4.0 Mlb for this Technical Report and escalated to a Q1 2021 US dollar basis using the MCS cost indices. The SLR QP is of the opinion that the inflationary indices since Q1 2021 are too volatile to apply against a long lived asset.

**Table 1-6:** **Base Case Operating Cost Estimate**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Cost**<br>**(US$/lb produced)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11575 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39494 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.81 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 656 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25865 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Site Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **77590** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.28** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1533 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Production Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **79123** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.66** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ad Valorem Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10583 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.63 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WY Severance Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6408 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.59 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4717 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **100832** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **25.06** |

---

In the SLR QP's opinion, the base case capital and operating cost estimates meet an AACE International Class 4 cost estimate with an accuracy range of 15% to -30% to +20% to +50%.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 1-19 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**2.0** **INTRODUCTION**

This Independent Technical Report (Technical Report) was prepared by Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng., Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP, Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP and Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G. of SLR International Corporation (SLR), for Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels), the parent company of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFR), with respect to the Nichols Ranch Project (Nichols Ranch or the Project), located in eastern Wyoming, USA, for EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels Inc. EFR owns 100% of the Project, with the exception of the Jane Dough area, over which EFR holds an 81% interest.

EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels, is incorporated in Ontario, Canada. EFR is a US-based uranium and vanadium exploration and mine development company with projects located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico. Energy Fuels is listed on the NYSE American Stock Exchange (symbol: UUUU) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: EFR).

This Technical Report satisfies the requirements of Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601(b)(96) Technical Report Summary. The purpose of this Technical Report is to disclose the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Project. The term PEA is used throughout this Technical Report and is consistent with an Initial Assessment (IA) under S-K 1300.

This Technical Report has been amended to add the parameters related to cut-off grade calculations and to correct typographical errors. The effective date of the Mineral Resource, December 31, 2021, remains unchanged. The SLR QPs have not reviewed any additional information on the Project.

Resource estimates completed over Nichols Ranch in 2015 (Beahm and Goranson, 2015) and North Rolling Pin in 2010 (Graves, 2010) have been superseded by the Mineral Resource estimates of this Technical Report which includes additional new information and analysis.

The Project includes the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex (the Complex) near the city of Caspar, Wyoming, and the White Mesa Mill (the Mill) near the city of Blanding, Utah. The Complex is currently on care and maintenance and the Mill is on a reduced operating schedule while processing materials as they become available. When in full operation, the Project is expected to produce uranium concentrate known internationally as yellowcake. Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng., Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP, Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP and Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G. are all QPs within the meaning of both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 (SLR QPs).

The Mill was developed in the late 1970s by Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (EFNI) as a processing option for the many small mines that are located in the Colorado Plateau region. After approximately two and a half years, the Mill ceased ore processing operations altogether due to low uranium prices. Since 1984, majority ownership interest has alternated between EFNI, Union Carbide Corporation, and Denison Mines Corporation (Denison, previously International Uranium Corporation). EFR acquired the Complex in 2015. EFR has controlled 100% of the Mill's assets and liabilities since August 2012.

The Complex includes the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit, which is comprised of the Nichols Ranch wellfield (Nichols Ranch Wellfield), Nichols Ranch plant (Nichols Ranch Plant), Jane Dough area, and Hank area, and several satellite properties. The production scenario reviewed for this Technical Report assumes that the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit will be developed as an in situ recovery (ISR) mining operation with an onsite processing plant and based on the current resource, an expected 11 year mine life. The Project will produce an average of 366 thousand pounds (klb) of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>per year on-site, which will then be trucked to the Mill for final drying and upgrading before delivery to end-users.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 2-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**2.1** **Sources of Information**

Sources of information and data contained in this Technical Report or used in its preparation are from publicly available sources in addition to private information owned by EFR, including that of past property owners.

The SLR QPs, Messers. Mathisen, Collyard, and Woods, in addition to Mr. Tedros Tesfay, PhD, SLR Senior Hydrogeologist, visited the Complex on October 28, 2021, and inspected the wellfields and ISR Plant. The SLR QPs, Messers. Malensek, Collyard, and Woods, also visited the Mill on November 11, 2021, and toured the operational areas, mill offices, and tailings storage facility (TSF).

Table 2-1 presents a summary of the SLR QP responsibilities for this Technical Report.

**Table 2-1:** **Summary of QP Responsibilities**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project** 

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Qualified Person** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Title/Position** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Section** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng. | &nbsp;&nbsp; SLR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Senior Principal Mining Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.2, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 19, 21, 22, and 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G. | &nbsp;&nbsp; SLR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Principal Geologist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.1, 1.1.2.1, 1.3.1 to 1.3.7, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1 to 5.4, 5.6, 6 to 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25.1, and 26.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP | &nbsp;&nbsp; SLR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining & Minerals Sector Lead | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.5, 1.3.12, 4.3, 4.6, 20, and 25.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP | &nbsp;&nbsp; Woods Process Services | &nbsp;&nbsp; Principal Consulting Metallurgist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.3, 1.1.1.4, 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.4, 1.3.9, 1.3.10, 5.5, 13, 17, 18, 25.3, 25.4, 26.3, and 26.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G. | &nbsp;&nbsp; Consultants in Hydrogeology | &nbsp;&nbsp; Principal Consulting Hydrogeologist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.2, 1.1.2.2, 1.3.8, 16, 25.2, and 26.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; All | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27 |

---

During the preparation of this Technical Report, discussions were held with EFR, Uranerz (a wholly owned subsidiary of EFR), and the Mill personnel:

* Gordon Sobering, PE, QP, Senior Mine Engineer, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.

* Bernard Bonifas, Director of ISR Operations, Uranerz Energy Corporation

* Bruce Larsen, Director of Geology and Land, Uranerz Energy Corporation

* Travis Boam, Senior Geologist, Uranerz Energy Corporation

* Benjamin Vrbas, Environmental Safety Health Manager, Uranerz Energy Corporation

* Tony Hinde, Project Manager, Uranerz Energy Corporation

* Daniel Kapostasy, P.G., Chief Geologist Conventional Mining, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.

* Scott Bakken, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.

This Technical Report supersedes the previous NI 43-101 Technical Report completed by Beahm and Goranson, dated February 28, 2015, and the previous Technical Report completed by Graves, dated June 4, 2010.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 2-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

This Technical Report was prepared by the SLR QPs. The documentation reviewed, and other sources of information, are listed at the end of this Technical Report in Section 27.0, References.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 2-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**2.2** **List of Abbreviations**

The U.S. System for weights and units has been used throughout this Technical Report . Tons are reported in short tons (ton) of 2,000 lb unless otherwise noted. All currency in this Technical Report is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations and acronyms used in this Technical Report are listed below.

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Abbreviation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Definition** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Abbreviation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Definition** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; μ | &nbsp;&nbsp; micron | &nbsp;&nbsp; L | &nbsp;&nbsp; liter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; a | &nbsp;&nbsp; annum | &nbsp;&nbsp; lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; pound |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A | &nbsp;&nbsp; ampere | &nbsp;&nbsp; m | &nbsp;&nbsp; meter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; bbl | &nbsp;&nbsp; barrels | &nbsp;&nbsp; m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; meter cubed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Btu | &nbsp;&nbsp; British thermal units | &nbsp;&nbsp; M | &nbsp;&nbsp; mega (million); molar |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; °C | &nbsp;&nbsp; degree Celsius | &nbsp;&nbsp; Ma | &nbsp;&nbsp; one million years |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; cm | &nbsp;&nbsp; centimeter | &nbsp;&nbsp; MBtu | &nbsp;&nbsp; thousand British thermal units |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; cm<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; centimeter cubed | &nbsp;&nbsp; MCF | &nbsp;&nbsp; million cubic feet |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; d | &nbsp;&nbsp; day | &nbsp;&nbsp; MCF/h | &nbsp;&nbsp; million cubic feet per hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; °F | &nbsp;&nbsp; degree Fahrenheit | &nbsp;&nbsp; mi | &nbsp;&nbsp; mile |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft ASL | &nbsp;&nbsp; feet above sea level | &nbsp;&nbsp; min | &nbsp;&nbsp; minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft | &nbsp;&nbsp; foot | &nbsp;&nbsp; MPa | &nbsp;&nbsp; megapascal |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; square foot | &nbsp;&nbsp; mph | &nbsp;&nbsp; miles per hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; cubic foot | &nbsp;&nbsp; MVA | &nbsp;&nbsp; megavolt-amperes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft/s | &nbsp;&nbsp; foot per second | &nbsp;&nbsp; MW | &nbsp;&nbsp; megawatt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; g | &nbsp;&nbsp; gram | &nbsp;&nbsp; MWh | &nbsp;&nbsp; megawatt-hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G | &nbsp;&nbsp; giga (billion) | &nbsp;&nbsp; ppb | &nbsp;&nbsp; part per billion |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ga | &nbsp;&nbsp; one billion years | &nbsp;&nbsp; ppm | &nbsp;&nbsp; part per million |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; gal | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallon | &nbsp;&nbsp; psia | &nbsp;&nbsp; pound per square inch absolute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; gal/d | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallon per day | &nbsp;&nbsp; psig | &nbsp;&nbsp; pound per square inch gauge |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; g/L | &nbsp;&nbsp; gram per liter | &nbsp;&nbsp; rpm | &nbsp;&nbsp; revolutions per minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; g/y | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallon per year | &nbsp;&nbsp; RL | &nbsp;&nbsp; relative elevation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; gpm | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallons per minute | &nbsp;&nbsp; s | &nbsp;&nbsp; second |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; hp | &nbsp;&nbsp; horsepower | &nbsp;&nbsp; ton | &nbsp;&nbsp; short ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; h | &nbsp;&nbsp; hour | &nbsp;&nbsp; stpa | &nbsp;&nbsp; short ton per year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hz | &nbsp;&nbsp; hertz | &nbsp;&nbsp; stpd | &nbsp;&nbsp; short ton per day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; in. | &nbsp;&nbsp; inch | &nbsp;&nbsp; t | &nbsp;&nbsp; metric tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; in<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; square inch | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ | &nbsp;&nbsp; United States dollar |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; J | &nbsp;&nbsp; joule | &nbsp;&nbsp; V | &nbsp;&nbsp; volt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; k | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilo (thousand) | &nbsp;&nbsp; W | &nbsp;&nbsp; watt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kg/m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilogram per cubic meter | &nbsp;&nbsp; wt% | &nbsp;&nbsp; weight percent |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kVA | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilovolt-amperes | &nbsp;&nbsp; WLT | &nbsp;&nbsp; wet long ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kW | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilowatt | &nbsp;&nbsp; y | &nbsp;&nbsp; year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kWh | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilowatt-hour | &nbsp;&nbsp; yd<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; cubic yard |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 2-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**3.0** **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS**

This Technical Report has been prepared by the SLR QPs for Energy Fuels. The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on:

* Information available to the SLR QPs at the time of preparation of this Technical Report,

* Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this Technical Report, and

* Data, reports, and other information supplied by Energy Fuels and other third party sources.

**3.1** **Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant**

For the purpose of this Technical Report, the SLR QPs have relied on ownership information provided by Energy Fuels in a legal opinion by Brown, Drew, Massey & Durham, LLP dated February 7, 2022 entitled Ownership Summary, Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The SLR QPs have not researched property title or mineral rights for the Project as we consider it reasonable to rely on Energy Fuels' legal counsel who is responsible for maintaining this information. The opinion was relied on in Section 4 Property Description and Location and the Summary of this Technical Report.

The SLR QPs have relied on Energy Fuels for guidance on applicable taxes, royalties, and other government levies or interests, applicable to revenue or income from the Project, to the extent such information constitutes legal matters or governmental factors outside the expertise of the SLR QPs in the Executive Summary and Section 22.0. Taxation calculations in the cash flow model presented in this Technical Report were reviewed and approved by Kara. P. Beck, EFR Tax Manager in an email dated December 14, 2021.

The SLP QPs have taken all appropriate steps, in their professional opinion, to ensure that the above information from Energy Fuels is sound.

Except for the purposes legislated under applicable laws, any use of this Technical Report by any third party is at that party's sole risk.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 3-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**4.0** **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION**

**4.1** **Location**

**4.1.1 Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex**

Nichols Ranch is located in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson Counties in Wyoming. The Complex facilities and mine office are located at latitude of 43°42' N and longitude 106°01' W. The Complex is located approximately 70 mi southwest of Gillette, Wyoming, and 80 mi northeast of Casper, Wyoming (Figure 4-1).

The Complex (Figure 4-2) is divided into two primary areas, the Nichols Ranch mining unit (the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit) and the satellite properties (the Satellite Properties).

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit includes the following:

* **Nichols Ranch Area** contains approximately 740 acres and is located in Sections 7, 8, 17, and 18, Township 43 North (T43N), Range 76 West (R76W), Sixth Principal Meridian at approximately 43°42' N and 106°01' W.

* **Jane Dough Area** permit boundary encompasses approximately 3,680 acres of land in Sections 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, T43N, R76W, at approximately 43°41' N and 106°01' W.

* **Hank Area** encompasses approximately 2,250 acres of land and is located in Sections 30 and 31, T44N, R75W, and Sections 5, 6, and 7, T43N, R75W. The location is approximately 43°44' N and 105°55' W.

Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough are contiguous, and the Hank area is located approximately six miles north of Nichols Ranch. All surface data is in local grid or modified NAD 1927 UTM Zone 13 (US feet) system.

EFR currently controls four additional properties (the Satellite Properties) which are known to have significant mineralization, but not currently included in the mine permit. These include:

* **North Rolling Pin (NRP) Area** is located in the Pumpkin Buttes region of the Powder River Basin in the state of Wyoming, approximately 62 air mi northeast of the city of Casper. The North Rolling Pin area is located within Campbell County, Wyoming, in the SE¼ of SE¼ Section 10, Section 11, NW¼ Section 14, and NE¼ and NW¼ of SE¼ Section 15, T43N, R76W, and SW¼ of SW¼, SE¼, and SE¼ of the NE¼ Section 35, T44N, R76W. The location is approximately 43°41' N and 105°58' W. Mining claims cover approximately 1,180 acres. This area is located approximately 2.5 mi east of Nichols Ranch.

* **West North Butte (WNB) Area** is located in Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, and 26, T44N, R76W, in Campbell County, Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin. The location is approximately 43°47' N and 105°58' W. Mining claims cover approximately 2,360 acres. This area is located approximately 6.4 mi northeast of Nichols Ranch.

* **East North Butte (ENB) Area** is located in Section 24, T44N, R76W, and Section 19, T44N, R75W in Campbell County, Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin. The location is approximately 43°46' N and 105°55' W. Mining claims cover approximately 325 acres. This area is located approximately seven miles northeast of Nichols Ranch.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

* **Willow Creek (WC) Area** is located in Section 35, T44N, R76W, Campbell County, Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin. The location is approximately 43°44' N and 105°57' W. Mining claims cover approximately 220 acres. This area is located 4.5 mi northeast of Nichols Ranch.

**4.1.2 White Mesa Mill**

The Mill is located on 4,816 acres of private land owned by EFR. This land is located in Township 37 South and 38 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Principal Meridian. The Mill is located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah, along US Highway 191. EFR also holds 253 acres of mill site claims and a 320 acre Utah state lease. No facilities are planned on the claims or leased land, which will be used as a buffer surrounding the operations (Figure 4-3).

Figure 4-3 shows the relative locations of the Complex and the Mill, and the proposed haul route for the Nichols Ranch U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> production to the Mill. The Complex and the Mill are located approximately 643 road miles apart. Each operation would be considered as a "stand-alone" operation, i.e., each would have its own administration, warehouse, accounting, environmental, and safety staff.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz001.jpg)

**Figure 4-1:** **Location Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz002.jpg)

**Figure 4-2:** **Land Tenure Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz003.jpg)

**Figure 4-3:** **White Mesa Mill Location and Property Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**4.2** **Land Tenure**

**4.2.1 Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex**

**4.2.1.1** **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**4.2.1.1.1** **Nichols Ranch** **Area**

The permit boundary for the Nichols Ranch area, located in Sections 7, 8, 17, and 18, T43N, R76W, encompasses 1,120.00 acres. Within the Nichols Ranch permit boundary, EFR has 38 unpatented lode-mining claims, two fee mineral leases and three Surface Use Agreements (SUAs). The claims and fee leases encompass approximately 920 acres. The mineral fee leases and SUA have a 10 year term. Provisions are set by the SUA for reimbursement to the surface owner for damages resulting from operations**.**

Claims do not have an expiration date, however, affidavits must be filed annually with the federal U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and respective county recorder's offices in order to maintain the claims' validity. In addition, most of the unpatented lode claims are located on Stock Raising Homestead land where the U.S. government has issued a patent for the surface to an individual and reserved the minerals to the U.S. government subject to the location rights by claimants as set forth in the 1872 Mining Law.

Table 4-1 presents the Nichols Ranch lode mining claims. The Nichols Ranch lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-1:** **Nichols Ranch Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101420762 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101420906 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-71 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE, SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101608724 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-73 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101731931 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-81 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101422980 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-83 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101606644 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-85 Am | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW, SW 17; SE, NW SE 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101343361 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-87 Am | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW 17, NE 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17,18-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101425489 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-88 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101422584 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-89 Am | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW, NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17,18-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101423120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101422355 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-91 Am | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW 17, NE 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17,18-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101731972 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-92 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101854615 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-93 Am | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW 17, NE 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101458512 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/19/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-77 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524364 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-78 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-79 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524366 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524367 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-82 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524368 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-84 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524369 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524370 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-94 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524371 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 02/06/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW 7, NW 17,NE 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7,8,17,18-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524372 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 02/06/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW 8, NW 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8,17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524373 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 02/06/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-98 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE, SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101313966 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/28/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7,8-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524374 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/28/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524375 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/28/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-68 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856483 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/27/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE 7, SW 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7,8-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856484 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/28/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-102 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856485 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/26/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-103 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101519051 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/26/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-104 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101519052 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/26/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-105 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101519053 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/26/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-106 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101519054 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/26/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EEB-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE, SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101519055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 08/11/2009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EF-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101474091 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 03/22/2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EF-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW 17, NE 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101474092 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 03/22/2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

**4.2.1.1.2** **Jane Dough Area**

The permit boundary for the Jane Dough area encompasses approximately 3,680 acres. Within the Jane Dough permit boundary, EFR controls 117 unpatented lode-mining claims, three SUAs, and 16 fee mineral leases. The fee mineral leases and claims encompass approximately 3,121.43 acres. The fee mineral leases and SUAs have terms of 10 years, which can be extended indefinitely. The SUAs have set provisions for reimbursement to the surface owner for damages resulting from EFR operations**.** In the south half of Section 28, T43N, R76W, EFR controls 59.29% of the fee mineral estate under various fee mineral leases mentioned above**.**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

Portions of the Jane Dough area were formerly held separately by EFR and the joint venture (JV) on the Arkose project (Arkose Project). These holdings have been combined. EFR retains 100% of the mineral rights for the portion it originally held and 81% of the mineral rights for the Arkose Mining Venture portion of Jane Dough. Mineral Resources for Jane Dough reflect this partition of mineral ownership.

Table 4-2 presents the Jane Dough lode mining claims. The Jane Dough lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-2:** **Jane Dough Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101423165 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101605103 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-43 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523137 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/6/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-44 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524361 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/6/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524362 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/6/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EB-46 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524363 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/6/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; RK-453 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523280 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; RK-454 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523281 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; RK-455 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523282 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; RK-456 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523283 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; RK-457 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523284 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; RK-458 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102524508 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-229 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101512156 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-230 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101512157 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-231 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101512158 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-232 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101512159 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-233 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101512160 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-234 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101512161 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-235 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513425 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-236 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513426 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-237 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513427 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-238 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513428 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-239 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513429 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513430 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-241 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513431 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-242 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513432 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-243 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513433 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-244 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513434 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-245 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101513435 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-246 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514714 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-247 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514715 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-248 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514716 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-249 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514717 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514718 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514719 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-252 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514720 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-253 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514721 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-254 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514722 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-255 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30,31-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514723 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-256 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101514724 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-257 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101515999 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-258 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-259 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516001 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-260 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516002 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-261 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516003 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-262 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516004 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; TR-264 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101516006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-319 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523401 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-320 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523402 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-321 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523403 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-322 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523404 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-323 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523405 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-324 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523406 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-325 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523407 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-326 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523408 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-327 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523409 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-328 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523410 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522273 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-366 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522274 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-367 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522275 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-368 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522276 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-369 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522277 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-370 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522278 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-371 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102522279 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-372 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523468 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-373 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523469 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC-374 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY102523470 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353836 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353837 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353838 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353839 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353840 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353841 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353842 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101353843 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354747 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354748 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354749 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354751 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21,28-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354752 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354753 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW 28; NE 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,21,28,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354754 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354755 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE 20; NE 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354756 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354757 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE 20; NE 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354758 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354759 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE 20; NE 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20,29-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354760 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354761 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354762 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354763 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-28 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354764 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354765 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354766 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354767 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101354768 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355711 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell/<br>Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355712 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell/<br>Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355713 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355714 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355715 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355716 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-39 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101355717 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/10/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101371502 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/1/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-101 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372148 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/1/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-102 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372149 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/1/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-103 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372150 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/2/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-104 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372151 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/2/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-105 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372152 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/2/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-106 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372153 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/2/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-109 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372154 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/1/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-110 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372155 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/1/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-111 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372156 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/2/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-112 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101546607 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/3/2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; DS-113 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21-43N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101546608 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/3/2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**4.2.1.1.3** **Hank Area**

The Hank area permit boundary encompasses approximately 2,250 acres. Within the permit boundary, EFR has 49 unpatented lode-mining claims, and one SUA covering approximately 1,392.58 acres.

Table 4-3 presents the Hank lode mining claims. The Hank lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-3:** **Hank Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-81 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101606674 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-83 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101421365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101426704 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-87 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101604478 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-89 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101731939 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-91 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101607996 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-93 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101608986 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-94A | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101424771 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101342049 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-96A | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101603271 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/15/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736673 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736674 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736675 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736676 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736677 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736678 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736679 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736680 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736681 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736682 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101736683 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737755 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737756 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737757 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737758 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737759 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6,7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737760 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6,7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737761 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/22/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737762 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737763 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737764 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737765 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737766 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7,8-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737767 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737768 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737769 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-28 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737770 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MB-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101737771 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372157 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372158 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372159 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372160 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372859 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372860 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372861 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372862 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372863 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372864 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372865 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372866 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372867 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372868 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372869 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372870 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JS-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6-43N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101372871 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/27/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101673158 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-101 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674116 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-102 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674117 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-103 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674118 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-104 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674119 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-105 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-106 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674121 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-107 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101674122 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; HB-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101563325 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/10/2009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; HB-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101563326 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/10/2009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; HB-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101563327 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/10/2009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

**4.2.1.2** **Satellite Properties**

**4.2.1.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

The North Rolling Pin area has 54 unpatented lode-mining claims and one SUA. There are no mineral fee leases associated with the NRP area. There is one SUA that will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreement are met. All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year. The claims area encompasses approximately 1,180 acres.

Table 4-4 presents the NRP lode mining claims. The NRP lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-4:** **North Rolling Pin Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DDYYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436313 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436314 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436315 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE.NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436316 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436317 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436318 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436319 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436320 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE,NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436321 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436322 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DDYYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436323 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436324 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436325 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101436326 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437051 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437052 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW,NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11,14,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437053 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW,NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11,14-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437054 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437056 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437057 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437058 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437059 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437060 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437061 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437062 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437063 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #28 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437064 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW,NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437065 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437066 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437067 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437068 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437069 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437070 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437822 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437823 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437824 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437825 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #39 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437826 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB #40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437827 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437971 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/16/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437972 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/16/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DDYYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 55 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437973 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/16/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437974 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/16/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 57 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437975 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437976 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 59 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437977 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437979 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-43W-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437980 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2,[35]-43[44]N-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437981 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 64 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437982 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 65 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437983 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; PB 66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76N | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101437984 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/9/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

**4.2.1.2.2** **West North Butte**

The West North Butte area claims were acquired by Uranerz, which was acquired by EFR in 2015. There are no fee leases associated with West North Butte. There is one SUA that will remain in force provided the terms of the agreement are met.

Table 4-5 presents the West North Butte lode mining claims. The WNB lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-5:** **West North Butte Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 179 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101426369 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/15/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101497208 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/15/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 181 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101491777 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/15/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 182 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101739809 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/15/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 189 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101426736 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 190 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101528512 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 191 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101458339 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 192 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101739818 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1767 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101340343 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-16 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1768 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101502230 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1769 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101490716 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1770 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856854 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WSC #1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101342071 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WSC #2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101502225 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #114 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101490711 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/18/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #116 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856849 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/18/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #118 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101607538 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/18/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101339579 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/18/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #122 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101340187 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/18/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #124 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101426152 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/18/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #175 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14, 15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101422765 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/19/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #177 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14, 15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101420778 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/19/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #177A | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10, 11-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101508383 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/19/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #178 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101604763 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/19/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101608014 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/19/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC #182 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101502253 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/19/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SWSE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101343371 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/21/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101858037 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101855630 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/22/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101858017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101423115 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101527278 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101507069 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NENW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101455493 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101602473 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #28 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101603105 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101425162 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/24/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101339791 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101455756 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/26/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-17 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101608050 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/26/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101421197 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/26/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 175 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525153 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 176 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525718 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 177 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525719 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 178 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525720 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 126 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525721 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 128 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525722 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 130 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10,11-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525723 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 132 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525724 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 157 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525725 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 159 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525726 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 172 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525727 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/7/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 173 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525728 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/7/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 174 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525729 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/7/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 176 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525730 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/7/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 179 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525731 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WC 181 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525732 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/6/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 900 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525733 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 901 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525734 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 902 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525735 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525736 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 43 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525737 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 44 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101525738 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526363 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 46 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526364 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 47 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW,NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1765 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526366 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1766 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526367 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1771 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526368 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1772 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526369 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1773 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526370 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-18 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1774 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526371 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1775 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526372 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P185 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526373 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 186 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526374 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 187 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526375 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 188 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526376 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/20/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526377 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526378 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526379 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526380 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526381 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526382 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526383 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/5/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1796 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526384 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1797AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526959 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1798 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526960 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1799AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526961 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1800 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526962 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1801AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526963 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1802A | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526964 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B1803A | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101526965 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #1 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312466 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #2 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13,14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312467 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #3 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312468 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #20 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312469 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #22 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312470 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #24 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312471 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #25 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101312472 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/26/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #26 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101313683 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JC #27 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101313684 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/26/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WSC #1 AM | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101313685 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/25/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101511313 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-19 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 201 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101511314 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/24/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 202 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101511315 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/24/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 203 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101511316 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 204 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101511317 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P 205 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44W-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101511318 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/28/2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

**4.2.1.2.3** **East North Butte**

The East North Butte area claims were acquired by Uranerz. There are no fee leases associated with East North Butte. There is one SUA which will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreement are met.

Table 4-6 presents the ENB lode mining claims. The ENB lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-6** **:** **East North Butte Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-745 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; [19]24-44N-[75]76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101491337 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-747 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; [19]24-44N-[75]76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101422726 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-748 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101425036 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-749 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW,NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; [19]24-44N-[75]76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101340291 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101855804 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-751 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; [19]24-44N-[75]76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856833 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-752 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19-44N-75W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101425739 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-753 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; [19]24-44N-[75]76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101423911 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-754 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; [19]24-44N-[75]76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101422333 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-1767 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,23-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101527286 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-1768 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101505868 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-1769 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14,23-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101853424 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B-1770 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW,SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101731356 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-20 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; GAP-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101340343 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101502230 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/16/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101490716 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101856854 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101345831 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101603691 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101603094 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; P-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24,25-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101426188 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/12/1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

**4.2.1.2.4** **Willow Creek**

The Willow Creek area claims were acquired by Uranerz. There are no fee leases associated with Willow Creek. There is one SUA will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreement are met.

Table 4-7 presents the WC lode mining claims. The WC lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by EFR.

**Table 4-7:** **Willow Creek Lode Mining Claims**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **¼ Sec** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sec-Twp-Rng** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **BLM Serial No** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **County** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiry Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 860 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101421379 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 862 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101731000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 858 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101339516 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 857 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101345848 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 853 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101420734 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 852 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101527318 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 851 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101529741 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 855 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101606669 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 854 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101607982 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 850 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101608041 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; B 856 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35-44N-76W | &nbsp;&nbsp; WY101731194 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Campbell | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2/17/1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2022 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-21 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**4.3** **Required Permits and Status**

All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year. Mining claims are subject to the Mining Law of 1872. Changes in the mining law could affect the mineral tenure. The unpatented lode mining claims will remain the property of EFR provided they adhere to required filing and annual payment requirements with Johnson and Campbell Counties and the BLM. The SUAs will remain in force so long as the mining claims are maintained.

**4.3.1 Exploration**

EFR has conducted exploration drilling at Nichols Ranch but has not conducted any exploration drilling at Jane Dough, Hank, or the Satellite Properties since acquiring the properties in 2015. EFR has in place a Drilling Notification (DN), issued for exploration drilling, from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD).

**4.3.2 Production**

The Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas are fully licensed and permitted for ISR mining and processing by major licenses and permits issued by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). Portions of the Hank area, totaling 280 acres, are on public lands managed by the BLM. This area is permitted for operation by the BLM and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Record was issued in July 2015. The permitted Project boundary includes the Nichols Ranch and Hank areas, consisting of 3,370 acres, and was amended to include the Jane Dough area, approximately an additional 3,680 acres.

**4.4** **Encumbrances**

To the SLR QP's knowledge there are no environmental liabilities which are not included in current bonds held by the jurisdictional regulatory agencies. Financial assurance instruments are held by the State for drilling, ISR mining, and uranium processing. The bonds are required to insure reclamation and restoration of the affected lands and aquifers in accordance with federal and state regulations and permit requirements. The WDEQ regulations require an annual review of the bonding, and bonds may be adjusted annually to reflect changes in conditions at the mine. The current approved closure cost estimate for the Complex is provided in Table 4-8.

**Table 4-8:** **Current Reclamation Bond Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Program/Permit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Amount**<br>**(US$)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Date Approved/Agency** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD<sup>1</sup> Permit to Mine and NRC<sup>2</sup> Source Materials License | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6435000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5/29/2019<br>LQD |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD<sup>1</sup> Drilling Notification DN336 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1/8/2018<br>LQD |

---

Note:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality - Land Quality Division

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-22 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**4.5** **Royalties**

**4.5.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**4.5.1.1** **Nichols Ranch Area**

In Section 21, the northern portion of Section 28, eastern portion of Section 20, and northeast quarter of Section 29, unpatented lode mining claims have an overriding royalty interest burden of 6% or 8% depending on the sale price of uranium. In the southern portion of Section 32, 20 of the unpatented lode mining claims have an overriding royalty of 0.25% based on production. In the southern portion of Section 28 where North Jane is located, 14 fee mineral leases have royalties ranging from 2% to 10% depending on the sale price of uranium. In the western half of Section 29 two mineral leases have a royalty of 6% or 8% depending on the sale price of uranium. Surface owners have a set rate for reimbursement of any land taken out of service for mining activities and two of the Surface Owners could receive an extraction fee on production with a burden of 1% or 2% percent depending on the sale price of uranium.

The unpatented lode mining claims will remain the property of EFR provided it adheres to the required filing and annual payment requirements with Campbell County and the BLM. The SUA's will remain in force so long as the mining claims are maintained. Legal surveys of unpatented lode mining claims are not required and are not known to have been completed.

All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements (US$165 per claim) with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year.

**4.5.1.2** **Jane Dough Area**

In the south portion of Section 32, twenty of the unpatented lode mining claims have an overriding royalty of 0.25% based on production. In the southern half of Section 28 and northern half of section 32, five fee mineral leases have royalties ranging from 2% to 10% depending on the sale price of uranium. In the west half of Section 29, two mineral leases have a royalty of 6% or 8% depending on the sale price of uranium. Surface owners have a set rate for reimbursement of any land taken out of service for mining activities and two of the Surface Owners could receive an extraction fee on production with a burden of 1% or 2%, depending on the sale price of uranium.

The unpatented lode mining claims will remain the property of EFR provided it adheres to required filing and annual payment requirements with Campbell County and the BLM. The SUAs will remain in force so long as the mining claims are maintained. Legal surveys of unpatented lode mining claims are not required and are not known to have been completed.

All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year.

**4.5.1.3** **Hank Area**

All claims were located or acquired by EFR and a portion of the claims were subject to a 6% to 8% royalty which has since been extinguished. Four claims may be subject to a 5% overriding royalty vested in Brown Land Company and its successors. The claims will remain the property of EFR provided they adhere to required filing and annual payment requirements with Campbell County and the BLM. All of the unpatented lode claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-23 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

The SUA will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreements are met. Legal surveys of unpatented claims are not required and are not known to have been completed.

**4.5.2 Satellite Properties**

**4.5.2.1** **North Rolling Pin Area**

Lode mining claims in the North Rolling Pin area are not subject to royalties. There are no fee mineral leases.

**4.5.2.2** **West North Butte Area**

The claims were acquired by Uranerz and none of the unpatented lode claims in the West North Butte area are subject to a royalty. There are no fee leases associated with West North Butte. There is one SUA which will remain in force so long as the mining claims are maintained.

**4.5.2.3** **East North Butte Area**

None of the unpatented lode claims in the ENB area are subject to a royalty. There are no fee mineral leases.

**4.5.2.4** **Willow Creek Area**

The claims were acquired by Uranerz and none of the unpatented lode claims in the WC area are subject to a royalty. There are no fee leases associated with Willow Creek.

**4.6** **Other Significant Factors and Risks**

The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental liabilities on the Project. EFR has all required permits to conduct the proposed work on the Project. The SLR QP is not aware of any other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform the proposed work program on the Project.

From the time of construction to the effective date of this Technical Report the Complex has experienced two minor compliance issues. Both issues pertained to the Permit to Mine issued by WDEQ/LQD and were resolved quickly under normal regulatory procedures.

**4.6.1 Mine Closure Plans and Bonds**

A reclamation plan is in place for the Complex which includes groundwater restoration, site decontamination and decommissioning, and surface reclamation and decommissioning. A general reclamation schedule and a reclamation cost estimate are provided in the reclamation plan. WDEQ regulations require an annual review of the bonding, and bonds may be adjusted annually to reflect changes in conditions at the mine.

Detailed reclamation plans, including site decommissioning, will be provided to the WDEQ/LQD for approval prior to initiation.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 4-24 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**5.0** **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY**

**5.1** **Accessibility**

**5.1.1 Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex**

The site is 80 mi northeast of Casper, Wyoming and accessible via two-wheel drive on existing county and/or private gravel and dirt roads by proceeding north approximately 10 mi from Wyoming Highway 387 on the IDT Road and approximately 12 mi northwest of the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 50.

**5.1.2 Satellite Properties**

**5.1.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

The NRP property is accessible via two-wheel drive on existing private gravel and dirt roads, many of which have been improved by coal bed methane (CBM) development. The approximate center of the NRP property is approximately nine miles north of Wyoming Highway 387. Some road development and improvements may be required at a later time to facilitate future development of wellfields or satellite facilities.

**5.1.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

WNB, ENB, and WC are accessible via two-wheel drive on existing county and/or private gravel and dirt roads. The approximate center of the Satellite Properties is roughly 8 mi to 11 mi west of Wyoming Highway 50, and the southern edge of the Satellite Properties is approximately 12 mi to 15 mi north of Wyoming Highway 387. Road development and improvements may be required at a later time to facilitate future development of wellfields and processing facilities. The north-northwest half of the WNB area is located in an area of significant topographical relief and would likely require significant excavation to construct roads to potential wellfields or require the use of directional drilling to develop the resource.

**5.2** **Vegetation**

Vegetation and wildlife surveys of the Complex area were completed as part of the environmental baseline studies required for permitting and licensing. Vegetation communities consist primarily of sagebrush shrub-land and mixed grasslands, with limited juniper, greasewood, and wetland communities. The Complex area has the potential to provide habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, red fox, badger, raccoon, skunk, chipmunk, rodents, songbirds, waterfowl, eagles, hawks, owls, sage grouse, chukar, wild turkey, Hungarian partridge, mourning dove, magpie, and crow. Most species are yearlong residents, however, some species such as elk, eagles, songbirds, and waterfowl are more abundant during migration periods.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 5-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**5.3** **Climate**

In the vicinity of the Complex, the climate is semi-arid and receives an annual precipitation of approximately 13 in., the majority of which falls from February to April as snow. Cold, wind, and snow/blizzards may occasionally present challenges for winter exploration and construction work in this area however operations can take place year round. The summer months are typically hot, dry, and clear, except for infrequent high-intensity, short-duration storm events.

**5.4** **Local Resources**

The Complex is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties. These counties are generally rural; according to the 2010 United States Census, there were 8,569 people living in Johnson County and 46,133 people living in Campbell County. Most of the workers at the Complex are from the local area and nearby communities such as Casper, Wyoming, approximately 80 mi southwest of the Complex. Casper is the county seat of Natrona County and, as of the 2010 census, has a population of 55,316. Casper has numerous industrial supply and service companies to support mining operations. EFR maintains an office in Casper to support its Wyoming mining operations.

The SLR QP concludes that EFR either has in place or can obtain the necessary permits and/or agreements, and local resources are sufficient for current and future ISR operations within the Complex.

**5.5** **Infrastructure**

EFR has secured sufficient surface access rights for exploration and development of the Complex. The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit is a fully licensed, operable facility with sufficient sources of power, water, and waste disposal facilities for operations and aquifer restoration.

The basic infrastructure (power, water, and transportation) necessary to support an ISR mining operation has been established at the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and is located within reasonable proximity of all satellite properties within this Technical Report . Existing infrastructure is associated with local oil, gas, and CBM development.

Non-potable water is and/or will be supplied by wells developed at or near the sites. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection. Typical ISR mining operations also require a disposal well for limited quantities of fluids that cannot be returned to the production aquifers. Two deep disposal wells have been permitted and are operational at the Nichols Ranch Plant

The proximity of the Complex to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel, and product to and from the properties. Although the population within 50 mi of the subject properties consists mainly of rural ranch residences, personnel required for exploration, construction, and operation are available in the nearby towns of Wright, Midwest, Edgerton, Gillette, Buffalo, and Casper, Wyoming.

Power transmission lines are located on or near parts of the Project. EFR has secured power from the local electrical service provider to accommodate all operational needs.

Tailing storage areas, waste disposal areas, heap leach pad(s) are not part of the required infrastructure for the Complex, as ISR operations do not require these types of facilities. Waste disposal is accomplished via deep well injection. EFR has two such wells permitted and in operation at Nichols Ranch.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 5-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**5.6** **Physiography**

The Complex is located within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the western portion of the Powder River Basin, within the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District. The Pumpkin Buttes are a series of small buttes rising up to nearly 6,000 feet above sea level (ft ASL) in elevation and approximately 1,000 ft above the surrounding plains. The rock capping the top of the buttes is the Oligocene age White River Formation erosional remnant, which is believed to have overlain the majority of the Powder River Basin. The volcanic tuffs in the White River Formation have been cited as the source of uranium in the basin (Davis, 1969). Historic and current land use in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District includes livestock grazing, mineral development, and oil and gas development.

**5.6.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit is situated in a low-lying plain with elevations ranging from roughly 4,600 ft ASL to 4,900 ft ASL. There are two main ephemeral drainages at the site. Both are tributaries of Cottonwood Creek, which drains to the Cheyenne River.

**5.6.2 Satellite Properties**

**5.6.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

The North Rolling Pin area consists of sagebrush and native grasses, covering rolling hills, steep walled gullies, and ephemeral streams. Elevations range from approximately 4,800 ft ASL to 5,180 ft ASL.

**5.6.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

The West North Butte and East North Butte areas are located on the west and southeast flanks of the North Pumpkin Butte, respectively. The Willow Creek area is located approximately two miles south of the West North Butte deposit.

These areas consist of sagebrush and native grasses, covering rolling hills, steep walled gullies, and flat-topped North Butte. Elevations range from approximately 4,900 ft ASL to 5,800 ft ASL, and generally slope from northeast to southwest.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 5-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**6.0** **HISTORY**

The Complex was originally part of a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the Sixth Principal Meridian. In 1966, Mountain West Mines Inc. (MWM - now Excalibur Industries) began a drilling exploration program in this area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company (CCI) for further exploration and option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations near North Butte, approximately six and a half miles northeast of Nichols Ranch. As economic conditions changed, and with the development of ISR mining technology, CCI's interest in the area waned. By the late 1980s, it began selling select properties or allowing them to revert back to MWM.

**6.1** **Prior Ownership**

Uranerz acquired six uranium properties in the Powder River Basin from a third party in 2005, including the Complex.

In June 2015, EFR acquired all of the outstanding shares of Uranerz. Under that transaction, EFR acquired the Project, the Hank Project, the Reno Creek Property, the West North Butte Property, the North Rolling Pin Property, and the Arkose Mining Venture (a joint venture of ISR mining properties held 81% by Uranerz and 19% by United Nuclear Corp.), uranium sales contracts, and other assets, as well as the shares of Uranerz, which holds those assets. In May 2018, EFR sold its non-core Reno Creek Property to Uranium Energy Corp. In August 2018, EFR acquired royalties on the Project, along with royalties on several operating, standby, and advanced-stage ISR projects in Wyoming owned and operated by Power Resources, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Corporation.

**6.1.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit includes: (i) the Nichols Ranch Plant; (ii) the Nichols Ranch Wellfield; (iii) the Jane Dough area; and (iv) the Hank area, which includes the permitted but not constructed Hank satellite plant and the Hank deposit. A portion of the Jane Dough area is held through the Arkose Mining Venture, in which the EFR has an 81% interest.

**6.1.2 Satellite Properties**

**6.1.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

The North Rolling Pin area is located within a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the Sixth Principal Meridian. In 1966, MWM (now Excalibur Industries) began a successful drilling exploration program in a portion of the larger area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with CCI for further exploration and option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations in the vicinity of North Butte. Changing economic conditions and the development of ISR mining technology reportedly ended much of CCI's interest in the area.

In addition to CCI, other uranium exploration companies during the last forty years have controlled property either within or near the North Rolling Pin Property. These included Kerr McGee, Conoco, Texaco, American Nuclear, Tennessee Valley Authority, Rio Algom Mining Corporation (Rio Algom), and Uranerz. The mining claims and leases originally controlled by most of these companies were let go over the years due to market conditions. These property abandonments continued into 2004.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 6-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

In February 2007, Uranerz purchased the North Rolling Pin claims group from Robert Shook as part of a larger 138 Federal mining claims acquisition. Uranerz subsequently expanded the properties by staking additional claims in the immediate area.

**6.1.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

The West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek areas were originally part of a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the 6th principal meridian. In 1966, MWM (now Excalibur Industries) began a successful drilling exploration program in a portion of this area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with CCI for further exploration and option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations in the vicinity of North Butte. Changing economic conditions and the development of ISR mining technology reportedly ended much of CCI's interest in the area.

In addition to CCI, other uranium exploration companies during the last forty years have controlled property either within or near the Satellite Properties. These included Kerr McGee, Conoco, Texaco, American Nuclear, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Uranerz U.S.A., Inc. Areva NC, via subsidiary Cogema Resources Inc. (Cogema), and Power Resources Inc. (a subsidiary of Cameco Corporation) have retained portions of their original land positions in the area. The mining claims and leases originally controlled by most of these companies were let go over the years due to market conditions. These property abandonments continued into 2004.

WNB, ENB, and WC cover an area of land located on the west, east and south flank of North Butte in Campbell County, Wyoming. Detailed disclosure pertaining to the chain of title of the properties comprising these areas is not known to the Authors or Uranerz representatives and is beyond the scope of this Technical Report. The following is a brief description of what is known about ownership history of these areas.

The locators of the claims acquired rights to the properties comprising the West North Butte area in 1987. In January 2007, Uranerz completed an acquisition of an undivided one-hundred percent interest in the claims comprising the West North Butte area.

The locators of the claims acquired rights to the properties comprising the East North Butte Area in 1987. In January 2007, Uranerz completed an acquisition of an undivided 100% interest in the claims comprising the East North Butte area.

The locators of the claims acquired rights to the properties comprising the Willow Creek area in the 1960s. In December 2005, Uranerz entered into an option agreement to acquire an undivided one-hundred percent interest in the claims comprising the Willow Creek area. The terms of the option agreement were satisfied in 2007 and the transfer of the claims to Uranerz was completed.

**6.2** **Exploration and Development History**

On October 15, 1951, J. D. Love discovered uranium mineralization in the Pumpkin Buttes districts in the Wasatch Formation on the south side of North Pumpkin Butte in the west-central portion of the Powder River Basin. The mineralization was one of eight areas recommended by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) in April 1950 for investigation in the search for uranium bearing lignites and volcanic tuffs. In response to this recommendation, an airborne radiometric reconnaissance of most of these areas was undertaken by the USGS in October 1950. The uranium mineralization discovered by J. D. Love was near an aerial radiometric anomaly identified from this survey (Love, 1952).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 6-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**6.2.1 Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex**

Exploration drilling was conducted in the Jane Dough area, Section 21 and 28, T43N, R76W, between the late 1960s and late 1970s by CCI. Little interest was generated by the completion of 46 holes from this drilling. Between 1968 and 1980 CCI drilled 150 holes and installed 3 water wells on the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough areas. Texas Eastern Nuclear Inc. completed limited drilling and exploration on Nichols Ranch in 1985. In the early 1990s, Rio Algom also completed limited drilling in the area. In December 2005, Uranerz purchased the Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank claims groups as part of a six-property agreement to option from Excalibur Industries. Uranerz then expanded the properties by staking additional claims in the immediate and surrounding areas.

Uranerz Energy Corporation began exploration drilling began on the Nichols Ranch area on July 11, 2006, and continued to June 6, 2015. A total of 1,098 holes (253 exploration holes, 105 monitor wells, and 740 production wells) were drilled during that time. A total of 51 exploration holes were drilled on the Hank area in 2008.

Uranerz received the Source Material License SUA-1597 in July of 2011. Nichols Ranch ISR operations began on April 15, 2014, after completion of a pre-operational inspection by the NRC Region IV office. There were two planned Production Areas (PA1 and PA2) in the Nichols Ranch area. Five header houses and their respective wellfields were installed and in operation in June 2015, when EFR acquired Uranerz, in Production Area #1. Header house #6 was commissioned in November 2015. In 2016, the EFR completed drilling 12 delineation holes and drilling and casing of 86 extraction wells in Header Houses #7 and #8 in Production Area #1. Header House #7 was turned on in March 2016 and Header House #8 was turned on in June 2016. In Production Area #2, 133 extraction and injection wells were drilled and cased. Header House #9 was completed and turned on in March 2017. No drilling or other development activities have been performed since 2017.

In January 2008, Uranerz entered into a JV on the Arkose Project, resulting in an 81% undivided interest in the mineral rights controlled by the JV. Uranerz commenced exploration on the Arkose Project in 2008. A total of 1,971 exploration holes were drilled on the Arkose Mining Venture from April 2008 to August 2012. A portion of the Arkose Mining Venture holdings were subsequently incorporated into the Jane Dough portion of the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and remain subject to the 81% ownership, as discussed in Section 4.0 of this Technical Report.

**6.2.2 Satellite Properties**

**6.2.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

Mining claims were first staked in the North Rolling Pin area by MWM sometime before 1968. Exploration drilling was conducted in the North Rolling Pin area Sections 11, 14 and 15, T43N, R76W, between 1968 and 1982 by CCI. A total of 476 exploration holes were drilled including 10 core holes. CCI was reported to be investigating the NRP area for open pit mining potential but never carried those plans past the exploration phase. In 2008 and 2009, Uranerz drilled 18 exploration holes in Sections 11 and 14. This drilling was performed to evaluate the potential for mineralization below the zones explored by CCI and for confirmation of the previously identified mineralization in the F Sand.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 6-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**6.2.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

Between 1968 and 1985, CCI drilled approximately 380 exploratory holes within the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek areas. From 1983 to 1985, Texas Eastern Nuclear drilled approximately 12 exploratory holes in these areas. From approximately 1990 to 1992, Rio Algom drilled approximately 5 exploratory holes. In 2006, Uranerz completed an acquisition of these areas, and in 2007 and 2008, drilled approximately 127 exploratory holes.

**6.3** **Historical Resource Estimates**

Mineral resource estimates were reported using the Grade-Tonnage (GT) Contour method for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit in 2015 (Beahm and Goranson, 2015), and Satellite Properties, North Rolling Pin in 2010 (Graves, 2010), and West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek in 2008 (Graves and Woody, 2008) The primary data used in all the evaluation is equivalent uranium values as quantified by downhole geophysical logging reported as % eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Radiometric equilibrium was evaluated and a disequilibrium factor (DEF) of 1 was used. The minimum uranium grade included in the estimate was 0.02% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Mineral resources were reported at a cut-off of 0.20 GT, which is the cut-off applied at the Nichols Ranch operation during this time.

The SLR QP and EFR do not consider the historical resource estimates completed over West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek to be current Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves as defined in S-K 1300 or NI 43-101, nor has EFR or the SLR QP completed sufficient work to confirm these estimates. These estimates (Graves and Woody, 2008) are historical and obsolete and only included here as an indication of mineralization and should not be relied upon (Table 6-1). This resource estimate has been excluded from the current Mineral Resource Estimate.

Resource estimates completed over Nichols Ranch in 2015 (Beahm and Goranson, 2015) and North Rolling Pin in 2010 (Graves, 2010) have been superseded by the Mineral Resource estimates in Section 14.0 of this Technical Report which includes additional new information and analysis.

Resource estimates for the Jane Dough and Hank properties were also completed in 2015 (Beahm and Goranson, 2015). EFR and the SLR QP reviewed these estimates and found them acceptable for reporting Mineral Resources as described in Section 14.0 of this Technical Report.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 6-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**Table 6-1:** **Historic Mineral Resource Estimates**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Project Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sand** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>**(ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained**<br>**Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Attributable Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Reference** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp; Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; A, B/LB, C, and F | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; Graves and Woody, 2008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; A, B/LB, C, and F | &nbsp;&nbsp; 926292 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.153 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2837015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2837015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Graves and Woody, 2008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Measured + Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **A, B/LB, C, and F** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **926292** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.153** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2837015** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2837015** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Graves and Woody, 2008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; A, B/LB, C, and F | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1116969 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2681928 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2681928 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Graves and Woody, 2008 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. 100% of West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek are attributed to Uranerz.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral resources are reported at GT cut-off of 0.20.

**6.4** **Past Production**

**6.4.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**6.4.1.1** **Nichols Ranch Area**

The Nichols Ranch area includes a formerly operating ISR plant and wellfields, licensed to operate by the NRC and WDEQ. Construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant began in 2011. Plant construction and initial wellfield installation were competed in 2014 and operations were initiated on April 15, 2014. Production of 302,359 lb of uranium oxide was reported from initiation of production through June 2015, prior to EFR acquisition. The Nichols Ranch area is licensed at an annual capacity of two million pounds uranium oxide.

EFR completed construction of an elution and precipitation circuit at the Nichols Ranch Plant in early February 2016. Yellowcake slurry was then transported from the Nichols Ranch Plant to the Mill for drying and packaging. The Nichols Ranch Plant is currently licensed to allow for the construction and operation of a drying and packaging circuit should conditions warrant.

Operations at Nichols Ranch area ceased in 2019 and it is currently on care and maintenance.

**6.4.1.2** **Jane Dough and Hank**

The Jane Dough and Hank areas are included in the Nichols Ranch permit, however, no production has occurred at either area.

**6.4.2 Satellite Properties**

In the early 1970s there was limited production on the North Rolling Pin property, however no production has occurred on the remaining Satellite Properties.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 6-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**6.4.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

In the early 1970s CCI and Wyoming Mineral Corporation (WMC) conducted research and development (R&D) activities at an ISR test site located in the North Rolling Pin area, including production of an unknown amount of granular yellowcake. It should be noted that production of granular yellowcake at the North Rolling Pin pilot plant did not exceed 500 lb as dictated by the limitation set forth in the Source Material License granted to CCI by the NRC.

Records indicate that CCI applied for a Source Materials License on December 26, 1973, and approval was granted on May 23, 1974 (SUA-1199). Research and development permitting was not required by the State of Wyoming at the time of the operation. The North Rolling Pin pilot plant was located in the northwest corner of Section 14, T43N, R76W. The plant was portable, mounted on two 45-foot mobile trailers and had a rated capacity of 25 gpm. The wellfield consisted of twelve wells: eight were used for the injection and recovery and four were utilized as monitor wells. The lixiviant used in the tests was a low strength ammonium carbonate/bicarbonate solution with a hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The stripping of the uranium from the resin was affected with a chloride elution and the precipitation process utilized hydrochloric acid and ammonia (In-Situ Consulting, 1979). On June 19, 1974, two 5-spot tests were conducted at the site by WMC. The tests ended November 1, 1974, and WMC concluded that the test work demonstrated that the confinement generated by injecting water into wells outside the system that provides leaching agent to the host is possible.

Poor weather in late fall of 1974 cut short the restoration efforts by WMC. CCI hoped the reclamation work already conducted by WMC would satisfy the restoration liability, but post assaying data confirmed above background concentrations in most of the wells and did not show adequate restoration. CCI contracted In-Situ Consulting for technical assistance and continued with groundwater restoration efforts. CCI began field preparation for their restoration efforts in June 1978, which involved the installation of a piping system to all wells, setting pumps, locating generators, fuel tanks, an evaporation pond and bladder tanks (In-Situ Consulting, 1979). In July 1980, CCI was authorized to begin the comprehensive site restoration scheme and on November 5, 1982, the Source Material License (SUA-1199) was terminated based on successful completion of final site restoration and an NRC closeout inspection.

**6.4.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

No past production has occurred on these areas.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 6-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**7.0** **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION**

**7.1** **Regional Geology**

The Complex is located in the Powder River Basin, which is a large structural and topographic depression sub-parallel to the trend of the Rocky Mountains. The Basin is bounded on the south by the Hartville Uplift and the Laramie Range, on the east by the Black Hills, and on the west by the Big Horn Mountains and the Casper Arch. The Miles City Arch in southeastern Montana forms the northern boundary of the Basin.

The Powder River Basin is an asymmetrical syncline with its axis closely paralleling the western basin margin. During sedimentary deposition, the structural axis (the line of greatest material accumulation) shifted westward resulting in the Basin's asymmetrical shape (Figure 7-1). On the eastern flank of the Powder River Basin, sedimentary rock strata dip gently to the west at approximately 0.5° to 3.0°. On the western flank, the strata dip more steeply, 0.5° to 15° to the east with the dip increasing as distance increases westward from the axis. The general surficial geology of this portion of the Powder River Basin is shown on Figure 7-2.

![](exhibit99-1xz004.jpg)

**Figure 7-1:** **Cross Section of Local Geology**

The Powder River Basin hosts a sedimentary rock sequence that has a maximum approximate thickness of 15,000 ft along the synclinal axis. The sediments range in age from Recent (Holocene) to early Paleozoic (Cambrian - 500 million to 600 million years ago) and overlie a basement complex of Precambrian-age (more than a billion years old) igneous and metamorphic rocks. Geologically, the Powder River Basin is a closed depression in what was, for a long geologic time period, a large basin extending from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico. During the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, the configuration of this expansive basin changed as the result of uplift on its margins. By the late Tertiary Paleocene time, marked uplift of inland masses surrounding the Powder River Basin resulted in accelerated subsidence in the southern portion of the basin with thick sequences of arkosic (containing feldspar) sediments being deposited. Arkosic sediments were derived from the granitic cores of the Laramie and Granite Mountains exposed to weathering and erosion by the Laramide uplift. Near the end of Eocene time, northward tilting and deep weathering with minor erosion took place in the basin. Subsidence resumed in the late Oligocene and continued through the Miocene and into the Pliocene. A great thickness of tuffaceous sediments was deposited in the basin during at least a part of this period of subsidence. By the late Pliocene, regional uplift was taking place, leading to a general rise in elevation of several thousand feet. The massive erosional pattern that characterizes much of the Powder River Basin began with the Pliocene uplift and continues to the present.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

The White River Formation is the youngest Tertiary unit that still exists in the Powder River Basin. Locally, its only known remnants are found on top of the Pumpkin Buttes. Elsewhere the unit consists of thick sequences of buff-colored tuffaceous sediments interspersed with lenses of fine sand and siltstone. A basal conglomerate forms the resistant cap rock on top of the buttes. This formation is not known to contain significant uranium mineralization in this area.

The Wasatch Formation is the next underlying unit and consists of interbedded mudstones, carbonaceous shales, silty sandstones, and relatively clean sandstones. Near the Pumpkin Buttes, the Wasatch Formation is known to be 1,575 ft thick (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). The interbedded mudstones, siltstones, and relatively clean sandstones in the Wasatch vary in degree of lithification from uncemented to moderately well-cemented sandstones, and from weakly compacted and cemented mudstones to fissile shales. The Wasatch Formation hosts significant uranium mineralization.

The next underlying unit is the Fort Union Formation. In the Powder River Basin this unit is lithologically similar to the Wasatch Formation. The Fort Union includes interbedded silty claystones, sandy siltstones, relatively clean sandstones, claystones, and coal. The degree of lithification is quite variable, ranging from virtually uncemented sands to moderately well-cemented siltstones and sandstones. The total thickness of the Fort Union in this area is approximately 3,000 ft. The Fort Union hosts significant uranium mineralization at various locations in the basin.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz005.jpg)

**Figure 7-2:** **Regional Geologic Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**7.2** **Local Geology**

Uranium mineralization at the Complex deposits is hosted by the Eocene Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch Formation was deposited in a multi-channel fluvial and flood plain environment. The climate at the time of deposition was wet tropical to subtropical with medium stream and river sediment load depositing most medium grained materials. The source of the sediments, as evidenced by abundant feldspar grains in the sandstones, was the nearby Laramie and Granite Mountains.

Within the Complex, there is a repetitive transgressive/regressive sequence of sandstones separated by fine-grained horizons composed of siltstone, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, and poorly developed thin coal seams. The fine-grained materials were deposited in flood plain, shallow lake (lacustrine), and swamp environments. Ultimately, deposition of the Wasatch Formation was a function of stream bed load entering the basin and subsidence from within the basin. However, in the central part of the Powder River Basin, long periods of balanced stability occurred. During these periods the stream gradients were relatively low and allowed for development of broad (0.5 mi to 6.0 mi wide) meander belt systems, associated over-bank deposits, and finer grained materials in flood plains, swamps, and shallow bodies of water. Evidence for depositional stability exists as several coal bed markers with little or no channel scouring are in contact with the major sand horizons (Davis, 1969). The base of the A Sand at Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough is underlain by basal lignite and carbonaceous shales.

**7.2.1 Depositional Environment**

In a fluvial meandering stream process, the flow channel is sinuous in plan view with the highest flow energy concentrated on the outside edge of the channel as it turns through a meander. This results in cutting into the outside channel wall and caving material into the channel especially during flooding. In cross section view, the outside edge of a meander is the steepest and the inside of the meander is sloped more gently. The inside edge of a meander is where deposition takes place. Finer materials are deposited in the shallower (upper) slow flow region of the inside slope and coarser materials are deposited in the lower region. The major fraction of sand in the Wasatch Formation in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District is medium grained with lesser fractions of coarse and fine grains (Figure 7-3). This is accompanied with mostly medium scale festoon cross bedding and current lamented cross bedding. These features can only be seen in cores.

The meandering stream environment is a process of cut and fill. Each time a cut occurs, the inside slope fills with sand and sediment. A single increment of this process results in a structure called a point bar. In a typical point bar sedimentation process, grain size and sediment structure are fining upwards in the upstream portion of the single point bar accumulation (Visher, 1972). An accumulation of point bars is sometimes referred to as a meander belt. As the meander process progresses, meander loops eventually migrate down gradient in the direction of flow and can laterally spread out in almost any direction. The size of the complete meander belt system is a function of the size of the valley or basin and stream flow rate, load, and gradient. If the subsidence rate and stream load are in the proper proportion, successive layers of meander belts, or meander belt systems, may form as the stream channel wanders back and forth during subsidence.

Meander belts in the Wasatch Formation are generally 5 ft to 30 ft thick. The A Sand at Nichols Ranch area is made up of three to four stacked meander belts and the F Sand at Hank area has two to three stacked meander belts. Individual meander belt layers will rarely terminate at the same location twice. Meanders have been noted to frequently terminate in the interior of a belt system but are more likely to terminate somewhere closer to the edge of the meander stream valley. The net effect for fluvial sands is to generally thin away from the main axis of the meander belt system. The A Sand meander belt system at Nichols Ranch area is approximately four miles wide. At Hank, the F Sand meander belt system is smaller than Nichols Ranch at approximately one and one-half miles wide.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz006.jpg)

**Figure 7-3:** **Schematic Fluvial Point Bar System**

**7.3** **Property Geology**

**7.3.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**7.3.1.1** **Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough**

At Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough, the Eocene Wasatch Formation is exposed at the surface with limited areas of quaternary alluvial and colluvial deposits. Eight fluvial sandstone horizons or units have been identified at Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough. Beginning with the deepest unit, they are the 1, A, B, C, F, G and H Sand units shown on the regional stratigraphic column (Figure 7-4). Separating the sand units are horizons composed of siltstones, mudstones, carbonaceous shales, and poorly developed thin coals. The primary mineralized sandstone unit (A Sand) is in the lower part of the Wasatch Formation, at an approximate average depth from surface of 550 ft. At Nichols Ranch, additional mineralization occurs in the F sand of the Wasatch Formation at a depth of approximately 220 ft. The host sands are primarily arkosic in composition, friable, fine- to coarse-grained, and contain trace amounts of carbonaceous material and organic debris.

For the Mineral Resource estimate and ISR wellfield planning, development, and operations at Nichols Ranch, the A Sand has been divided into 10 sub-units with variable extents both laterally and vertically (Figure 7-5). On an electric log resistivity curve, the grading is apparent where the curve sharply deflects from low to higher resistance and then gradually returns to lower resistance in an upward direction. Other meander belt system sand features such as overbank and crevasse deposits are present as fingers of sand that taper out from a meander termination. These are thin sands without a lot of grain size sorting. Inter-meander channel sands occur between meanders that are migrating in different directions. These sands have more uniform grain size and show on the electric log as a semi-flat curve with only small variations. Tributary and meander cut-off channel sand features form where pre-existing sediments are scoured by a river or stream and subsequently fill with medium and coarse sediments. These channels may cut randomly into meander belts, flood plain or swamp sediments. On the electric resistivity log, channel fills have a massive semi-rounded signature

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**7.3.1.2** **Hank**

Hank is approximately six miles east-northeast of Nichols Ranch. Eocene Wasatch Formation is exposed at the surface with limited areas of quaternary alluvial and colluvial deposits. The mineralized sand horizon (F Sand) is in the lower part of the Wasatch Formation at an approximate average depth of 365 ft. The host sands are primarily arkosic in composition, friable, fine- to very coarse-grained, and contain trace amounts of carbonaceous material and organic debris.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz007.jpg)

**Figure 7-4:** **Regional Stratigraphic Column**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz008.jpg)

**Figure 7-5:** **Nichols Ranch Radiometric Log Cross Section Log**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**7.3.2 Satellite Properties**

**7.3.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

At the North Rolling Pin area, the mineralized sand horizon (F Sand) occurs within the Wasatch Formation at an approximate depth from surface ranging from 51 ft to 403 ft and averaging 282 ft to the top of the mineralization (Figure 7-6 and Figure 7-7). Generally, the depth of mineralization decreases from the northeast to the southwest due mainly to topography along which the surface elevation decreases from approximately 5,180 ft to approximately 4,800 ft. The F Sand ranges in thickness from approximately 30 ft to 60 ft, and generally increases in thickness in the southwest portion of Section 11 and thins toward the northeast and southwest in the area. The F Sand primarily consists of two stacked sand sets, termed the Upper and Lower F Sands that each average 20 ft to 25 ft thick. The nature of these sand sets, as described above, is a major control on the mineralization occurring at North Rolling Pin.

The host sand is primarily arkosic in composition, friable, and contains trace carbonaceous material and organic debris. There are local sandy mudstone/siltstone intervals with the sandstone, and the sand may thicken or pinch-out in some locations. The North Rolling Pin area lies east of the synclinal axis of the Powder River Basin, and the host Wasatch Formation dips approximately one degree to two degrees to the west.

Mineralization was also noted in 27 drillholes that occur in the shallower G Sand of the Wasatch Formation, however, there is limited exploration data in the G Sand. Based on the available data, mineralization in the G Sand is inconsistent and is not included in this Mineral Resource estimate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz009.jpg)

**Figure 7-6:** **North Rolling Pin Radiometric Log Cross Section A-A' Log**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz010.jpg)

**Figure 7-7:** **North Rolling Pin Radiometric Log Cross Section B-B' Log**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**7.3.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

The mineralized sand horizons occur within the lower part of the Wasatch Formation, at an approximate depth from surface ranging from 482 ft to 1,012 ft at West North Butte, 540 ft to 660 ft at East North Butte, and 172 ft to 567 ft at Willow Creek. The host sands are primarily arkosic in composition, friable, and contain trace carbonaceous material and organic debris. There are local sandy mudstone/siltstone intervals with the sandstones, and the sands may thicken or pinch-out in some locations. In the WNB and WC area, the dip of the host formation is approximately at one degree to two degrees as the claims are on the east side of the synclinal axis (Berglund, 2006, 2007).

The stratigraphy of the Wasatch consists of alternating layers of sand and shale with lignite marker beds. At the Satellite Properties, there are four primary Wasatch Formation sand members (F, C, B, and A Sands). The F Sand unit is the shallowest, and the A Sand member is the deepest.

Mineral resources are located in the Eocene age Wasatch Formation in what is identified as the A, B, C and F host sand units of the WNB area, the A and B host sands of the ENB area and in the A and F host sand units of the WC area.

**7.3.2.2.1** **West North Butte**

Roll fronts were identified in the F, C, B, Lower B, and A sands in the WNB area (Berglund, 2007). Data from mineralization identified in the F, C, B, Lower B, and A sands were used to develop the resource estimate presented herein. The Lower B sand resource estimate was combined with the B sand for this estimate. The average depth to the mineralization for the F, C, B, lower B, and A sands are approximately 482 ft, 898 ft, 985 ft, 741 ft, and 1,012 ft, respectively. Mineralized thickness ranges from 1 ft to 29 ft, with average grades greater than 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and GT>0.2 for the area. Figure 7-8 provides a cross section that illustrates the relative position of the host sand in the WNB area.

**7.3.2.2.2** **East North Butte**

Two roll fronts were identified in the ENB area: the B and A sands (Brown, 2005). Data from mineralization identified in the B and A sands were used to develop the Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Technical Report. The average depth to mineralization for the B and A sands are approximately 540 ft and 660 ft, respectively. Mineralized thickness ranges from one foot to three feet, with an average mineralization thickness greater than 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and GT>0.2 of 5.7 ft (per log intercept) for the area. Figure 7-9 provides a cross section that illustrates the relative position of the host sand in the ENB area.

**7.3.2.2.3** **Willow Creek**

Four roll fronts were identified in this WC area (Berglund, 2006): the F sand, the B sand, the Upper A sand, and the Lower A sand. The roll fronts were interpreted using gamma characteristics, the sand boundaries determined from the resistivity logs, and the alteration noted on the lithology logs. Mineralization identified in the F and Lower A sands (referred to as the A sand herein) were used in developing the Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Technical Summary. The average mineralization depths to the F and A sands are approximately 172 ft and 567 ft, respectively. Mineralized thickness ranges from 1 ft to 21.5 ft, with an average mineralization thickness greater than 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and GT>0.2 of 9.3 ft (per log intercept) for the area. Figure 7-10 provides a cross section that illustrates the relative position of the host sands in the WC area.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz011.jpg)

**Figure 7-8:** **West North Butte Radiometric Log Cross Section Log A-A'**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz012.jpg)

**Figure 7-9:** **East North Butte Radiometric Log Cross Section Log B-B'**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz013.jpg)

**Figure 7-10:** **Willow Creek Radiometric Log Cross Section Log C-C'**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**7.4** **Mineralization**

The uranium mineralization is composed of amorphous uranium oxide, sooty pitchblende, and coffinite, and is deposited in void spaces between detrital sand grains and within minor authigenic clays. The host sandstone is composed of quartz, feldspar, accessory biotite and muscovite mica, and locally occurring carbon fragments. Grain size ranges from very fine to very coarse sand but is medium-grained overall. The sandstones are weakly to moderately cemented and friable. Pyrite and calcite are associated with the sands in the reduced facies. Hematite or limonite stain from pyrite are common oxidation products in the oxidized facies. Montmorillonite and kaolinite clays from oxidized feldspars are also present in the oxidized facies (Uranerz, 2010a). The uranium being extracted is hosted in a sandstone, roll front deposit at a depth ranging from 400 ft to 800 ft.

There are two theories (Uranerz, 2014) as to the origin of uranium in the Powder River Basin and Pumpkin Buttes Mining District. The first theory places the source of uranium from the weathering of the mountain cores which have also been cited as the source for the arkosic host sandstones. The basement rocks of the Granite Mountains, for example, have been determined to have high concentrations of uranium (20 ppm to 30 ppm). It has also been estimated that the granites have lost 70% of their original uranium content. Emplacement of the uranium under this theory would have taken place beginning 40 million to 45 million years ago, shortly after the host sands were deposited in the basins. The second theory places the source of uranium as overlaying Oligocene and Miocene rhyolite volcanic tuffs with uranium leaching into the groundwater system as the volcanic tuffs weathered. The rhyolite volcanic tuffs were the result of volcanic activity to the west. Emplacement of the uranium has been cited as 20 million to 32 million years ago. Since both theories are plausible, some geologists subscribe to a dual theory where each possible source contributed some percentage to the overall uranium occurrence.

Regardless of the source of the uranium, both theories would require a climate with active chemical weathering to breakdown the rock matrix and put the uranium into groundwater solution. One suggested environment for this to occur is the modern-day savanna climate. Savanna climates are characterized by very wet, humid annual periods followed by hot and dry periods. This type of climate produces rapid chemical weathering and high oxidation potentials, which would have been needed to solubilize the uranium and keep it in solution until the groundwater system encountered a reducing, oxygen deficient environment such as the carbon trash rich sands in the Powder River Basin. When the uranium charged groundwater flowed into the reduced sandstone environment, the oxidized uranium precipitated out of solution along the interface between the two chemical environments. The uranium was deposited in 'C' shaped rolls, which are five feet to 30 ft thick, and in plan view may be a few feet to 500 ft wide and tens of miles in length. Along the length of the trace of the chemical roll, ore grade uranium may be found, however, ore is not likely along every mile of the front. During the time that uranium was emplaced, as is true today, the groundwater in the Powder River Basin generally flowed to the north and northwest. As the original uranium-charged groundwater flowed in the host sands, the chemical reductant was consumed and the roll fronts migrated down the hydrologic gradient, leaving in their wake a characteristic yellow to red to brown stain on the sandstone grains. As many as 11 separate roll front systems (Figure 7-11) have been identified in different horizons of the Wasatch Formation in the Powder River Basin area.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-16 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz014.jpg)

**Figure 7-11:** **Cross Section Stacked Roll Fronts**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 7-17 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**8.0** **DEPOSIT TYPES**

Wyoming uranium deposits are typically sandstone roll front uranium deposits as defined in the "World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification", (IAEA, 2009). The key components in the formation of roll front type mineralization include:

* A permeable host formation:

* Sandstone units of the Wasatch Formation.

* A source of soluble uranium:

* Volcanic ash flows coincidental with Wasatch deposition containing elevated concentration of uranium is the probable source of uranium deposits for the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District.

* Oxidizing groundwaters to leach and transport the uranium:

* Groundwaters regionally tend to be oxidizing and slightly alkaline.

* Adequate reductant within the host formation:

* Conditions resulting from periodic hydrogen sulfide (H<sub>2</sub>S gas) migrating along faults and subsequent iron sulfide (pyrite) precipitation created local reducing conditions.

* Time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface.

* Uranium precipitates from solution at the oxidation/reduction boundary (REDOX) as uraninite (UO<sub>2</sub>, Uranium oxide), which is dominant, or coffinite (USiO<sub>4</sub>, uranium silicate).

* The geohydrologic regime of the region has been stable over millions of years with groundwater movement controlled primarily by high-permeability channels within the predominantly sandstone formations of the Tertiary.

As depicted on Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2, roll fronts are formed along an interface between oxidizing groundwater solutions which encounter reducing conditions within the host sandstone unit. This boundary between oxidizing and reducing conditions is often referred to as the REDOX interface or front.

Sandstone uranium deposits are typically of digenetic and/or epigenetic origin formed by low temperature oxygenated groundwater leaching uranium from the source rocks and transporting the uranium in low concentrations down gradient within the host formation where it is deposited along a REDOX interface. Parameters controlling the deposition and consequent thickness and grade of mineralization include the host rock lithology and permeability, available reducing agents, groundwater geochemistry, and time in that the groundwater/geochemical system responsible for leaching; transportation and re-deposition of uranium must be stable long enough to concentrate the uranium to potentially economic grades and thicknesses. Roll front mineralization is common to Wyoming uranium districts including the Powder River Basin, Gas Hills, Shirley Basin, Great Divide Basin, and others, as well as districts in South Texas and portions of the Grants, New Mexico District.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 8-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz015.jpg)

**Figure 8-1:** **Typical Roll Front Cross Section**

![](exhibit99-1xz016.jpg)

**Figure 8-2:** **Typical Roll Front (REDOX) Boundary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 8-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**9.0** **EXPLORATION**

On October 15, 1951, J.D.Love discovered uranium mineralization in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District in the Wasatch Formation on the south side of North Pumpkin Butte in the west central portion of the Powder River Basin. The mineralization was one of eight areas recommended in April 1950 for investigation in the search for uranium bearing lignites and volcanic tuffs. In response to this recommendation, an airborne radiometric reconnaissance of most of these areas was undertaken by the USGS in October 1950. The uranium mineralization discovered by J. D. Love was in the vicinity of an aerial radiometric anomaly identified from this survey (Love, 1952).

Early mining focused on shallow oxidized areas using small open pit mines. Primary exploration methods included geologic mapping and ground radiometric surveys. Modern exploration and mining in the district have focused on deeper reduced mineralization.

Rotary drilling on the Complex is the principal method of exploration and delineation of uranium mineralization. Drilling can generally be conducted year-round on the Project. Since acquiring the properties in 2015, EFR has conducted no additional exploration other than in-fill/delineation rotary drilling on the properties including wellfield installation at Nichols Ranch.

Hydrogeological and geotechnical information pertaining to the Project is described in Section 16.4 and Section 16.5 of this Technical Report.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 9-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**10.0** **DRILLING**

As of the effective date of this Technical Report, EFR and its predecessor companies have completed a total of 3,942 drillholes (Table 10-1) across the Complex over the course of several drilling programs that began in 1960. Of the 3,942 drillholes recorded, EFR's drilling database contains 3,504 drillholes totaling 2,363,890 ft drilled of which 449 totaling 281,126 ft have been completed by EFR since acquiring the Project in 2015 (Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-2). The drill record includes both Rotary and Diamond Drill (DD) drilling, monitor wells, and injection and production wells. No drilling has occurred across the properties since December 5, 2016.

Drillhole collar locations are recorded on the original drill logs and radiometric logs created at the time of drilling, including easting and northing coordinates in local grid or modified NAD 1927 UTM Zone 13 and elevation of collar in feet above sea level. Due to the horizontally stratified nature of mineralization, downhole deviation surveys are not typically conducted as all drillholes are vertical.

**Table 10-1:** **Historical Drillhole Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Property** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Historic Drillholes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Drillholes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1328 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 449 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1777 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; 786 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 786 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; 309 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 309 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; North Rolling Pin | &nbsp;&nbsp; 494 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 494 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp; 576 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 576 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3493** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **449** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3942** |

---

In the opinion of the SLR QP, the drilling, logging, sampling, and conversion and recovery factors at the Project meet or exceed industry standards and are adequate for use in the estimation of Mineral Resources.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 10-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz017.jpg)

**Figure 10-1:** **Historical Drillhole Location Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 10-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz018.jpg)<br>**<br>Figure 10-2:** **EFR Drillhole Location Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 10-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**10.1** **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**10.1.1 Historic Drilling 1960 to 2015**

Drilling records indicated that between 1960 and 1985, CCI drilled approximately 143 exploratory holes within the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit area. Between 2005 and 2015, Uranerz completed approximately 1,185 exploratory holes which includes 11 DD holes. In total, EFR predecessors drilled 1,328 holes across the Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough and Hank areas.

**10.1.2 EFR Drilling 2015 to 2016**

EFR has conducted its own exploration of the properties with delineation drilling on the Nichols Ranch area. The drillhole data demonstrates that mineralization is present and is of sufficient quality and density to support mineral resource estimation. Drillhole data is dominantly based on interpretation of downhole geophysical logs typically consisting of natural gamma, resistivity, and SP (Spontaneous Potential). Resistivity and SP were utilized for defining lithology and correlating the logs. Geophysical logging was historically completed by commercial geophysical logging companies. Recent and current geophysical logging is being completed by EFR personnel using modern logging units owned by EFR.

Data in the possession of EFR includes nearly 100% of the total original geophysical and lithologic logs both historic and recent.

**10.2** **Satellite Properties**

Available historical data were developed by previous owners of the Satellite Properties during several drilling programs conducted sporadically between 1968 to 2015. EFR is in possession of most of the historical geophysical and lithologic logs and drillhole location maps but has not conducted its own exploration of the Satellite Properties. Drilling data, comprised primarily of downhole geophysical logs (natural gamma, resistivity, and spontaneous potential), indicate that mineralization is present within the Satellite Properties and define its three-dimensional location. In addition, the historic information includes density and chemistry data from six core holes.

**10.2.1 North Rolling Pin**

Between 1968 to 2008, CCI and Uranerz completed 494 drillholes across the North Rolling Pin area. The geophysical and lithologic log data from 386 of the 494 drillholes were used in the evaluation of the North Rolling Pin area. It was noted that data from 108 CCI drillholes were missing, and it was concluded (Graves, 2010) that most of these drillholes were left out of the sequence and were not drilled.

The exploration drillholes were spaced approximately 25 ft to 50 ft apart in rows orientated perpendicular to the mineralization trend or in clusters of close spaced drilling. Additional fences were then drilled approximately every 400 to 600 feet along the length of the trend.

Of the data from 386 drillholes, 198 of the holes had mineralization with a GT of 0.2 or greater and were used for the mineral resource estimate completed in 2008 (Graves, 2010).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 10-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**10.2.2 West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek**

Between 1968 and 1985, CCI drilled approximately 256 exploratory holes in West North Butte, 45 in East North Butte, and 131 in Willow Creek). From 1983 to 1985, Texas Eastern Nuclear drilled approximately 12 exploratory holes in the Willow Creek area. From approximately 1990 to 1992, Rio Algom drilled approximately five exploratory holes at Willow Creek. In 2006, Uranerz completed an acquisition of the WNB, ENB, and WC areas, and between 2007 to 2009, drilled 127 exploratory holes (29 in WNB, 82 in ENB, and 16 in WC). Of the 576 drillholes completed, 52 holes (45 in ENB, 7- in WC) were missing geophysical logs and were excluded from the mineral resource estimate completed in 2010 (Graves and Woody, 2010).

The holes were typically spaced approximately 25 feet apart perpendicular to the trend and approximately 400 feet apart parallel to the trend.

**10.3** **Procedures**

**10.3.1 Collar Coordinates and Surveying**

Drillhole collar locations are recorded on the original drill logs created at the time of drilling, including easting and northing coordinates in local grid (Wyoming State Plane, NAD 27 datum) and elevation of collar in feet above sea level National Geodetic Datum of 1929 (NGVD29).

EFR is using an Astech GPS system for surveying drillhole and well locations. This instrument can measure horizontal coordinates within 0.25 m (0.8 ft). EFR uses on-site control points for static post-processing corrections of the GPS data which slightly increases the accuracy. The SLR QP is of the opinion that, for the deposit type, all survey methods used for the collar locations would be expected to provide adequate accuracy for the drillhole locations.

All drilling is vertical. The dip of the formation is relatively flat, two degrees to three degrees to the northeast. EFR drilling contracts include cost penalties for downhole deviation in excess of 1%. If the downhole deviation exceeds 2%, EFR can require the hole be re-drilled at the contractor's expense. Downhole deviation is measured as part of the geophysical logging and is available for all recent drilling. Given the flat formational dip and restrictions placed on downhole deviation, the variance in thickness measured by geophysical logging and true thickness (less than 1%) will not appreciably affect mineral resource estimation.

**10.3.2 Drill Logging**

EFR has established standard procedures for drillhole, lithologic, and geophysical logging of rotary drill and diamond drillholes.

**10.3.2.1** **Rotary Drilling (Rotary)**

* Drill cuttings are caught every five feet from surface to total depth.

* These drill cuttings are described by the field geologist using the standard lithologic log developed in-house by EFR.

* Adjusting cutting depths to match the geophysical logs noting sample lag.

* The downhole log (including natural gamma and SP) is then scanned into the data system for future evaluation and record keeping.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 10-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**10.3.2.2** **Diamond Drilling (DD)**

* Locating core holes such that they are representative of the deposit.

* Sealing core samples in protective plastics sleeves prior to placing the core into boxes.

* Completion of geophysical logging of the drillhole for natural gamma, resistivity, and SP.

* Minimizing the time between collection of the core and chemical analysis.

* Adjusting the core depths to match the geophysical logs noting sample lag and recovery.

* Completing a detailed lithological log of all drillholes using a standardized lithological log format.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 10-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**11.0** **SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY**

**11.1** **Sample Preparation and Analysis**

**11.1.1 Gamma Logging**

The primary assay data used in calculating Mineral Resource estimates for the Complex are downhole geophysical logs. Additional data include limited core assays and Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN) geophysical logging.

Exploration drilling for uranium is unique in that core does not need to be recovered from a hole to determine the metal content. Due to the radioactive nature of uranium, probes that measure the decay products or "daughters" can be measured with a downhole gamma probe; this process is referred to as gamma logging. While gamma probes do not measure the direct uranium content, the data collected (in counts per second (CPS) can be used along with probe calibration data to determine an equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade in percent (% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>). These grades are very reliable as long as there is not a disequilibrium problem in the area. Disequilibrium will be discussed below. Gamma logging is common in non-uranium drilling and is typically used to discern rock types.

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. The natural gamma (counts per second, or cps), self potential (millivolts), and resistance (ohms) were recorded at 1/10th foot increments on magnetic tape and then processed by computer to graphically reproducible form. The data were transferred from the tape to computer for use in resource estimation.

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.

**11.1.1.1** **Calibration**

For the gamma probes to report accurate %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values the gamma probes must be calibrated regularly. The probes are calibrated by running the probes in test pits maintained historically by the AEC and currently by the DOE. There are test pits in Grand Junction, Colorado, Grants, New Mexico, and Casper, Wyoming. The test pits have known %U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values, which are measured by the probes. A dead time (DT) and K-factor can be calculated based on running the probes in the test pits. These values are necessary to convert CPS to %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The dead time accounts for the size of the hole and the decay that occurs in the space between the probe and the wall rock. DT is measured in microseconds (μsec). The K-factor is simply a calibration coefficient used to convert the DT-corrected CPS to %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

Quarterly or semi-annual calibration is usually sufficient. Calibration should be done more frequently if variations in data are observed or the probe is damaged.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**11.1.1.2** **Method**

Following the completion of a rotary hole, a geophysical logging truck will be positioned over the open hole and a probe will be lowered to the hole's total depth. Typically, these probes take multiple different readings. In uranium deposits, the holes are usually logged for gamma, resistivity, standard potential, and hole deviation. Only gamma is used in the grade calculation. Once the probe is at the bottom of the hole, the probe begins recording as the probe is raised. The quality of the data is impacted by the speed the probe is removed from the hole. Experience shows a speed of 20 feet per minute is adequate to obtain data for resource modeling. Data is recorded in CPS, which is a measurement of uranium decay of uranium daughter products, specifically Bismuth-24. That data is then processed using the calibration factors to calculate a eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade. Historically, eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades were calculated using the AEC half amplitude method, which gives a grade over a thickness. Currently, the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades tend to be calculated on 0.5-foot intervals by software. Depending on the manufacturer of the probe truck and instrumentation, different methods are used to calculate the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade, but all, including the AEC method, are based on the two equations given below.

The first equation converts CPS to CPS corrected for the dead time (DT) determined as part of the calibration process

![](exhibit99-1xz019.jpg)

The second equation converts the Dead Time Corrected CPS (N) to %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> utilizing the K-factor (K)

![](exhibit99-1xz020.jpg)

Depending on the drilling and logging environment, additional multipliers can be added to correct for various environmental factors. Typically, these include a water factor for drill hole mud, a pipe factor if the logging is done in the drill steel, and a disequilibrium factor if the deposit is known to be in disequilibrium. Tables for water and pipe factors are readily available.

For all recent drilling Century's Compulog™ software is utilized to convert natural gamma measurement to equivalent % U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade (% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>). The output data is provided both electronically and in hard copy by 0.5 ft intervals. This grade data is then summed for thickness and GT for the appropriate mineralized intervals. This procedure is the current industry standard method. Hard copies of all original drillhole data are maintained either at the Nichols Ranch facility or the Casper, Wyoming office. Both facilities are secure.

**11.1.2 Prompt Fission Neutron Logging**

Natural gamma is the traditional tool used to measure eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade and evaluate resources but in some sandstone-hosted deposits, uranium is not in equilibrium with its daughters as they are too young, and uranium is still actively mobile. Typical gamma logging tools measure radioactive decay products which develop in the uranium decay chain rather than the uranium-238 (<sup>23</sup><sup>8</sup>U) of interest. After a long period of geologic time the decay products measured by gamma logging tools will be directly proportional to the uranium in the ore zone provided that geologic processes have not caused the uranium to be separated from the gamma emitters being measured, such as <sup>214</sup>Bi, <sup>226</sup>Ra, <sup>222</sup>Rn and others (Campbell et al., 2008). The uranium and decay products naturally separate down gradient, with a higher percent of the latter remaining behind in the tails of the roll front and the uranium (in higher percent than the decay products) moving ahead in the nose of the ore body, albeit slower than the groundwater flow rate (Figure 11-1). The gamma log does not indicate the correct grade (actual chemical content) neither up gradient nor down gradient of the ore zone. The grade calculation made from the gamma log can be either higher or lower than what is actually present in these areas (Figure 11-2).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

Due to biogeochemical processes, uranium may have moved into an area of low gamma, thus increasing the grade, or out of an area of high gamma, thus decreasing the grade. When this occurs over a wide area, the ore body, or a part thereof, is said to be in disequilibrium. In order to determine actual uranium grades, a representative number of core samples will need to be obtained for laboratory analysis and compared to the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> results for each core hole. This will determine the amount of disequilibrium in the ore zone of the deposit.

![](exhibit99-1xz021.jpg)

**Figure 11-1:** **Uranium Roll Front Natural Gamma Log Configuration and Associated Geochemistry**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz022.jpg)

Source: After Penney, 2011

**Figure 11-2:** **PFN versus Natural Gamma Trace Response**

Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN) was invented by Sandia Laboratories & Mobil R&D in Texas during the 1970s to directly measure in situ ore grade uranium.

The PFN logging tool overcomes the problem of disequilibrium by measuring the uranium-235 (<sup>235</sup>U) in the formation. In the PFN tool, a pulsed neutron source electronically generates 10<sup>8</sup> 14-MeV neutrons per second which ultimately cause fission of <sup>235</sup>U in the formation. The thermal and epithermal neutrons returning to the tool from the formation are counted in separate detector channels to provide a measure of <sup>235</sup>U free from variations in neutron output and borehole factors common with natural gamma measurements.

In this way PFN is essentially equivalent to other common uranium assay methods such as X-ray diffraction (XRF) completed in a laboratory or field environment and is thus considered to provide direct assay results. The tool has no electric logs (resistivity and self-potential) and so must be run after these logs have been run. The lowest practical grade measurement is approximately 0.02% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Like the standard gamma tool, the PFN tool must be calibrated by taking measurements in test pits of known grade and porosity.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**11.1.3 Core Sampling**

There are two main purposes of collecting DD core:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Radiometric equilibrium (Section 0) - the condition in which a radioactive species and its successive radioactive products have attained such relative proportions that they all disintegrate at the same numerical rate and therefore maintain their proportions constant.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In situ leach amenability studies - intended to demonstrate that the uranium mineralization is capable of being leached using conventional ISR chemistry.

DD core is pulled from the hole by the drilling contractor and laid out in a core box. Core sampling is the primary responsibility of the EFR field geologist. The general process for core sampling is as follows:

* The boxes are to be properly labeled with Hole number and interval contained within the box.

* Measure the core down to the 1/10<sup>th</sup> of a foot.

* Describe and record the lithology in terms of lithology and oxidation/reduction indications.

* A scintillometer reading is measured for at least every foot and smaller increments when required. 

* Cut the core into 2-foot lengths, bag in plastic sleeves, and place in cores boxes to be further processed or stored.

* Split the core vertically on a foot-by-foot basis, retaining half of the core sample in the core box after re-sealing with plastic.

* Complete appropriate Chain of Custody forms which identify the sample by hole number and depth and contain instructions as to the analysis requested as well as any special handling needed. Sign and date the chain of Custody form.

* Deliver the samples to the laboratory and retain a copy of the Chain of Custody which has in turn been signed and dated by the lab.

* Require the laboratory to return the sample results with a copy of the Chain of Custody form.

* Require the laboratory to provide written quality control and assurance procedures (QA/QC) and specify the method and accuracy of the appropriate standard analytical methods and procedures used.

* Check and confirm the analytical results when received to ensure all samples were assayed. 

* Select duplicate samples from the reserved core splits for confirmatory analysis if there are any anomalies in the analytical data.

Assays of samples from core drilling were collected by company geologists and submitted to various independent commercial laboratories for analysis prior to EFR ownership. Records and files indicate CCI used Hazen Research, Inc. in Golden, Colorado, in the early 1980s and Uranerz used Energy Laboratories, Inc. (ELI), in Casper, Wyoming in 2007 through 2009 for at least some of this analytical work. Results of these analyses were compared to eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values from gamma logs to evaluate logging tool performance, validity of gamma logging, radiometric equilibrium, and leach amenability studies.

Hazen Research holds certifications from various state regulatory agencies and from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). and ELI is NELAP accredited with certifications USEPA: WY00002; FL-DOH NELAC: E87641; Oregon: WY200001; Utah: WY00002; Washington: C1012.

No diamond drilling has been completed on the properties since 2009.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

EFR and the SLR QP recommend that a handheld XRF tool should be considered to replace the scintillometer reading to obtain more precise mineralogical information.

**11.1.4 Radiometric Equilibrium**

Disequilibrium in uranium deposits is the difference between equivalent (eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) grades and assayed U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades. Disequilibrium can be either positive, where the assayed grade is greater than the equivalent grades, or negative, where the assayed grade is less than the equivalent grade. A uranium deposit is in equilibrium when the daughter products of uranium decay accurately represent the uranium present. Equilibrium occurs after the uranium is deposited and has not been added to or removed by fluids after approximately one million years. Disequilibrium is determined during drilling when a piece of core is taken and measured by two different methods, a counting method (closed-can) and chemical assay.

By definition, radiometric equilibrium is radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope uranium 238 (<sup>238</sup>U) for the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope (McKay et al., 2007). Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed as a result of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters.

Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated, and uranium is depleted. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1, and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.

Except in cases where uranium mineralization is exposed to strongly oxidized conditions, most of the sandstone roll front deposits reasonably approximate radiometric equilibrium. The nose of a roll front deposit tends to have the most positive DEF and the tails of a roll front would tend to have the lowest DEF (Davis, 1969).

It was concluded in the 2015 Preliminary Economic Assessment (Beahm, 2015) that while the core data collection and assay procedures did follow industry standard procedures, the core data reflected higher GT portions of the deposit and as such were not necessarily representative of the mineralization as a whole. The available PFN data did provide a reasonable representation across the mineralized roll front from oxidized to reduced conditions and in the opinion of the author was more representative than core data for the evaluation of radiometric equilibrium. A comparison of chemical data vs probe data showed that no disequilibrium factor is needed for the Complex.

In previous Nichols Ranch Technical Reports, (Beahm and Anderson (2007), Brown (2009), and Graves (2010) have recommended a DEF factor of 1 based on the nature of the mineral deposit and limited core data. The Hank Technical Report (TREC, 2008) recommended a DEF factor of 1.18 based on limited core data.

In April 2012, Uranerz completed logging of 16 drillholes at Nichols Ranch utilizing PFN. PFN provides direct analysis of the in situ chemical uranium content and is considered by the SLR QP as reliable for the purposes of assessing radiometric equilibrium. Of the 16 PFN holes, 12 had sufficient mineralization for evaluation of radiometric equilibrium. These data are summarized in Table 11-1.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**Table 11-1:** **Radiometric Equilibrium Data**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Depth**<br>**(top)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **PFN Tool** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **PFN Tool** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **PFN Tool** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Radiometric (Gamma Log)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Radiometric (Gamma Log)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Radiometric (Gamma Log)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **DEF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **T.D.**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Deviation**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Depth**<br>**(top)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Thick**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Thick**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade** <br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **DEF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **T.D.**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Deviation**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1A-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 547 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.068 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 567 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.73 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1A-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 556 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.099 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.116 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 575 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1A-28 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 551.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.347 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.396 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 575 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1A-31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 541 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.419 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 555 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-39 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 559 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.057 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.044 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 569 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1A-44 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 562.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.201 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.152 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 569 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1B-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 626.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 637 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1B-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 605 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.109 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.090 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 620 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.85 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1B-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 624.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.085 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 634 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1B-9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 633.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.319 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.162 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 640 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.85 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1B-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 625.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.082 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.119 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 644 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1B-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 558.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.037 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 592 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total GT** |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **20.27** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **20.05** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.01** |  |  |

---

Since acquiring the Project, EFR has not conducted any PFN logging as past production and assaying have confirmed that radiometric equilibrium is nearly equal to one and not material to the resource estimate.

**11.2** **Sample Security**

EFR has conducted no core sampling since acquiring the Project. All reported core sampling was performed by previous operators. The reported sample preparation, handling of the historic coring, and sample security cannot be confirmed.

**11.3** **In Situ Leach Amenability**

Uranium leach amenability studies were conducted on Uranerz uranium core samples between April 22 to April 27, 2007, and January 9 to February 13, 2009. The tests were conducted at ELI's facility in Casper, Wyoming. Leach amenability studies are intended to demonstrate that the uranium mineralization is capable of being leached using conventional ISR chemistry. The tests are designed to present an indication of an ore's reaction rate and the potential uranium recovery.

Analysis of the resulting leach solution indicated leach efficiencies of 65% to 74%. Tails analysis indicated efficiencies of 76% to 79% (Garling, 2013).

The following excepts on the leach amenability procedures were extracted from documents from ELI (ELI, 2007, 2009a, 2009b)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

The leach solution was prepared using sodium bicarbonate (2 g/L NaHCO<sub>3</sub>) as the source of the carbonate complexing agent (formation of uranyldicarbonate (UDC) or uranyltricarbonate ion (UTC)). Hydrogen peroxide is added as the uranium oxidizing agent as the tests are conducted at ambient pressure. A sequential leach "bottle roll" test was conducted on the core interval selected by Uranerz personnel. The tests are not designed to approximate in situ conditions (permeability, porosity, pressure) but are merely an indication of an ore's reaction rate and the potential uranium recovery

The core sample (designation U36-2l-l24C from depth of 467 ft to 473 ft) was dried at approximately 60°C for more than 16 hours in a convection oven and pulverized to less than 10 mesh. The processed core was then analyzed for uranium. Chemical analysis was conducted on a strong mineral acid digest of the dried and pulverized core samples. This digest consists of a 1-gram sub sample digested with 50% nitric acid heated in a water bath at 95°C for more than 16 hours. Following the heating period, the volume is adjusted to a known level, typically 50 mL. Uranium analysis is performed on the solution by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma (ICP) emission spectroscopy against certified commercial standards.

The Leach Amenability Procedure was then performed. A 200-g sub sample of the dried and pulverized core was placed into a two-litre wide mouth plastic container and a lixiviate comprised of 2.0 g/L HCO<sub>3</sub> (NaHCO<sub>3</sub>) and 0.5 g/L H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> was added at an approximate five pore volume liquid to solid ratio. Uranerz dictated the five pore volume charge of 1,000 mL of the lixiviate was added to the 200-gram sub sample. The reaction vessel was then rotated on a TCLP extractor for approximately 16 hours at 30 revolutions per minute (RPM). Then, the entire liquid portion of the leach was separated by filtration (centrifuged only if necessary). The solid portion was reintroduced to the reaction vessel, and a fresh charge of lixiviate was added. This was repeated six times to produce pore volumes 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26-30. All these pore volumes were analyzed on an ongoing basis for Dissolved Uranium.

Since 2009, no additional leach amenability studies have been conducted on the Project. The SLR QP is of the opinion that this is not material to the Mineral Resource estimate or future operations as actual recovery factors have been established from the previous ISR operations at the Complex. No additional work is required.

**11.4** **Bulk Density**

Limited site-specific data was available for review of bulk density. Previous Technical Reports for the Complex have used bulk density factors ranging from 15.5 cubic feet per ton (ft<sup>3</sup>/ton) to 18.3 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton. A third-party consultant, BRS, recommended a density of 16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton be used for Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough and Hank areas and another third-party consultant, TREC, recommended a density of 15.5 ft³/ton be used for North Rolling Pin and West North Butte areas. BRS has direct conventional mining experience within the same and/or very similar geologic settings in Wyoming and has direct knowledge of appropriate bulk density for this level of estimate.

EFR recommended a density of 15.5 ft³/ton or 16.0 ft³/ton be used for all Mineral Resource estimations, based on available data and its direct mining experience within the host formation. The difference in densities between 15.5 ft³/ton and 16 ft³/ton results in a calculation difference of 3% in the Mineral Resource estimate and is considered by the SLR QP as an acceptable variance.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz053.jpg)

**11.5** **Quality Assurance and Quality Control**

The primary assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource estimate for the Complex is downhole radiometric log data. Calibration data for both natural gamma and PFN geophysical logging units are available for both historical and recent drilling.

The SLR QP was not able to review QA/QC of field sampling performed by EFR personnel as the Project is currently under care and maintenance and no drilling activities are currently being conducted. However, examination of previous reports and files shows that EFR and its predecessors utilized training programs, and indicated that field personnel demonstrated basic geological abilities and management oversight operations met or exceeded industry best practices and standards at that time. Exploratory drillhole cutting samples are recovered in a wet or damp condition and soon after they are described by a field geologist. Down hole radiometric logging was checked against the driller's logs. The data are considered accurate and reliable for the purpose of completing a mineral resource estimate of the Project.

When drilling is active, both the natural gamma and PFN logging trucks are calibrated at least every three months. Natural gamma calibration is performed at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) standard calibration facilities located in Casper, Wyoming. Commercial logging services for both natural gamma and PFN logging are calibrated at the DOE standard facilities located in Casper, Wyoming, and/or Grand Junction, Colorado.

Calibration data for historical drill data was included in the geophysical log header information.

**11.6** **Conclusions**

EFR has conducted no core sampling since acquiring the properties. All reported core sampling was performed by a previous operators CCI and Uranerz. The reported sample preparation and handling of the historic coring cannot be confirmed. The test results from the historical coring programs were not available for review, thus were not included in the calculation of resource quantities.

In the SLR QP's opinion, the historical radiometric logging, analysis, and security procedures at the Complex were adequate for use in the estimation of the Mineral Resources. The SLR QP also opines that, based on the information available, the original gamma log data and subsequent conversion to % eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values are reliable.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that the sample security, analytical procedures, and QA/QC procedures used by EFR meet industry best practices and are adequate to estimate Mineral Resources.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that radiometric disequilibrium would be expected to negatively affect the uranium resource estimates of the deposits however the SLR QP recommends that EFR resume using PFN as a QA/QC tool to confirm the disequilibrium factor within the Satellite Properties not yet exposed to ISR mining.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz055.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 11-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**12.0** **DATA VERIFICATION**

Data verification is the process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, is transcribed accurately from its original source into the project database and is suitable for use as described in this Technical Report.

As part of the resource estimation procedure drill data is spot checked by EFR personnel and audited by the SLR QP for completeness and validity. Specifically, any data which appears higher or lower than the surrounding data is confirmed by reviewing the original geophysical log. This data review includes confirming that the drill depth was adequate to reflect the mineralized horizon, that the geologic interpretation of host sand is correct, and that the thickness and grade of mineralization is correct.

The primary assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource estimate for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and Satellite Properties is downhole geophysical log data. Calibration data for both natural gamma and PFN geophysical logging units are available for both historical and recent drilling.

The historical geophysical logs were interpreted by EFR using standard procedures for the interpretation of natural gamma logging employing the half amplitude method for the interpretation of historic analog data. The SLR QP reviewed and confirmed drill data contained in various electronic databases and constrained mineral resource estimates above a 0.2 GT.

**12.1** **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**12.1.1 Nichols Ranch**

The SLR QP visited the Complex on October 28 to 29, 2021. During the visit, the SLR QP reviewed historical plans and sections, geological reports, historical and recent drillhole logs, the digital drillhole database, historical drillhole summary radiometric logs and survey records, and property boundary surveys, and toured site facilities, locations of current installed wellfields, and associated header house complexes. Discussions were held with the EFR technical team who demonstrated a strong understanding of the mineralization types and their processing characteristics, and how the analytical results are tied to the results. The SLR QP did not visit EFR offices in Casper, Wyoming.

EFR maintains a complete set of drillhole data, as well as other exploration data, for the entire project in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and hard copy logs at the Nichols Ranch facility. Files at the EFR Nichols Ranch office and warehouses were contained in file cabinets, and map files covering the Nichols Ranch area as well as other areas were available for review. The files were generally complete and contained original data consisting of gamma-ray logs, mini logs, drillhole summaries, resource estimation sheets, copies of drillhole maps, "mine estimation" maps, reports of mine plans, survey documents, logging truck calibration records, and a few representative cross sections.

Certification of database integrity is accomplished by both visual and statistical inspections comparing geology, assay values, and survey locations cross-referenced to historical paper logs. Any discrepancies identified are corrected by the EFR resource geologist referring to hard copy assay information.

Records from the Microsoft Excel database including collar GT intercepts are then extracted for each target and imported into ArcGIS software for geologic modeling and resource estimation. Currently only data from the Nichols Ranch deposit has been imported into the ArcGIS software. All data for the remaining properties remain in Microsoft Excel format or hard copy format.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 12-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

As part of the data verification process the SLR QP conducted a series of independent verification tests on the drillhole database provided by EFR for the properties acquired from Uranerz in 2015. Verification tests were run to check drill collar coordinates and elevation, radiometric log intercept data, U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion and calibrations factor, total GT calculations, and redox trend boundaries. The SLR QP did not encounter any significant discrepancies with the Nichols Ranch data in the vicinity of modeled mineralized zones but did identify drillholes with missing coordinates and/or elevations, improper total depth drilled compared to radiometric logs, and radiometric log data with no drill collar information.

The SLR QP did not identify any significant problems with the interpretations and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion and calculations and is of the opinion that the calibration factors are acceptable. The SLR QP conducted a review of grade continuity for each mineralized sandstone unit. The SLR QP reviewed 0.5 ft natural gamma radiometric (probe) data and related information to validate the reported grade and grade thickness (GT) values shown on the drillhole intercept maps. Results indicate continuity of mineralization within each sandstone unit in both plan and section in elongate tabular or irregular shapes. The SLR QP is of the opinion that, although continuity of mineralization is variable, drilling confirms that local continuity exists within individual sandstone units.

Of the total 1,777 drillholes reported drilled across the Nichols Ranch deposit, the EFR database is missing data from 96 records or roughly 5.7% (Table 12-1). The discrepancies and uncertainty identified by the SLR QP do not affect the Mineral Resource estimate. The SLR QP recommends that the missing data be corrected prior to the next in-fill drilling programs or resource updates.

**Table 12-1:** **EFR Drilling Database**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Property** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Historic #**<br>**Drillholes**<br>**(1960-2015)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR**<br>**Drillholes**<br>**(2015-2019)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total #**<br>**Drillholes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Database** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Database** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Database** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Property** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Historic #**<br>**Drillholes**<br>**(1960-2015)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR**<br>**Drillholes**<br>**(2015-2019)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total #**<br>**Drillholes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **# of Records** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Missing #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Missing %** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1328 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 449 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1777 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1681 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -5.4% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; 786 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 786 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 771 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -1.9% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; 289 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 289 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 299 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.5% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; North Rolling Pin | &nbsp;&nbsp; 494 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 494 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 379 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -115 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -23.3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp; 576 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 576 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 374 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -202 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -35.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3473** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **449** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3922** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3504** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **-418** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **-10.7%** |

---

The remaining property data used to support this current Mineral Resource estimate has been reviewed and disclosed previously in Canadian NI 43-101 Technical Reports for the Jane Dough, Hank, and Satellite Properties. Those data verification efforts carried out by the TREC and Uranerz in 2008, 2010, and 2015 and reviewed and audited by the SLR QP are summarized in the following subsections.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 12-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**12.1.2 Jane Dough and Hank (Beahm and Goranson, 2015)**

During a site visit on February 19, 2015, Douglas Beaham, an independent qualified person, examined the original hard copy drillhole files for the Jane Dough and Hank deposits at the Uranerz office in Casper, Wyoming. Uranerz provided electronic scans of all geophysical and lithological logs for the drillholes used in the 2015 Technical Report along with electronic data summaries. The 2015 mineral resource estimate presented herein was developed based on geophysical data, grade calculations, lithological logs, and cross sections from 213 CCI and 857 Uranerz drillholes. The data was considered accurate and reliable for the purpose of completing a mineral resource estimate. A total of 1,075 drillholes (786 from the Jane Dough deposit and 289 from the Hank deposit) were spot checked. Specifically, any data which appeared higher or lower than the surrounding data was confirmed by reviewing the original geophysical log. This data review included confirming that the drill depth was adequate to reflect the mineralized horizon, that the geologic interpretation of host sand was correct, and that the thickness and grade of mineralization was correct. It was reported (Beahm and Goranson, 2015) that although some discrepancies were found in the data and were corrected prior to the mineral resource estimate, the data was generally found to be accurate and representative of the mineralization in the areas.

The SLR QP did not identify any significant problems with the interpretations and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion and calculations and is of the opinion that the calibration factors are acceptable. The SLR QP conducted a review of grade continuity for each mineralized sandstone unit. The SLR QP reviewed 0.5 ft natural gamma radiometric (probe) data and related information to validate the reported grade and grade times thickness (GT) values shown on the drillhole intercept maps. Results indicate continuity of mineralization within each sandstone unit in both plan and section in elongate tabular or irregular shapes. The SLR QP is of the opinion that although continuity of mineralization is variable, drilling confirms that local continuity exists within individual sandstone units.

Of the total 1,075 drillholes reported drilled across the Jane Dough and Hank deposits, the EFR database is missing data from 15 records from Jane Dough and has additional 10 holes at Hank, or less than 0.5% (Table 12-1). The discrepancies and uncertainty identified by the SLR QP with the EFR database do not affect the Mineral Resource estimate completed in 2015.

**12.2** **Satellite Properties**

**12.2.1 North Rolling Pin Data Verification (Graves, 2010)**

The 2010 NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report of the North Rolling Pin deposit was authored by Douglas Graves, an independent qualified person. Graves, P.E., visited the site on November 19, 2008. Historic drilling records indicate that a total of approximately 494 rotary drillholes were completed across the NRP property. Geophysical and lithologic log data from 386 of the 494 drillholes were reviewed and audited by Graves. These data were used to identify the sand host, mineralization depth, and grade and thickness of mineralization. The grade calculation data were checked for accuracy of depth, thickness, grade, and host sandstone identification and were compared with the geophysical logs. Each geophysical log header was checked against the data summary sheet to confirm the drillhole number and location, and the material grade summaries presented on the geophysical logs were compared with the data summary sheets, and the data were confirmed. The drillhole locations were plotted and checked for accuracy by comparison with the original drillhole map, corrections were applied to some drillholes, and then confirmed.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 12-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Data was assumed to have been collected in a manner consistent with standard industry practices at the time. Logging of each drillhole utilized the same basic methodology that has been used for over 50 years in the uranium industry. The radiometric logs were generally run with analog equipment prior to 1980 and more recent logging utilizes digital equipment. It is assumed that the appropriate logging tool "k" factor was developed for the historic geophysical logging equipment. The radiometric logging information was considered accurate and reliable by the Douglas Graves (Graves, 2010) for the purpose of developing the resource estimate.

Of the 368 geophysical logs from CCI drilling and 18 logs from Uranerz drilling in North Rolling Pin, 198 had mineralization using a minimum 0.2 GT cutoff. The 2010 mineral resource estimate presented herein was developed based on geophysical data, grade calculations, lithological logs, and cross sections from 188 CCI and 10 Uranerz drillholes. The data was considered accurate and reliable for the purpose of completing a mineral resource estimate.

As part of the data verification process, the SLR QP conducted a series of independent verification tests on the drillhole database provided by EFR for the properties acquired from Uranerz in 2015. Verification tests were run to check drill collar coordinates and elevation, radiometric log intercept data, U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion and calibrations factor, total GT calculations, and REDOX trend boundaries.

The SLR QP did not encounter any significant discrepancies with the North Rolling Pin database, agrees with previous verification work, and considers the data accurate and reliable for the purpose of reporting a mineral resource estimate

**12.2.2 West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek (Graves and Woody, 2008)**

The 2008 NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report of the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek deposits was authored by Douglas Graves and Donald Woody, both independent qualified persons. The Authors visited the site on November 19, 2008, to observe the on-going uranium exploration activities being conducted by Uranerz on the properties.

It is reported that both Graves and Woody conducted a detailed review of 573 (285 WNB, 127 ENB, and 164 WC) exploratory holes drilled within the area. These data were used to identify the sand host, mineralization depth, and grade and thickness of mineralization. Historically, six core samples were collected for density determination and chemical analyses (Hazen, 1980). Density testing indicated an average in-place density of 15.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton. U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>testing indicated grades ranging from .050% to 0.235%, however, these test results could not be correlated to gamma logs.

Historical data were assumed to have been collected in a manner consistent with standard industry practices at the time, and the Authors considered the historical information accurate and reliable for the purposes of completing a mineral resource estimate. It is assumed that appropriate k factor calibration was performed for the geophysical logging equipment. Most historical electric and lithologic logs are available for review, but historical core and original drill cutting samples are no longer available.

The 2008 mineral resource estimate was developed based on all geophysical and lithological data from 573 exploratory holes drilled within the WNB, ENB, and WC areas.

As part of the data verification process, the SLR QP conducted a series of independent verification tests on the drillhole database provided by EFR for the properties acquired from Uranerz in 2015. Verification tests were run to check drill collar coordinates and elevation, radiometric log intercept data, U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion and calibrations factor, total GT calculations, and REDOX trend boundaries. The SLR QP encountered significant discrepancies with the EFR West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek database that included:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 12-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

* Missing collar coordinate information from 202 of the 573 reported drillholes used in the 2008 resources estimate

* Missing digital files of drillhole uranium intercept values and eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion calculations

* Unassigned coordinates to GT contour maps and sand unit designations

The SLR QP consider the EFR database for the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek deposits incomplete and unreliable for the purpose of auditing or validating the 2008 mineral resource estimate. The SLR QP is of the opinion that the although the resource estimate completed in 2008 adhered to industry best practices and standards at the time, the inability to validate the model excludes it from the current resource estimate discussed in Section 14.0 of this Technical Report . Until EFR validates and certifies the drilling database, the resource estimate should be regarded as historical and should not be relied upon.

**12.3** **Limitations**

There were no limitations in place restricting the ability to perform an independent verification of the Project drillhole database.

**12.3.1 Conclusions**

Nichols Ranch had near-continuous production for over five years beginning in 2014. There has been adequate drilling to develop the Mineral Resource models that have been used in the GT contour models and for successful mine planning. The SLR QP is of the opinion that database verification procedures for the Project comply with industry standards and are adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.

EFR has not completed a thorough verification of drilling data reported on the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek areas. The SLR QP opines that, although the resource estimate completed in 2008 (Graves and Woody, 2008) adhered to industry best practices and standards at the time, the inability for EFR or the SLR QP to validate the model excludes it from the current resource estimate discussed in Section 14.0 of this Technical Report . The resource estimate should be regarded as historic and should not be relied upon until EFR completes validation of the historic drilling.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 12-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**13.0** **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING**

**13.1** **Metallurgical Testing**

The ISR method used at the Complex is a standard method for uranium recovery in the Western United States. Pilot testing and actual production from other uranium deposits in the Powder River Basin indicated that the uranium located at the Complex would be amenable to ISR production. No site-specific metallurgical testing is available for the Complex, however, initial production began at the Nichols Ranch portion of the Complex in 2014, and uranium was successfully produced until the Complex was put on standby at the end of 2019.

After five years of commercial production (2014 to 2019) via ISR utilizing an alkaline lixiviant, the ISR factor based on actual production was 68%. This factor was derived from the estimated pounds under a production well pattern and how many pounds were produced from that pattern. For example, if 100,000 lb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> were estimated to be under pattern and 70,000 lb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> were produced, ISR factor would be 71%. Figure 13-1 shows the production history of uranium by ISR at Nichols Ranch since 2014.

Based on this historical production (Table 13-1 and Figure 13-1) a recovery factor on similar uranium deposits in the Wasatch Formation should use a recovery factor of 71%. This would include both the Jane Dough and Hank deposits as well as the Satellite Deposits described in this Technical Report.

**Table 13-1:** **Past Production 2014 to 2021**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cumulative**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Recovery Total**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 199509 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 199509 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 272844 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 472353 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 334700 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 807053 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 47.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 258554 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1065607 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 140191 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1205798 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 70.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69626 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1275424 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 630 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1276054 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 535 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1276589 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75.1 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 13-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz023.jpg)

**Figure 13-1:** **Nichols Ranch Production (2014 to 2021)**

**13.2** **Opinion of Adequacy**

It is the SLR's QP opinion that the successful historical operation of the ISR supersedes any metallurgical testing program and the available operating data is more than adequate to support the stated recovery.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 13-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.0** **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES**

**14.1** **Summary**

Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300, which are consistent with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI43-101. The SLR QP also follows the CIM issued Best Practice Guidelines for Uranium Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimation (CIM, 2003).

The SLR QP has reviewed and accepted the Mineral Resource estimate prepared by EFR for the Complex. Resource estimates were completed with the following effective dates using the GT contour method and audited by the SLR QP for accuracy and completeness:

* Nichols Ranch Mining Unit:

* Nichols Ranch by EFR in 2021

* Jane Dough and Hank by Uranerz in 2015

* Satellite Properties:

* North Rolling Pin by TREC in 2010

The effective date of this Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2021. The U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Mineral Resource for the Complex is presented in Table 14-1 at a GT cut-off grade of 0.20 %-ft and have been depleted as of December 31, 2021. The total production from Nichols Ranch is 1,276,589 lb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> as of December 31, 2021.

Total Measured and Indicated Resources for the Complex are 3.294 million tons (Mst) at an average grade of 0.106% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 6.988 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, of which 6.182 Mlb is attributable to EFR. Additional Inferred Resources total 0.65 Mst at an average grade of 0.097% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 1.256 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, of which 1.176 Mlb is attributable to EFR.

The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 14-1:** **Mineral Resource Estimate for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex - Effective Date December 31, 2021**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Project Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>**(ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Attrib. Basis**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Attributable**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Recovery**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.187 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 71.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3283000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.106 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6946693 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 88.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6141663 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Measured + Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3294000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.106** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6987833** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **88.5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6182803** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **60.4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit + Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.097 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1256000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1176200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Measured Mineral Resource includes reduction for production through December 31, 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR for Nichols Ranch, Hank, and North Rolling Pin, and are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Mineral Resources are 81% attributable to EFR and 19% attributable to United Nuclear Corp in parts of Jane Dough, and are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Mineral Resource estimates are based on a GT cut-off of 0.20 %-ft

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The cut-off grade is calculated using a metal price of $65/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, operating costs of $19.28/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, and 60.4% recovery (based on 71% process recovery and 85% under wellfield).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Mineral Resources are based on a tonnage factory of 15.0 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (Bulk density 0.0667 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> or 2.13 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.2** **Resource Database**

The basis of the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and Satellite Properties Mineral Resource estimates was gamma logs collected by EFR and its predecessors. The resource databases as of the effective date of this Technical Report includes data from 3,504 drillholes totaling over 2.36 million ft of drilling completed through 2016 of the 3,942 historical drillholes reported drilled across the properties (Table 14-2).

**Table 14-2:** **Summary of Available Drillhole Data**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Property** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operator** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Number of Drillholes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Depth Drilled**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; Cleveland Cliffs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 82 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50552 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1150 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 735403 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFR | &nbsp;&nbsp; 449 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 281126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1681** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1067081** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; Cleveland Cliffs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 46714 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp; 726 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 468074 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Jane Dough Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **771** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **514788** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; Cleveland Cliffs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 168 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 252000 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp; 131 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 123526 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hank Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **299** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **375526** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Nichols Ranch Mining Unit Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2751** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1957395** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Properties** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; North Rolling Pin | &nbsp;&nbsp; Cleveland Cliffs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 379 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 114495 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **North Rolling Pin Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **379** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **114495** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; West North Butte | &nbsp;&nbsp; Cleveland Cliffs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 263000 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp; 111 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **West North Butte Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **374** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **292000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Satellite Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **753** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **406495** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3504** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2363890** |

---

The SLR QP's audit of the missing historic drillholes records and files supplied for review by EFR concluded that most of these drillholes were either not actually drilled, intercepted no mineralization, and/or are missing radiometric downhole data and excluded from the EFR database. The actual number of records used in previous resource estimation technical reports for the Satellite Properties (Graves and Woody, 2008; Graves, 2010) are in agreement. The SLR QP is of the opinion that the EFR drillhole database for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and Satellite Properties excluding West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek deposits is valid and suitable to estimate Mineral Resources. West North Butte, East North Butte and Willow Creek deposits are excluded from the Mineral Resource statement.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.3** **Geological Interpretation**

Mineral Resource calculations are based on chemically equivalent uranium grades. A minimum grade cut-off of 0.02% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and minimum GT of 0.20 was used in the calculations along with a bulk dry density of 15.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton, as subsequently discussed in Section 14.8.

GT contouring is a method used to project similar GT values within the same geologic zone or unit across a reasonable distance of control. GT contours are built off the REDOX boundary within the sand host. The REDOX boundary is interpreted by the geologist and defines the shape of the ore body/roll front by distinguishing altered and unaltered sands within the zone of interest. Detail is controlled by the density of the drilling. Contours are more generalized with wider spaced drilling and become more detailed as drill spacing becomes more densely populated along the REDOX boundary. GT contouring is an accepted practice in roll front uranium geology.

**14.4** **Drill Data Statistics**

**14.4.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**14.4.1.1** **Mineralization Thickness**

Mineralization is a typical Powder River Basin type roll front deposit, as described in Section 7.4. Specifically, at the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit, an upper and lower unit of the A Sand hosts mineralization within the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough areas and the F Sand hosts mineralization within portions of Nichols Ranch. Individual sand units are approximately 25 ft to 50 ft thick; however, the mineralization in any sand rarely exceeds 15 ft. No F sand mineralization is reported in the current Mineral Resource estimate at Nichols Ranch.

The range and averages for thickness and GT of mineralization for Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank are provided in Table 14-3.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 14-3:** **GT Summaries**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Deposit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-off GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Avg. GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Avg. Thick**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Min GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Max GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Min Thick**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Max Thick**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27.5 |

---

**14.4.1.2** **Grade**

Table 14-4 shows the number of drillhole assays per range of GT values for Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank.

**Table 14-4:** **Drillhole Results**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Deposit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Barren or Trace**<br>**Mineralization** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **>0.02 e%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>,**<br>**<0.2 GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.2-0.5 GT** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **>0.5 GT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; 367 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 302 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 274 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 690 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; 433 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 160 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 106 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; 168 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63 |

---

Figure 14-1 and Figure 14-2 present the Nicholas Ranch PA1 and PA2 GT maps, respectively.

Figure 14-3 and Figure 14-4 present the Jane Dough and Hank mineralized trend and GT contour maps, respectively.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz024.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Figure 14-1:** **Nichols Ranch - PA1 HH-1 through HH-9 A Sand 30 -100 GT Map**

![](exhibit99-1xz025.jpg)

**Figure 14-2:** **Nichols Ranch - PA2 HH-10 through HH-13 A Sand 30 -100 GT Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz026.jpg)

**Figure 14-3:** **Jane Dough Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz027.jpg)

**Figure 14-4:** **Hank Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.4.2 Satellite Properties**

**14.4.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

**14.4.2.1.1** **Mineralization Thickness**

Mineralized F Sand intercept thickness ranges from 1 ft to 30 ft, with an average mineralization thickness of 12.5 ft, for grades greater than 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and GT greater than 0.2. The average mineralized thickness for the Upper F Sand is 7.6 ft and for the Lower F Sand is 10.1 ft.

**14.4.2.1.2** **Grade**

The average grade of the North Rolling Pin Upper and Lower F Sand Measured Resource, based on eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (radiometric equivalent weight percent) for GT greater than 0.20 is 0.062% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>; the average grade of the Indicated Resource is 0.052% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The combined Measured and Indicated Resources average grade is 0.058% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The Inferred average grade at GT cut-off of 0.20 was 0.042% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Figure 14-5 and Figure 14-6 present the North Rolling Pin mineralized trend and GT contour maps for the northern and southern portions, respectively.

**14.4.2.1.3** **Trend Length**

Exploration drillhole "fences" are spaced approximately 400 ft to 600 ft along trend and approximately 25 ft to 50 ft between holes is common in clusters of drilling or along fences perpendicular to the trend. The mineralization trend within the Upper F and Lower F Sands appears to be discontinuous with several mineral resource bodies being separated by regions of minimal mineralization, or barren of mineralization, as defined by drilling along the reduction/oxidation boundary in the F Sand. The exploratory drilling defines discontinuous mineralized trends for the Upper F Sand of approximately 7,200 ft, and approximately 10,800 ft in length for the Lower F Sand mineralization trend.

**14.4.2.1.4** **Trend Width**

Using a minimum GT value of 0.20, the trend width of the Upper F Sand, measured across the strike of the trend ranges from 20 ft to 140 ft, averaging approximately 60 ft. The Lower F Sand trend varies in width from 20 ft to 160 ft, and averages approximately 70 ft.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz028.jpg)

**Figure 14-5:** **North Rolling Pin Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map - North Half**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz029.jpg)

**Figure 14-6:** **North Rolling Pin Mineralized Trend and GT Contour Map - South Half**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.5** **Treatment of High-Grade Assays**

**14.5.1 Capping Levels**

Unlike conventional uranium mining, applying capping levels are not applicable to ISR mining techniques.

**14.5.2 High Grade Restriction**

Unlike conventional uranium mining, applying high-grade restriction searches are not applicable to ISR mining techniques.

**14.6** **Compositing**

Unlike conventional uranium mining, compositing is not applicable to ISR mining techniques.

**14.7** **Search Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters**

Mineral Resources have been estimated using the GT (Grade x Thickness) contour method for each of the mineral sandstone horizons or units identified across the deposits (1, A, B, C, F, G and H). The uranium resource can generally be defined by existing drilling information which is of sufficient density and continuity to identify a meandering discontinuous mineralized trend. The grade and mineralized zone thickness were obtained from historical and recent drilling.

The GT contour method is well suited for estimating tonnage and average grades of relatively planar mineralized bodies. It is a smoothing technique that allows the geologist to apply judgment regarding the variability of the mineralization within the plane of the mineralized body. This technique is particularly effective in generating a realistic landscape of metal values along the plane of the mineralized body and limiting the effect of local high values. The technique is best applied to estimate tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies, i.e., where the two dimensions of the mineralized body are much greater than the third dimension (Agnerian and Roscoe, 2001). For these types of deposits, the contour method can provide a clear view of the "mineralization landscape" with "peaks and valleys" along the plane of the mineralization. Due to the two-dimensional nature of the contour method, data from drillhole intersections means the reported averaged assay grade is across the entire thickness of the mineralized body being considered. If necessary, the average intersection value is diluted to a specified minimum thickness.

The rationale for all Mineral Resource estimation methods is that there is continuity of mineralization from one sample point to another, whether they are drillhole pierce points, underground workings, surface trenches, or wellfields. When a mineral deposit has been tested by many drillholes, the estimate of tonnage and average grade by all of the conventional methods will likely be similar. When a deposit has been tested by a relatively few widely spaced or irregularly spaced drillholes, however, the estimates by various methods may vary greatly and a few high-grade or wide intercepts may have a large influence on the average grade or tonnage of the deposit. The contour method can be effective in reducing the influence of high-grade or wide intersections as well as the effects of widely spaced, irregularly spaced, or clustered drillholes. This is particularly the case for roll front uranium deposits. It can also be applied to estimate Mineral Reserves by deleting certain portions of the Mineral Resources estimated by the same method, such as clipping the edges of the contoured area, deleting certain parts of the tonnage estimate as pillars and sills and/or applying economic factors to the Mineral Resources.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

The Mineral Resource estimates were calculated using GT contours with a minimum grade cut-off of 0.03% eU3O8 and a minimum mineralization thickness of 1.0 feet. The GT values of the subject sand intervals for each hole were plotted on a drillhole map and contour lines were drawn along the mineralization trend using ArcGIS software. The contour map was developed from the calculated GTs for various GT ranges. The areas within the GT contour boundaries, up to certain distances from the drillhole and to certain maximum areas of influence, were used for calculating estimates for resources. All resources were limited to the extent of the 0.2 GT boundaries. The contained pounds of uranium were calculated using the following formula:

Mineral Resource, pounds = (Area, ft<sup>2</sup>) X (GT, %-ft) X (20 lb) X (DEF) / (RD, ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

* Area (ft<sup>2</sup>) = Area of influence in square feet (measured from contour interval)

* GT (percent x feet) = Material grade in percent times feet thickness of mineralization (GT multiplied by 20 lb to convert from short tons to pounds as 1% of a short ton equals 20 lb)

* DEF (1.00) = Disequilibrium factor (1.00)

* RD (15.5) = Rock density (15.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

Tonnage was calculated based on grade, pounds and a tonnage conversion factor for a given GT contour area.

**14.8** **Bulk Density**

The SLR QP reviewed 11 records of bulk density determinations from 11 holes (four Nichols Ranch, four Jane Dough, and three Hank) collected in 2006 and 2008. Of the 11 records, coordinates (location) of seven (one Nichols Ranch, four Jane Dough, and two Hank) are contained within the EFR drillhole database, of which only six have recorded density measurements (Table 14-5).

**Table 14-5:** **Bulk Density Measurements**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Drillhole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sample Depth**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Density**<br>**(ft<sup>3</sup>** **/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; U06-099 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/23/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Coordinates Unknown: No density analysis record. | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; U06-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core from 465-530. Lost core from 495-508 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 524 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; U06-101 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Coordinates Unknown: Core from 630-658 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 633 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; URZN1-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Coordinates Unknown: Core from 502-534. missing from 512-518, 517-520 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 510 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.5 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Drillhole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sample Depth**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Density**<br>**(ft<sup>3</sup>** **/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; U36-21-124C | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11/19/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core 465-477 recovered 12'. No density analysis record. | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; U36-21-125C | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11/19/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core 580-582 recovered 12', No density analysis record. | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; A36-29-125C | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11/26/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core 530-545 recovered 14.3', No density analysis record. | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; A36-29-132C | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/2/2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core 603-618 recovered 15', No density analysis record. | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; U06-104 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core 455-478 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 461 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; U06-105 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core 370-392.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 379 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; URZHF-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/8/2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Coordinates Unknown: Core 360-380 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 369 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.9 |
|  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Average Density (ft<sup>3</sup>** **/ton):** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **17.1** |

---

Bulk density records range for 12.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton to 18.9 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton with an average of 17.1 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton, which agrees with values used in previous estimates. Previous Technical Reports for the Complex have used density factors ranging from 15.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton to 18.3 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton. A third-party consultant, BRS, recommended a density of 16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton be used for the Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas. Another third-party consultant, TREC, recommended a density of 15.5 ft³/ton be used for North Rolling Pin and West North Butte areas. The difference in densities between 15.5 ft³/ton and 16 ft³/ton calculates a difference of 3% in the resource estimate and is considered by the SLR QP to be an acceptable variance.

The Mineral Resources estimated in this PEA use a tonnage factor of 15.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton. This is the typical tonnage factor used by most operators in the Powder River Basin for mineralized intervals in the Wasatch Formation sandstone unit. This tonnage factor was derived by the major operators from years of actual mining.

Although the SLR QP is of the opinion that there is a relatively low risk in assuming that density of mineralized zones is similar to that reported in adjacent mining operations, the SLR QP recommends conducting additional density determinations, particularly in the mineralized zones, to confirm and support future resource estimates.

**14.9** **Radiometric Equilibrium Factor**

Based on the available data and the geologic setting of the mineral deposits at Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, Hank, North Rolling Pin, West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek, EFR concluded that the use of a DEF factor of 1.0 was appropriate for resource estimation.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that, based on the information available, the original gamma log data and subsequent conversion to eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>% values are reliable but slightly conservative estimates of the uranium U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade. This is supported by past production uranium recoveries and historical reported DEF for uranium deposits in the Powder River Basin. Furthermore, there is no evidence that radiometric disequilibrium would be expected to negatively affect the uranium resource estimates of the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and Satellite Properties. Disequilibrium however can be expected to vary slightly across the deposits, as is common in low-grade roll front uranium deposits, and the SLR QP recommends that EFR consider running additional PFN probes in the future, particularly in the Satellite Properties.

**14.10** **Cut-Off Grade and GT Parameters**

**14.10.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

EFR and its predecessor Uranerz established minimum grade, thickness, and GT parameters based on conventional Powder River Basin uranium mining practices and recent operating costs at Nichols Ranch. Various economic and mining parameters including metal price, metallurgical recoveries, operating costs, and other operational constraints (Table 14-6) enter into the final cut-off grade and/or GT to calculate the in-ground mineral resources during the economic evaluation stage of the individual projects.

**Table 14-6: Nichols Ranch Project Cut-off Grade<br>Energy Fuels Inc. – Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quantity** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Metal Price | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;% | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total OPEX (includes G&A) | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.28 |

---

ISR (also referred to as In-situ Leach (ISL)) deposits differ from "conventional" deposits in that no physical rock is mined and processed, but rather solution is pumped through a geologic formation, the mineral of interest is dissolved, and a "loaded" solution is pumped through a process facility and the mineral of interest is recovered. There are a number of additional factors including porosity and permeability of the rock formation that influence the production area of the deposit. In ISR mining, tons of rock are not moved and therefore a grade associated with that ton of material cannot be applied as a traditional cut-off grade. ISR operations typically use two values, a minimum geologic grade associated with the deposit to define the extent of mineralization. Then, an economic GT cut-off is applied, and the project is evaluated for those pounds contained from an economic standpoint. Traditionally, this GT is selected based on other similar operations or by extended pilot testing. The cut-off criteria used by EFR at their ISR facility at Nichols Ranch is a minimum geologic grade cut-off of 0.02% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and minimum economic GT cut-off of 0.20. The SLR QP is familiar with cut-off criteria as applied for similar operations and concurs that a minimum GT cut-off of 0.20 meets criteria for reasonable economic extraction via ISR given the depths and general operating conditions at the Complex.

The average depth below the surface to the base of the mineralization ranges from approximately 560 ft in the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough areas and 390 ft in the Hank area. Table 14-7 shows average thickness values of the A-Sand at Nichols Ranch.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz050.jpg)

**Table 14-7:** **Average Intercept Thickness Nichols Ranch A-Sand Zone**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sand Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **#**<br>**Intercepts** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Zone Thickness**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Avg. Zone Thickness**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total #**<br>**Intercepts** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Thickness**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Avg. Thickness**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 74 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 345.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 425.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 425.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 273.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 360.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 360.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 295.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 89 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 441.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 146.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 89 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 441.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 449.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.54 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 209.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 449.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.54 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 390.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 103 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 533.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 143.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 103 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 533.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 188.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 320.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 132.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 320.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 419.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 531.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.37 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 112.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 531.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.37 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1 HH9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 253.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 77 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 307.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.99 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 53.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 77 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 307.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.99 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-16 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.10.2 Satellite Properties:**

Two GT cut-off grades were used previously to evaluate the reported resources in this Technical Report, both using a minimum grade cut-off of 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The 0.20 GT was used to present an appropriate value relative to current ISR operations and is recommended for reporting purposes. The 0.50 GT has been used to highlight the areas of highest mineralization and value if economics dictate the need for lower operating costs.

**14.11** **Mineral Resource Classification**

Classification of Mineral Resources as defined in S-K 1300 were followed for classification of Mineral Resources. The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (CIM 2014) are consistent with these definitions.

A Mineral Resource is defined as a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth's crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A mineral resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, considering relevant factors such as cut-off grade, likely mining dimensions, location, or continuity, that with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization drilled or sampled.

Based on this definition of Mineral Resources, the Mineral Resources estimated in this PEA have been classified according to the definitions below based on geology, grade continuity, and drillhole spacing.

**Measured mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.

**Indicated mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.

**Inferred mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-17 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

The SLR QP has considered the following factors that can affect the uncertainty associated with the class of Mineral Resources:

* Reliability of sampling data:

* Drilling, sampling, sample preparation, and assay procedures follow industry standards.

* Data verification and validation work confirm drillhole sample databases are reliable.

* No significant biases were observed in the QA/QC analysis results.

* Confidence in interpretation and modelling of geological and estimation domains:

* Resources were estimated using the GT contour method by projecting average width and GT along a measured REDOX trend defined by drillholes. Appropriate average width and GT applied to each specific mineral resource area was determined from drillhole data. The GT contour method is commonly used in the uranium industry and refers to the estimated grade multiplied by estimated thickness. In many uranium deposits, thin uranium mineralization can be mined due to those zones being higher grade. The GT method allows this information to be accurately calculated and displayed.

* Mineralization is correlated within laterally continuous sands at Nichols Ranch. All mineralization at Nichols Ranch is within the Wasatch Formation which has been broken into eight fluvial sandstone horizons or units identified as the 1, A, B, C, F, G and H Sand units.

Mineral Resources for the Project were classified as either Measured, Indicated, or Inferred Mineral Resources as detailed in the following subsections.

**14.11.1 Measured Mineral Resources**

The Nichols Ranch area was an active ISR mine. Within the defined wellfields, which correspond to the areas for which Measured Mineral Resources have been estimated, detailed delineation drilling or well installation require a drillhole spacing of less than 100 ft.

**14.11.2 Indicated Mineral Resources**

Indicated Mineral resources are defined to be those areas where the location of the REDOX front can be reasonably defined by drill data and where along a continuously mapped REDOX front there are drillholes that intersect the mineralized front and reasonably confirm the presence on mineralization which has reasonable prospect for economic extraction. For the Complex, drillhole spacing in areas for which EFR estimated indicated mineral resources ranges from less than 100 ft spacing to as much as 800 ft along the REDOX front.

**14.11.3 Inferred Mineral Resources**

Inferred Mineral Resources for the Complex are those areas for which EFR calculated have a drillhole spacing exceeding 800 ft along trend provided that there is geologic evidence that the REDOX front is present and its location can reasonably be assumed.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that the Mineral Resource classification criteria used is reasonable and appropriate for disclosure.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-18 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.12** **GT Model Validation**

The SLR QP received the project data from EFR for independent review as a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, ArcGIS software, and associated digital files. The SLR QP used the information provided to validate the Mineral Resource interpolation, tons, grade, and classification.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-19 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Drillhole collar locations and GT values were confirmed by plotting drill collar coordinates, GT intercepts, oxidation-reduction boundary, and well pattern grid layout within the Header House 1 and Header House 3 zones within the Production Area #1 portion of the Nichols Ranch deposit (Figure 14-7).

![](exhibit99-1xz030.jpg)

**Figure 14-7:** **Nichols Ranch PA1 and PA2 Drilling**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-20 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**14.13** **Mineral Resource Reporting**

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and Satellite Properties Mineral Resource estimate is summarized by area at a GT cut-off grade of 0.20 %-ft in Table 14-8. In the SLR QP's opinion, the assumptions, parameters, and methodology used for the Nichols Ranch Mineral Resource estimates are appropriate for the style of mineralization and mining methods.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Section 1.0 and Section 26.0 of this Technical Report, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.

The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-21 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 14-8:** **Mineral Resource Estimate for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex - Effective Date December 31, 2021**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Project Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>**(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Attrib. Basis**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EFR Attributable** <br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Recovery**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.187 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 71.0 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.0 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Measured** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **11000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.187** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **41140** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **100.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **41140** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **71.0** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 359000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.166 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1189693 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1189693 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1892000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4237000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 81.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3431970 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; F | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.095 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 855000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 855000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; North Rolling Pin<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; F | &nbsp;&nbsp; 582000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.057 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 665000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 665000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3283000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.106** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6946693** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **88.4** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6141663** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **60.4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Measured + Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3294000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.106** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6987833** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **88.5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6182803** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **60.4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 188000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 420000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 81.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 340200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; F | &nbsp;&nbsp; 423000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.095 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 803000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 803000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; North Rolling Pin<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; F | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.042 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Inferred** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **650000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.097** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1256000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **93.6** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1176200** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **60.4** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Measured Mineral Resource includes reduction for production through December 31, 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR for Nichols Ranch, Hank, and North Rolling Pin, and are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Mineral Resources are 81% attributable to EFR and 19% attributable to United Nuclear Corp in parts of Jane Dough, and are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Mineral Resource estimates are based on a GT cut-off of 0.20 %-ft

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The cut-off grade is calculated using a metal price of $65/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, operating costs of $19.28/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, and 60.4% recovery (based on 71% process recovery and 85% under wellfield).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Mineral Resources are based on a tonnage factory of 15.0 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (Bulk density 0.0667 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> or 2.13 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 14-22 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**15.0** **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES**

There are no current Mineral Reserves at the Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 15-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**16.0** **MINING METHODS**

**16.1** **Introduction**

This PEA is based on ISR mining of the uranium mineralization at the Complex using alkaline lixiviant. EFR conducted ISR mining at the Complex, specifically the Nichols Ranch area, from 2014 through 2019. Figure 16-1 below is a general schematic of the ISR process.

![](exhibit99-1xz031.jpg)

Source: NRC, 2016

**Figure 16-1:** **Schematic of the ISR Process**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

ISR is an injected-solution mining process that reverses the natural processes that originally deposited the uranium in the sandstones. On-site groundwater is fortified with gaseous oxygen and introduced to the zones of uranium mineralization through a pattern of injection wells. The solution dissolves the uranium from the sandstone host.

The uranium-bearing solution is brought back to surface through production wells where the uranium is concentrated at a central processing plant and dried into yellowcake for market.

ISR mining and milling utilizes the five steps described below. The first three steps describe the mining process while steps 4 and 5 describe the milling (i.e., processing and refinement).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. A solution called lixiviant (typically containing water mixed with oxygen and/or hydrogen peroxide, as well as sodium bicarbonate or carbon dioxide) is injected through a series of wells into the mineralized zones to dissolve and to complex the uranium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. The lixiviant with uranium in solution is then collected in a series of recovery wells, from which it is pumped to a processing plant, where the uranium is extracted from the solution through an ion-exchange process.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Once the uranium has been extracted, the lixiviant is fortified and reused in the wellfield. Typically, 99% of the solution is reused. The remaining percentage is waste which is disposed of in deep injection wells within EPA exempted aquifers.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The uranium extract is then further purified, concentrated, and dried to produce a material, which is called "yellowcake" because of its yellowish color.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Finally, the yellowcake is packed in 55-gallon drums to be transported to a uranium conversion facility, where it is processed through the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle to produce fuel for use in nuclear power reactors.

At the Nichols Ranch Plant, the concentrated uranium, in a slurry form, is loaded into a slurry trailer and shipped to the Mill in Blanding, Utah, for drying and packaging.

**16.2** **Mining Method**

For the production schedule described in this Technical Report, the mineralized zones at the Nichols Ranch area, Jane Dough area, and Hank area will be divided into individual production areas where injection and recovery wells will be installed. As is typical with the other IRS mining commercial operations, the wells will be arranged in variations of 5-spot patterns. In some situations, a line-drive pattern or staggered line-drive pattern may be employed. Horizontal and vertical excursion monitor wells are and will be installed at each wellfield as dictated by geologic and hydro-geologic parameters, and as approved by the WDEQ/LQD. The facilities have been and will be constructed according to acceptable engineering practices.

**16.3** **Mining Operations**

**16.3.1 Uranium Recovery**

The proposed uranium ISR process involves the dissolution of the water-soluble uranium compound from the mineralized host rock at neutral pH ranges. It consists of two steps:

* First, the uranium is oxidized from the tetravalent to the hexavalent state with oxygen as an oxidant.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

* Second, a chemical compound such as a sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO<sub>3</sub>) or sodium bicarbonate is used to aid in complexing the uranium in the solution, if needed. The uranium rich solution (typically 20 mg/L to 250 mg/L with occasional higher or lower excursions) is transferred from the production wells to the processing facility nearby for uranium concentration with ion exchange resin. 

**16.3.2 Lixiviant Composition**

The lixiviant for an alkaline ISR uranium process is a dilute carbonate/bicarbonate aqueous solution that is fortified with an oxidizing agent. During the injection of lixiviant, oxygen will be added to oxidize the uranium underground. Carbon dioxide is provided to adjust the pH to avoid calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate precipitation. Additionally, carbon dioxide dissolved in water provides another source of the carbonate/bicarbonate ions. Finally, sodium carbonate/bicarbonate may be used to adjust the carbonate/bicarbonate concentration.

The barren solution that leaves the uranium ion exchange system will be refortified with chemicals prior to the re-injection into the mineralized zone of the aquifer. The process continues until the economics become unfavorable.

**16.3.3 Chemical Reactions**

Oxidation of tetravalent uranium is achieved by using oxygen or hydrogen peroxide. For economic reasons, oxygen is widely used in commercial applications. EFR will utilize oxygen as the primary oxidant; however, hydrogen peroxide may be used if needed to increase the oxidation potential in the lixiviant if there are chemical or physical conditions that will reduce the effectiveness of the addition of gaseous oxygen.

The end product of the carbonate/bicarbonate complexing process can be identified as uranyldicarbonate, [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]2- (UDC), at neutral pH ranges and as uranyltricarbonate, [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]4- (UTC), at more alkaline pH ranges.

The chemical reactions for the alkaline recovery process are listed as follows:

Oxidation: UO<sub>2</sub> + ½ O<sub>2</sub> = UO<sub>3</sub>

UO<sub>2 </sub>+ H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> = UO<sub>3</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>O

Complexing: UO<sub>3</sub> + 2HCO<sub>3</sub>- = [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]2- + H<sub>2</sub>O

UO<sub>3</sub> + 2HCO<sub>3</sub>- + CO<sub>3</sub>- = [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]4- + H<sub>2</sub>O

The ion exchange process utilizes polystyrene resin that is designed to provide exchange sites that are highly selective for the capture of uranium from the pregnant lixiviant. A strong base resin will be used for the ion exchange of either the uranyldicarbonate complex, [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]2- (UDC), or the uranyltricarbonate complex, [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]4- (UTC), in the process plant.

The chemical reactions are listed as follows:

[UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]2- + R2+ = R[UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]

[UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]4- + 2R2+ = R<sub>2</sub>[UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]

R denotes the active site on the ion exchange resin.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**16.4** **Hydrogeology Data**

**16.4.1 Summary of Previous Work**

Before the injection of leaching solutions was first initiated, the following information was submitted to the appropriate local and federal agencies as part of previous permitting efforts (Uranerz, Addendum MP-G, 2010; Addendum MPI, 2015):

* Results of analytical and numerical modeling for each mining area. These results were used in the wellfield design within the production zone and impact assessment and/or hydraulic connection with overlying and underlying adjacent aquifers/aquitards. 

* Results of aquifer testing, which were used to evaluate the following:

* Hydraulic connection of perimeter monitor wells with production unit ore zone wells.

* Hydraulic properties of the ore zone aquifer.

* The presence or absence of hydrologic boundaries in the ore zone.

* Hydrologic communication between the ore zone aquifer and monitor well ring, and its interaction with overlying and underlying aquifers.

* Well completion reports (annual reports reviewed from 2011 to 2020).

* Active production and monitoring wells survey data.

* Potentiometric (2011 to 2020) surface maps for the ore zones to be mined, the overlying and underlying aquifers. This includes approximated groundwater flow directions, hydraulic gradients, and seasonal fluctuations of water levels inferred from the potentiometric surfaces.

* Structural contour maps of the ore hosting zone, and overlying and underlying aquifers/aquitards.

* Baseline water quality of the upper and lower aquifers and monitor well upper control limits.

* Baseline water quality of the perimeter monitor ring and upper control limits.

* Statistical assessment of the water quality was presented per the WDEQ/LQD guidance.

* Average baseline water quality of the production unit.

* A table of groundwater monitoring and sampling parameters was prepared and reached between EFR and the WDEQ.

* Restoration target values (RTVs).

* RTVs were calculated from the water quality data collected from the ore zone monitoring wells.

* RTVs will be used for groundwater restoration evaluations within the production area.

**16.4.2 Overview**

Multiple rounds of hydrogeologic characterizations have been performed in the Complex and surrounding areas in connection with recoverable uranium deposits, ISR mining methods, and groundwater resources. These studies have generated data, including water quality data, aquifer properties, historical pumping rates, numerical and analytical modeling, etc. (Hodson et al., 1973; Whitehead, 1996; Uranerz, 2010; 2019; EFR, 2020).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit consists of three mining areas: the Nichols Ranch area, Jane Dough area, and the Hank area. These mining areas are located in the Cottonwood and Willow Creek drainages. On a regional scale, groundwater occurs in the Quaternary alluvial aquifer underlying major drainages as well as deeper bedrock aquifers. The Wasatch Formation, the uppermost geologic unit, comprises regional aquifers. Groundwater in the Wasatch aquifers generally flows to the north and northwest in the mining areas. The aquifers and confining units of interest in the mining areas from top and bottom are within the Wasatch Formation (Figure 7-1).

Analytical (WELFLO, Walton (1989) and numerical modeling (MODFLOW, Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996) simulations were conducted to understand the extent of interaction between the "ore"-hosting sands and adjacent aquifers and aquitards. Modeling also was used to evaluate operational drawdown, gradient changes, recovery, horizontal wellfield flare, and vertical flare in the aquifers of interest and adjacent aquitards.

**16.4.2.1** **Site Hydrogeology**

The SLR QP visited the Complex from October 27 to 29, 2021. Subsequently, the SLR QP requested from EFR basic hydrogeologic information such as water level surveys, pumping tests, flow rates, and any secondary documentation, such as numerical modeling and reports. EFR provided relevant reports and documents prepared to support permit applications. The SLR QP used these documents, information gathered during the site visit, and other publicly available to highlight the following main findings.

The potentially economic mineralization primarily occurs in two sandstone members of the Wasatch Formation, designated as the A Sand in the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough areas, and the F Sand in the Hank Unit (Figure 7-4). These two "ore"-hosting members are generally separated by the B and C sandstones and adjacent aquitards. The aquitards are labeled by combining the two adjoining sandstone units (i.e., BC Aquitard). The "ore" zones for the Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and the Hank areas are approximately 300 ft below ground surface (bgs) to 700 ft bgs, 400 ft bgs to 600 ft bgs, and 200 ft bgs to 600 ft bgs, respectively. The local aquifer Sand Units are described sequentially in geochronological order, 1, A, B, C, F, G, and H Sandstones (Figure 16-2).

Permeability properties and water quality of the groundwater hosted in these aquifer units are also known. The transmissivity, which is defined as hydraulic conductivity multiplied by aquifer thickness, and yield from the Wasatch Formation are also highly variable, with a yield of up to a few hundred gallons per minute when a large thickness of saturated sands is completed in a well. The water quality in these aquifers would also generally be good, with a total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration typically from <1,000 milligrams per litre (mg/L) to <2,000 mg/L.

**16.4.2.1.1** **Hydrogeological Characteristics of the Major Units of Interest**

The depth at which groundwater is first encountered across the Project area varies and depends on surface topography. The hydraulic properties of the recovery aquifers and associated underlying and overlying aquifers have been evaluated in the Project area using both multiwell pumping tests and single-well tests (BLM, 2015). Summary of the detailed aquifer properties estimated through numerous single well and multiwell pump tests are provided in Uranerz (2010). Aquifers suitable for ISR mining of uranium are by their nature confined, minimizing the possibility of cross-aquifer contamination.

* **Surficial Aquifer-H Sand:** This unit is the surficial aquifer in the Project area, with depth to groundwater ranging between 50 ft to approximately 200 ft (Uranerz, 2012). Potentiometric data indicates that the groundwater gradient is in a westerly direction. The Willow Creek and Dry Willow Creek alluvial materials in the Project area are not expected to contain water except during short periods of time after runoff events.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

* **Uranium Bearing Aquifer (Hank Unit) -F Sand:** This unit is approximately 20 ft to 120 ft thick and 200 ft bgs to 600 ft bgs. The water levels in the F Sand fall below the base of the overlying GF aquitard in the northern portion and slightly above in the southern portion (Figure 16-2). The hydraulic conductivity of the F Sand in the Hank Unit varied greatly from 0.14 ft/day to 9.4 ft/day, with an average of 0.6 ft/day in this area. The water level in the production zone at the Hank Unit is near the top of the sand, therefore, the F Sand is not fully saturated. Accordingly, the F Sand aquifer is unconfined. The primary storage property for an unconfined aquifer is specific yield and estimated to be approximately 0.05 ft/day for the F Sand in this area. The F Sand is underlain by the FC aquitard (45 ft to 110 ft thick) and C Sand. The C Sand has been designated as the aquifer underlying the production zone in areas present. The C Sand is approximately 10 ft to 60 ft thick and discontinuous. The B Sand underlies the "ore" zone where it is not present. The hydraulic conductivity of the C Sand is approximately 0.025 ft/day (Uranerz, 2012 and BLM, 2015).

* **Uranium Bearing Aquifer (Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough Areas) -A Sand:** The primary mineralized sand horizons are in the lower part of the Wasatch, at an approximate average depth of 550 ft and average thickness of 100 ft. At Nichols Ranch, some mineralization also occurs in the Wasatch at a depth of approximately 400 ft (150 ft thickness). Transmissivities for the A Sand vary from 13.5 ft<sup>2</sup>/day to 61.6 ft<sup>2</sup>/day. A value of 46.9 ft<sup>2</sup>/day is thought to be the most representative of the A Sand. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity varies from 0.18 ft/day to 0.7 ft/day and a value of 0.5 ft/day is thought to best represent the A Sand. Groundwater in the A Sand flows northwest with an average value of 0.0033. Based on this gradient, an effective porosity of 0.05, and an average hydraulic conductivity of 0.5 ft/day, the average groundwater flow rate is estimated to be 0.033 ft/day (Uranerz, 2012 and BLM, 2015).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz032.jpg)

Source: Uranerz, 2012.

**Figure 16-2:** **Relevant Geologic/Hydrogeologic Units in the Vicinity of the Project Area** 

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**16.5** **Geotechnical Data**

No geotechnical work has been completed at either the Complex or Satellite Properties. All Mineral Resources will be extracted using ISR wellfields and therefore do not require the completion of geotechnical work typically done for conventional mining.

No geotechnical work has been completed at either the Complex or Satellite Properties. All Mineral Resources will be extracted using ISR wellfields and therefore do not require the completion of geotechnical work typically done for conventional mining.

**16.6** **Life of Mine Plan**

EFR has divided the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit into three separate project areas, Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank. These areas are descriptive of distinct areas within the areas held by EFR and the Arkose Mining Venture. The Nichols Ranch area consists of the Nichols Ranch Plant and two production areas, PA1 and PA2. PA1 began production in March 2014 with eight active production header houses; one header house has been constructed at PA2. Two of the four permitted deep disposal wells have been constructed and were in operation at the Nichols Ranch area until mining operations ceased in 2019.

The permitted and licensed Jane Dough area is adjacent to the south of the Nichols Ranch area and contains properties held by the Arkose Mining Venture and 100% by EFR. It will be developed as an adjacent property through a pipeline to the Nichols Ranch Area. Two production areas (PA1 and PA2) are planned for the Jane Dough area.

The Hank area is 100% EFR owned and is located approximately six miles east of the Nichols Ranch area. It is fully licensed and permitted to operate as a satellite to the Nichols Ranch area.

The life of mine (LOM) schedule, shown in Table 16-1, summarizes the primary production followed by wellfield restoration and reclamation. Final decommissioning is planned to occur with the completion of restoration with the final production area.

Within a production wellfield, the basic component of mine development and production is the production pattern. A pattern consists of one recovery well and one or more injection wells that feed it. Injection wells can be and often are shared by multiple recovery wells and function as distribution points for injection flow. In a similar manner, the recovery wells act as collection points for production solutions that are gathered at the header houses prior to transfer by pipeline to the recovery or the processing facilities. The Hank area will be developed in a similar manner. The Hank Unit is licensed as a satellite recovery facility and its design throughput of 2,500 gpm would be additive to the throughput generated from the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough areas.

It is proposed that the remainder of PA2 on the Nichols Ranch area, as well as PA1 and PA2 on the Jane Dough area would be developed in such a way as to reach and maintain the plant permitted throughput capacity of 3,500 gpm. In other words, as the production (as related to head grade) from the initial header houses decreases below economic limits, replacement production patterns from additional header houses will be placed into operation to maintain the desired flow rate and head grade.

The Nichols Ranch Plant, and the allocation of resources to the production areas within Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough and Hank areas, is designed to produce between 300,000 and 500,000 lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per year for several years. It is estimated that approximately 4.0 million lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> will be recovered from all three areas of the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 16-1:** **Nichols Ranch Area Life of Mine Plan (Attributable to EFR)**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Years** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **LOM** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **3** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **7** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **8** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **9** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **10** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **11** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **12** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch | &nbsp;&nbsp; klb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 718 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 648 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough | &nbsp;&nbsp; klb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2277 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 428 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 526 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 456 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 311 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 305 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank | &nbsp;&nbsp; klb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1028 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 307 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 415 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 158 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 138 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Produced | &nbsp;&nbsp; klb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4023 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 648 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 498 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 526 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 456 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 311 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 315 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 307 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 415 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 158 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 138 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Flow Rate | &nbsp;&nbsp; gpm | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2912 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2640 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3281 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3333 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3137 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3333 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3291 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3308 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1952 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1670 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Head Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp; mg/L | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Working Days | &nbsp;&nbsp; days | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Sold |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4023 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 648 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 498 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 526 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 456 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 311 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 315 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 307 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 415 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 158 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 138 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |

---

**16.7** **Mine Equipment**

Due to the nature of the ISR process, the principal mine equipment is focused on the production wellfields. As stated earlier, the most basic components of the wellfield are the recovery and injection wells that comprise the basic production patterns. Each well is constructed using a drillhole to the mineralized portion of the aquifer using a conventional mud rotary drill rig. Each well will be cased with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe that is sized and sufficiently pressure rated, and the annulus between the drillhole and the casing will be grouted from the bottom to top using a beneficiated cement slurry as a seal. Each well will be under-reamed and will be completed with or without a screen and filter pack, depending on geologic conditions. Following a mechanical integrity test, the wells will be configured for use. Each recovery well will be fitted with a downhole submersible pump and each injection well will be configured with downhole tubing to facilitate oxygen addition. Each well, whether injection or recovery, will be connected to the appropriate surface facilities within a header house.

Header houses are used to distribute barren solutions or barren lixiviant to injection wells and collect pregnant solutions from recovery wells. Each header house is connected to two trunk lines, with one receiving barren lixiviant from the Nichols Ranch Plant and one delivering pregnant lixiviant to the Nichols Ranch Plant. A typical header house will include manifolds, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges, filters, instrumentation, and oxygen supply for incorporation into the barren lixiviant for injection, as required. Each header house may service between 60 and 120 wells, injection, and recovery, depending on the characterization of the mineralization and the production pattern geometry.

Pipelines between the header houses and the Nichols Ranch Plant will be used to transport wellfield solutions. Flows and pressures will be controlled at the header houses and monitored at both the recovery plant and the header houses. High density polyethylene (HDPE), PVC, stainless steel, or equivalent piping is used in the wellfield and has been selected to meet design operating conditions. The lines from the plant, header houses, and individual wells (injection and recovery) will be buried for freeze protection and to minimize pipe movement.

**16.8** **Mine Workforce**

It is planned that nine staff will be employed at the wellfield during operations for wellfield development, construction projects, and operations.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 16-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**17.0** **RECOVERY METHODS**

**17.1** **Introduction**

The Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed and designed to have four major solution circuits: 1) the recovery circuit, 2) the elution circuit, 3) the precipitation and filtration circuit, 4) the drying and packaging circuit. The first three solution circuits are constructed and operated from 2014 to 2019. Due to the absence of the on-site drying and packaging circuit, the Project proposes to truck the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> produced on-site to the Mill near Blanding, Utah, for drying and drumming for final delivery to end users. The Mill is approximately 643 road miles from the Complex.

The recovery circuit includes the flow of lixiviant from the wellfield to the sand filters, or directly to the ion exchange (IX) columns, and back to the wellfield. The uranium that is liberated underground is extracted in the ion exchange system of the process plant. The bleed from the circuit is permanently removed from the lixiviant flow to create a "cone of depression" in the wellfield's static water level and ensure that the lixiviant is contained by the inward movement of groundwater within the designated recovery area. The bleed is disposed of by means of injection into two deep, approved, Class I - Non Hazardous disposal wells. The volume of the concentrated bleed is approximately 0.5% to 1.5% of the circulating lixiviant flow for the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough areas and projected to be 2.5% to 3.5% for the Hank area.

The elution circuit consists of transferring the uranium loaded resin bed contained in an IX column into an elution column and to circulate a briny-carbonated solution through the resin bed to remove the uranium from the ion exchange resin until it is completely stripped. The barren or eluted ion exchange resin is then transferred back from the elution column to the IX column.

The uranium concentration in the eluate will be built up at a controlled concentration range of between 20 g/L to 40 g/L. This uranium rich eluate is ready for the de-carbonation process that occurs in the uranium precipitation circuit.

The precipitation and filtration circuit starts when the eluate is treated with acid to destroy the carbonate portion of the dissolved uranium complex. In addition to adding the acid slowly, a common defoamer may be used to reduce the foaming activity. The precipitation reagents, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide, are added to the eluate to start precipitating uranium yellowcake. The yellowcake slurry is then filtered, washed, and loaded into a slurry trailer. When full, the yellowcake slurry trailer is transported by road to the Mill in Blanding, Utah, where it will be unloaded, dried, and drummed for final delivery to end users.

**17.2** **Chemical Reactions**

**17.2.1 Elution Process and Resin Handling**

The ion exchange resin is ready for elution when it is fully loaded with uranium. The elution process reverses the loading reactions for the ion exchange resin and strips the uranium from the resin. The eluant will be an aqueous solution containing salt and sodium carbonate and/or sodium bicarbonate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 17-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

The chemical reactions are listed as follows:

R [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2] = [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]2- + R2+

R2[UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3] = [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]4- + 2R2+

The elution circuit at the Nichols Ranch Plant is designed to also accept and elute uranium loaded resin from other satellite operations. Two Department of Transportation approved trailers are used to transport the resin to other processing facilities or EFR's own satellite facilities. The resin is hydraulically removed from the trailer and screened to remove formation sand and other debris.

**17.2.2 Yellowcake Production**

Yellowcake is produced from the rich eluates that are recovered from the loaded ion exchange resin. The eluate from the elution circuit is de-carbonated by lowering the pH below 2 with hydrochloric acid. The yellowcake product will be precipitated with hydrogen peroxide and a base such as sodium hydroxide or ammonia.

De-carbonation: [UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)2]2- + 4H+ = UO<sub>2</sub>2+ + 2CO<sub>2</sub> + 2H<sub>2</sub>O

[UO<sub>2</sub>(CO<sub>3</sub>)3]4- + 6H+ = UO<sub>2</sub>2+ + 3CO<sub>2</sub> + 3H<sub>2</sub>O

Precipitation: UO<sub>2</sub>2+ + H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> + 4H<sub>2</sub>O = UO<sub>4</sub>·4H<sub>2</sub>O + 2H+

The precipitated yellowcake slurry is transferred to a filter press where excess liquid will be removed. Following a freshwater wash step that will flush the dissolved chlorides, the resulting product cake is pumped to the yellowcake slurry trailer. Once full, the slurry trailer will be transported to the Mill to be dried.

**17.3** **Flow and Material Balance**

The ion exchange system for the Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed to accommodate flow rates up to 3,500 gpm. To contain the lixiviant within the designated wellfield recovery area, a small portion of the barren solution is withdrawn from the ion exchange circuit. The amount of bleed is estimated to be in the average range of 1% of the overall flow rate or equivalent to approximately 35 gpm.

The bleed solution is mainly disposed of directly through the two deep disposal wells but can be used to rinse and clean-up freshly eluted resin, make-up fresh eluant in the elution circuit, back wash sand filters, and wash yellowcake if necessary. A nominal flow and material balance for the Nichols Ranch Plant is presented in Figure 17-1. The flow shown is an example capacity for the facilities and does not represent any design or regulatory limits.

The processing facilities are typical for this service and industry standard, as such It is SLR QP's opinion that processing facilities are suitable for purpose.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 17-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz033.jpg)

**Figure 17-1:** **Nichols Ranch Plant Flow Sheet**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 17-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**17.4** **Sources of Plant Liquid Effluents and Disposal Methods**

Liquid effluents are expected to be generated from pumping test water, process bleed, process solutions, wash-down water, and restoration water. The water generated during pumping tests is expected to satisfy Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division (WDEQ/WQD) Class IV groundwater standards at a minimum and has minimal potential radiological impact on soils or surface water.

The process bleed and wash-down water are transferred to waste tanks and then to a deep disposal well. This deep disposal well has been constructed and operated in a manner similar to other operating deep disposal wells at similar ISR uranium sites. EFR has permitted four and constructed two deep disposal wells at the Nichols Ranch area and has permitted four disposal wells and constructed none at the Hank area. These deep disposal wells were permitted through the WDEQ. As required, the disposal wells have been completed in approved formations and operated according to permit requirements. All the deep disposal wells have also received an aquifer exemption from the EPA that is included with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I - Non-Hazardous permit issued by the WDEQ.

The Jane Dough area will not require additional disposal wells since it will be operated directly through the Nichols Ranch Plant and will be able to use the existing disposal well capacity.

The restoration water will be treated by reverse osmosis or other purification technology. The treated restoration water will be re-injected into the process with the restoration water bleed transferred to the deep disposal well.

It is SLR QP's opinion that the current installed equipment will not exceed or require modifications to the existing infrastructure for future operations.

**17.5** **Plant Workforce**

It is planned that ten staff, consisting of one manager and nine operators, will be employed at the Nichols Ranch Plant during operations.

**17.6** **White Mesa Mill Drying/Packaging Operation**

As outlined in Section 17.2, slurried yellowcake product will be trucked 643 road miles to the Mill in Blanding, Utah, where it will be dried and packaged for final delivery to end users. The Mill has been in operation since 1981 with the required equipment using a proven process to produce yellowcake. In addition, although it is not part of the production schedule in this Technical Report, the Mill also has the capacity to produce vanadium pentoxide (V<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>).

The Mill is currently on a reduced operating schedule processing materials as they become available. The Mill is currently processing Rare Earth Element (REE) materials in part of the circuit, functioning essentially as a pilot plant, therefore the facility is sufficiently staffed to initiate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> production relatively quickly.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 17-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**18.0** **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE**

**18.1** **Introduction**

The Complex previously operated from 2014 to 2019. The basic infrastructure (power, water, and transportation) necessary to support an ISR mining operation has been established at the Nichols Ranch area. This basic infrastructure can also support Jane Dough and Hank areas. Jane Dough is immediately proximate to Nichols Ranch. Hank is approximately six miles northeast of Nichols Ranch and would require additional infrastructure.

**18.2** **Access Roads**

The proximity of the Complex to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel, and product to and from the Complex. Although the population within 50 mi of the subject property consists mainly of rural ranch residences, personnel required for exploration, construction, and operation are available in the nearby towns of Wright, Midwest, Edgerton, Gillette, Buffalo, and Casper, Wyoming.

**18.3** **Power**

Power transmission lines are located on or near parts of the Project. EFR has secured power from the local electrical service provider to accommodate all operational needs.

**18.4** **Water Supply**

Non-potable water will be supplied by wells. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection. Typical ISR mining operations also require a disposal well for limited quantities of fluids that cannot be returned to the production aquifers. Deep disposal wells are permitted and installed for the Nichols Ranch Plant.

**18.5** **Tailings**

Tailings storage areas, waste disposal areas, and heap leach pads will not be a part of the infrastructure for the Complex, as ISR operations do not require these types of facilities. Solutions from the wellfields are recirculated within the wellfield. The waste stream bleed from the system is injected into the deep disposal wells.

**18.6** **Mine Support Facilities**

The permitted option for Hank includes construction and operation of a satellite plant facility similar to that at Nichols Ranch. If constructed, the Hank plant would consist of an ion exchange circuit and lixiviant make-up circuit, bleed treatment, and disposal well. Most of the process equipment would be housed in an approximate 80 ft by 160 ft metal building with eave heights less than 40 ft, with some of the bulk chemical storage tanks located outside of the process building. Carbon dioxide would be added to the lixiviant as the fluid exits the Hank satellite facility and returns to the header houses, where oxygen and/or sodium bicarbonate could be added prior to injection into the wellfield. If operated as a satellite facility, Hank would ship resin to a central processing plant for final processing and packaging of yellowcake.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 18-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

The other major option for the development of Hank would be to convey fluids from Hank to the Nichols Ranch Plant. This option would have additional permitting requirements for the pipeline and capital and operating expenditures related to the transfer of solutions between Nichols Ranch and Hank. These costs would be offset by reduced capital and operating expenditures related to the construction and operation of the satellite plant and disposal well(s).

The preferred alternative for the purposes of this PEA is operation of Hank as an adjacent property through pipelines to the Nichols Ranch Plant.

Figure 18-1 provides an aerial view of the infrastructure immediate to the Nichols Ranch Plant. Figure 18-2 provides the infrastructure layout of PA1 and PA2.

![](exhibit99-1xz034.jpg)

**Figure 18-1:** **Aerial View of Infrastructure Around the Nichols Ranch Processing Plant**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 18-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz035.jpg)

**Figure 18-2:** **Site Layout**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 18-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**19.0** **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS**

**19.1** **Markets**

The majority of uranium is traded via long-term supply contracts, negotiated privately without disclosing prices and terms. Spot prices are generally driven by current inventories and speculative short-term buying. Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC. An accepted mining industry practice is to use "Consensus Forecast Prices" obtained by collating commodity price forecasts from credible sources.

**19.1.1 Supply**

According to the World Nuclear Association (World Nuclear, 2021), world uranium requirements totaled more than 47,700 t U in 2020, with the global pandemic accelerating a trend of slowly-decreasing production:

* 2016 - 63,207 t U

* 2017 - 60,514 t U

* 2018 - 54,154 t U

* 2019 - 54,742 t U

* 2020 - 47,731 t U

The top five producing countries (Kazakhstan, Australia, Namibia, Canada, and Uzbekistan) accounted for over 80% of world production in 2020.

The share of uranium produced by ISR mining has steadily increased mainly due to the addition of ISR operations in Kazakhstan, and now accounts for over 50% of production.

Over half of uranium mine production is from state-owned mining companies, some of which prioritize secure supply over market considerations.

**19.1.2 Demand**

Demand is primarily as a source for nuclear power plants. The use of nuclear power generation plants has become increasingly acceptable politically. Both China and India have indicated an intention to increase the percentage of power generated by nuclear plants. The largest increase in demand will come from those two countries.

Demand for uranium fuel is more predictable than for most other mineral commodities, due to the cost structure of nuclear power generation, with high capital and low fuel costs. Once reactors are built, it is very cost-effective to keep them running at high capacity and for utilities to make any adjustments to load trends by cutting back on fossil fuel use. Demand forecasts for uranium thus depend largely on installed and operable capacity, regardless of economic fluctuations.

The World Nuclear Association website notes that mineral price fluctuations are related to demand and perceptions of scarcity. The price cannot indefinitely stay below the cost of production, nor can it remain at a very high price for longer than it takes for new producers to enter the market and for supply anxiety to subside.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 19-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**19.1.3 Price**

The key to understanding any mineral market is knowing how the mineral price is determined. There are generally considered to be two prices in the uranium market: 1) long term contract prices, and 2) spot prices. These are published by companies that provide marketing support to the industry with UxC being the most commonly followed price report. Over the long term price follows the classic market force of supply demand balance with a "speculative" investment market that creates price volatility.

Figure 19-1 provides a Long Term Uranium Price Forecast through 2035 from TradeTech LLC (TradeTech) from the third quarter of 2021. The Forward Availability Model (FAM 1 and 2) forecast differ in assumptions as to how future uranium supply enters the market. "FAM 1 represents a good progression of planned uranium projects incorporating some delays to schedules, while FAM 2 assumes restricted project development because of an unsupportive economic environment." (TradeTech, 2021). Currently most US producers are in a mode of care and maintenance and numerous facilities globally are also slowing or shutting in production at least on a temporary basis. At this time in the US, no new projects are being constructed, and very few are moving forward with permitting and/or licensing. This condition aligns more with the FAM 2 projections.

![](exhibit99-1xz036.jpg)

**Figure 19-1:** **Long Term Uranium Price Forecast**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 19-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Consensus forecasts collected by the SLR QP are in line with the FAM2 - Spot prices in Figure 19-1. General industry practice is to use a consensus long-term forecast price for estimating Mineral Reserves, and 10% to 20% higher prices for estimating Mineral Resources.

For Mineral Resource estimation and cash flow projections, EFR selected a U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $65.00/lb, on a Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) basis to customer facility, based on independent forecasts. The SLR QP considers this price to be reasonable and consistent with industry practice.

The SLR QP has reviewed the market studies and analysis reports and is of the opinion they support the findings of this Technical Report and disclosure of the Mineral Resource estimates.

**19.2** **Contracts**

At this time, EFR has not entered into any long term agreements for the provision of materials, supplies or labor for the Project. The construction and operations will require negotiation and execution of a number of contracts for the supply of materials, services, and supplies.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 19-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**20.0** **ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT**

**20.1** **Summary**

The Complex is located within the Powder River Basin of Wyoming approximately 80 mi northeast of Casper, Wyoming. The Powder River Basin is one of the largest uranium mining districts in Wyoming and currently accounts for most of the Wyoming's uranium production. Current uranium production in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and at Nichols Ranch is completed via ISR mining methods. ISR mining began at the Nichols Ranch area in 2014. The Complex is currently on care and maintenance.

Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and the Hank areas are fully licensed and permitted for ISR mining and processing by major licenses and permits issued by the NRC, the WDEQ/LQD, the WDEQ/WQD, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD). Portions of the Hank area, totaling 280 acres, are on public lands managed by the BLM. This area is permitted for operation by the BLM and a FONSI and Decision Record were issued in July 2015. Nichols Ranch and the Hank areas consist of 3,370 acres and Jane Dough has approximately an additional 3,680 acres which have been approved and amended to the permitted Project boundary.

**20.2** **Environmental Studies**

Extensive environmental studies including air quality, soil and geology, hydrogeology and hydrology, ecology (wildlife and vegetation), and archaeology have been completed for Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas. These studies have been conducted to support the permitting of the ISR mining and processing plant. There are no ongoing environmental studies, beyond compliance-based data collection and reporting.

**20.2.1 Baseline Studies**

EFR conducted monitoring including groundwater, surface water, air quality, and waste to detail baseline environmental conditions at the mine site to support permitting efforts. Background water quality within the mineralized zone, overlying and underlying aquifers, and surficial aquifer was characterized to establish the Upper Control Limits (UCLs) for excursion monitoring during operations and the Restoration Target Values (RTVs).

Baseline studies are performed on an as needed basis for the installation of new facilities including wellfields, roads, Hank satellite plant, and new monitoring locations.

**20.2.1.1** **Hank and Jane Dough Area Groundwater Characterization**

Background water quality within the mineralized zones, overlying and underlying aquifers, and surficial aquifer will be characterized prior to operation of the Hank and Jane Dough areas. This baseline study will result in the establishment of the UCLs to allow for excursion monitoring during operations and the RTV.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 20-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**20.3** **Project Permitting**

Nichols Ranch operates within applicable State of Wyoming permitting requirements and will operate in accordance with the BLM approved Plan of Operations for the Hank Unit.

The Complex operates under the following primary permits:

* Radioactive Source Material License No. SUA-1597

* Air Quality Permit CT-8644

* Permit to Mine No. 778

* Aquifer Exemption(s)

* Wellfield Authorization(s)

* Hank Unit Plan of Operations, Environmental Assessment and Decision Record

* Class I Underground Injection Control Permit (Deep Well Disposal) No. 10-392

* Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) Stormwater Permit(s)

Table 20-1presents a list of active permits including the approving authority, validity period and expiry dates, status (current, canceled or superseded), and indicating if renewal is required or not. The list of approved legal permits for the Complex provided to the SLR QP by EFR addresses the following aspects:

* Air Emissions

* Groundwater Discharge

* Surface Water Discharge

* Radioactive Material Handling

* Water Appropriation

* Reclamation Planning and Bonding

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 20-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 20-1:** **Environmental Permits for Operation**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Authority** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Obligation/Licence** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Date of Issue**<br>**MM/(DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiration Date**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Status** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Environmental Certifications** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Environmental Certifications** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Environmental Certifications** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Environmental Certifications** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Environmental Certifications** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; NRC WDEQ/LQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Radioactive Source Material License, Amendment No. 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/22/2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Renewal Application submitted May 2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active<br>(Timely Renewal) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank and Nichols Permit to Mine | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/29/2010 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough Amendment Permit to Mine | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/17/2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Authorization(s) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Various | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/WQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols and Hank Deep Disposal Well Class I UIC Permit (10-392) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/22/2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/22/2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/WQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Stormwater Discharge Permit for Industrial Activities WYPDES/(WYR001394) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/1/2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/31/2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/WQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Stormwater Discharge Permit for Large Construction Activities WYPDES (WYR104331) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/11/2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/1/2025 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/WQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Public Water Supply (WY5601665) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6/27/2013 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/AQD | &nbsp;&nbsp; Air Quality Permit (CT-8644) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/2/2009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson County | &nbsp;&nbsp; Permit to Construct Septic Leach Field | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11/17/2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; BLM | &nbsp;&nbsp; Decision Record | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7/17/2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EPA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Nichols Ranch and Hank Aquifer Exemption | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11/8/2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; EPA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Dough Aquifer Exemption | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1/10/2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Johnson County | &nbsp;&nbsp; On-site Waste Disposal Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1/17/2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wyoming State Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp; Permit to Appropriate Ground Water for ISR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Various | &nbsp;&nbsp; PA1-A through PA1-H expire 12/31/2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wyoming State Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp; Permit to Appropriate Ground Water for Processing, Dust Suppression, etc. (204846, 199792, 201105) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Various | &nbsp;&nbsp; 199792 and 201105 expire 12/31/2031 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wyoming State Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp; Permit to Appropriate Ground Water for Potable Water System (201694, 203597) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Various | &nbsp;&nbsp; 201694 expires 12/31/2026 and 203597 expires 12/31/2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Effective September 30, 2018, the State of Wyoming became an Agreement State under the Atomic Energy Act (as amended) for the regulation of uranium mills and uranium ISR facilities, and regulation of the Source Material License was transferred from the NRC to WDED/LQD

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 20-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**20.4** **Environmental Requirements**

EFR is committed to the operation of its facilities in a manner that prioritizes the safety of its workers, contractors and community, the protection of the environment and the principles of sustainable development.

**20.4.1 Monitoring and Reporting**

**20.4.1.1** **Air Quality**

Air quality monitoring and reporting is conducted in accordance with the Radioactive Source Material License No. SUA-1597 and the Permit to Mine. Monitoring has been conducted from the beginning of operations to present; monitoring is conducted at various frequencies, from continuously to annually, based on operational status. Monitoring includes air particulates, gamma, and radon.

**20.4.1.2** **Hydrogeology**

Groundwater monitoring and reporting is conducted in accordance with multiple permits including the Permit to Mine and the UIC Permit. Monitoring is conducted at various frequencies and has been conducted from the beginning of operations to present. Groundwater monitoring locations include injection and production wells, perimeter and vertical monitoring wells, and domestic and livestock wells. Monitoring includes injection rates, injection pressures, injection volumes, annular and operating pressures, groundwater elevation and water quality. Reporting to WDEQ/WQD is conducted quarterly and annually.

**20.4.1.3** **Surface Hydrology**

Surface water sampling and reporting is conducted in accordance with multiple permits. Monitoring is conducted at various frequencies and has been conducted from the beginning of operations to present. Reporting to WDEQ/LQD is conducted quarterly and annually.

Stormwater monitoring is conducted in accordance with Stormwater Discharger Permit for Industrial Activities WYPDES permit. Monitoring is conducted on a semi-annual basis and during storm events.

**20.4.1.4** **Soil and Sediment**

Soil and sediment sampling and reporting is conducted in accordance with multiple permits at various locations in the vicinity of the air particulate sampling stations and pre-operational baseline sampling locations on an annual basis. The samples are analyzed for various radionuclides. Monitoring has been conducted from the beginning of operations to present. Reporting to WDEQ/LQD is conducted quarterly and annually.

**20.4.2 Compliance**

From the time of construction to the effective date of this Technical Report, the Complex has experienced two minor compliance issues. Both issues pertained to the Permit to Mine issued by WDEQ/LQD and were resolved quickly under normal regulatory procedures.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 20-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**20.4.3 Mine Closure Plan**

The reclamation plan that presents EFR's plans and estimated costs for the restoration of groundwater, decontamination and decommissioning of the Nichols Ranch Plant site and wellfields, surface reclamation and decommissioning, and post-reclamation monitoring was revised in September 2019. The objective of the reclamation plan is to return the subsurface and surface of the Nichols Ranch, Hank, and Jane Dough areas to conditions compatible with the pre-mining uses. All affected groundwater will be restored to a condition of use equal to or exceeding that which existed prior to Project construction. All lands disturbed by the Nichols Ranch Plant and mining will also be restored to their pre-mining use of livestock grazing and wildlife habitat.

Groundwater restoration includes groundwater sweeping, groundwater treatment, and monitoring. Following groundwater restoration, well abandonment will occur in accordance with WDEQ/LQD regulations. The Nichols Ranch Plant site and wellfield decommissioning consists of decontamination of elements of the Nichols Ranch Plant site, as needed, and the dismantling and selling, where possible, of equipment for future use. Surface reclamation including roads and wellfields consists of surface preparation (regrading, ripping, etc.), the placement of salvaged topsoil, and revegetation.

**20.4.4 Reclamation Cost Estimate and Bonds**

Financial assurance instruments are held by the State for drilling, ISR mining, and uranium processing. The bonds are required to insure reclamation and restoration of the affected lands and aquifers in accordance with federal and state regulations and permit requirements. The current approved surety estimate is $6,668,575 and detailed in Table 20-2. The Company has continuously maintained a bond amount of $6,800,000 since the Project was permitted and licensed.

**Table 20-2:** **Reclamation Bonds**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Program/Permit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Amount**<br>**(US$)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Date Approved**<br>**(MM/DD/YYYY)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD Permit to Mine and NRC Source Materials License | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6668575 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3/4/2021 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WDEQ/LQD Drilling Notification DN336 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8/29/2017 |

---

**20.5** **Social and Community**

EFR is committed to the operation of its facilities in a manner that prioritizes the safety of its workers, contractors and community, the protection of the environment, and the principles of sustainable development. The surrounding communities have a long history of working with and for the region's mining and mineral resource industry, and their support for the Project has been strong.

The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies, 2020, ranks Wyoming as 2<sup>nd</sup> out of 77 jurisdictions using a Policy Perception Index, which indicates a very favorable perception by the mining industry towards Wyoming mining policies. The SLR QP not aware of environmental, permitting, or social/community, factors which would materially affect the Mineral Resource estimates.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 20-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**21.0** **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS**

The capital and operating cost estimates for ISR mining and yellowcake production at the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit are based on factored costs from other operations, judgment, and analogy. Although there was some commercial production experience at Nichols Ranch area from 2014 to 2019, the change in the cost basis for this Technical Report, due to the proposed reduction in overall U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> production rates and the requirement for cost escalation, makes the accuracy, in the SLR QP's opinion, an American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) International Class 4 cost estimate with an accuracy range of 15% to -30% to +20% to +50%.

**21.1** **Capital Costs**

Capital costs estimated for the Project will include the development of wellfields in the Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas, additional trunk lines, and pipeline network to the Hank area, and the completion of the central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch area. Capital costs do not include those capital costs associated with milling, as the Mill will only be used for drying and packing yellowcake from the Complex.

For this Technical Report, the SLR QP adjusted the original 2015 capital cost estimate by the following methodologies:

* Adjustment of 2015 costs to reflect reduction in production scale from the 2015 schedule (6.3 Mlb) to 2021 (4.0 Mlb) using the "0.6 capital rule"; and

* Escalation of adjusted 2015 costs to first quarter (Q1) 2021 US dollar basis using subscription-based Mining Cost Services (MCS) cost indices (Infomine, 2021). The SLR QP is of the opinion that the inflationary indices since Q1 2021 are too volatile to apply against a long lived asset. 

Table 21-1 summarizes the capital costs adjusted for the smaller 4.0 Mlb production schedule and cost escalation in Q1 2021 US dollar basis. The two methodologies are described in further detail below.

**Table 21-1:** **Base Case Capital Cost Estimate Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61327 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Trunkline | &nbsp;&nbsp; 227 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Soft Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12721 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - CPP Buildout | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4990 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - Hank Pipeline | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2177 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Sustaining Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **81442**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20664 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **102105** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 21-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**21.1.1 SLR Capital Cost Adjustments**

The 2015 capital cost estimate of $114.3 million supported a production schedule that included 100% of Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank Mineral Resources, which totalled 6.3 Mlb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub><sub>.</sub> The new base case production schedule in this Technical Report totals 4.0 Mlb (37% lower than the 2015 schedule) and accounts for the mined depletion through 2019 at Nichols Ranch and only the 81% of EFR attributable pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> at Jane Dough.

To scale the 2015 capital cost estimate of $114.3 million to reflect the currently envisioned smaller scale operation, the SLR QP used the 0.6 capital cost rule as follows:

![](exhibit99-1xz037.jpg)

Thus, the scaled 2015 capital cost estimate of $87.1 million for the smaller 4.0 Mlb operation is $27.2 million or 23.8% lower as shown in Table 21-2.

**Table 21-2:** **SLR Capital Cost Scale Adjustment Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2015 Estimate** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Scaled 2015**<br>**Estimate** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variance**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Production Target | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mlb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (2.3) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67596 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51488 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (16108) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Trunkline | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 190 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (60) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Soft Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10680 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (3341) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - CPP Buildout | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4189 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1311) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - Hank Pipeline | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2400 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1828 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (572) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Sustaining Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; **89767** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **68376**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(21391)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24561 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18708 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (5854) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; **114327** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **87084** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(27243)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; % Variance |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; (23.8%) |

---

**21.1.3 SLR Capital Cost Escalation Methodology**

The SLR QP subsequently escalated the adjusted 2015 capital cost estimate cost of $87.1 million to Q1 2021 US dollar basis using subscription-based MCS cost indices dated July 2021. The March 2021 index value was selected as it was the last finalized data point in the July 2021 MCS guide at the time of this Technical Report.

The Mill capital cost indices were chosen as, in the SLR QP's view, ISR mining and processing is composed mainly of pumping and reagent activities found in mill operations compared to classic mining scenarios. The only exceptions were for minor payroll costs during decommissioning, which use a mine labor factor, and for bonding costs, which were assumed to remain unchanged. The capital cost escalation factors are presented in Table 21-3 with the 2021 escalated capital cost presented in Table 21-4.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 21-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 21-3:** **SLR Capital Cost Escalation Factors**

**Energy Fuels Inc. Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **MCS Source** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2015 Index** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **March 2021 Index** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **% Change** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Trunkline | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Soft Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CPP Buildout | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hank Pipeline | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Bonding |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Groundwater Restoration | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Payroll | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 2 - "A" | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.3 |

---

**Table 21-4:** **SLR 2021 Escalated Base Case Capital Cost Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Scaled 2015**<br>**Estimate** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Escalated Q1**<br>**2021 Estimate** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variance**<br>**(US$000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Production Target | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mlb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51488 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61327 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9839 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Trunkline | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 190 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 227 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Soft Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10680 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12721 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2041 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - CPP Buildout | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4189 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4990 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 801 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Plant - Hank Pipeline | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1828 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2177 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 349 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Sustaining Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; **68376** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **81442** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **13066** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18708 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20664 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1956 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$(000) | &nbsp;&nbsp; **87084** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **102105** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **15021** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; % Variance |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.2% |

---

The escalation effect on capital costs from 2015 to Q1 2021 is estimated to be 17.2%, or $15.0 million for the Complex over the scaled 2015 capital costs at 4.0 Mlb production schedule. The SLR QP notes that the current capital cost estimate of $102.1 million is still 10% lower than the original 2015 capital cost estimate of $114.3 million, wholly due to reduction in scale of the operation.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 21-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**21.2** **Operating Costs**

The LOM average operating cost includes mining, on-site yellowcake production with hauling cost to the Mill located near Blanding, Utah, general and administration, and freight of the product from the Mill to a point of sale, along with various royalties and taxes which are described in more detail in Section 22.0. Table 21-5 summarizes the operating cost estimates used for the base case in this PEA in Q1 2021 US dollar basis.

**Table 21-5:** **Operating Cost Estimate**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$(000) (including Yr -1)**<br>| &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/lb Produced** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11575 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39494 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.81 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 656 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25865 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Site Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **77590** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.28**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1533 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Production Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **79123** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.66** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ad Valorem Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10583 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.63 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; WY Severance Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6408 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.59 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4717 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **100832** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **25.06**  |

---

To arrive at the current operating cost estimate in Table 21-5, and similar to the capital cost adjustment, the SLR QP adjusted the original 2015 operating cost estimate by the following methodologies describe in more detail below:

* Adjustment of 2015 costs to reflect reduction in production scale from 2015 (6.3 Mlb) to 2021 base case production schedule (4.0 Mlb) production totals by lowering fixed costs by 15%; and

* Escalation of adjusted 2015 costs to Q1 2021 US dollar basis using MCS cost indices. The SLR QP is of the opinion that the inflationary indices since Q1 2021 are too volatile to apply against a long lived asset. 

**21.2.1 SLR Operating Cost Adjustments**

To better reflect the smaller scale 4.0 Mlb operation, the SLR QP first developed a fixed and variable operating cost structure using the 2015 production schedule and US dollar cost basis. The SLR QP then adjusted the costs based on experience and judgment by lowering the fixed operating dollar cost component by 15% but keeping the variable cost inputs the same. Table 21-6 shows the overall impact of approximately 37.4% increase in operating costs from $11.71/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> to $16.02/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> on a 2015 US dollar cost basis from these adjustments.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 21-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 21-6:** **2015 Site Operating Cost Scale Adjustment**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2015 (6.3 Mlb) Costs (Est)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2015 (6.3 Mlb) Costs (Est)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Scaled 2015 (4 Mlb) Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Scaled 2015 (4 Mlb) Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/lb % Change** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$(000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/lb produced** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$(000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/lb produced** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/lb % Change** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Fixed Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 46368 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39422 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Variable Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28010 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25890 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Site Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **74182** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **11.71** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **65311** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **16.23** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **38.6** |

---

**21.2.2 SLR Operating Cost Escalation Methodology**

After adjusting the operating costs for the smaller production schedule, the SLR QP escalated those adjusted operating costs from 2015 US dollar basis to Q1 2021 US dollar basis using MCS cost indices dated July 2021. The March 2021 index value was selected as it was the last finalized data point in the July 2021 MCS guide at the time of this Technical Report. The operating cost escalation factors are presented in Table 21-7.

**Table 21-7:** **2021 SLR Operating Cost Escalation Factors**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cost Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **MCS Source** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2015 Index** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **March 2021 Index** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **% Change** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 116.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 116.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 5 Mill | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 116.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 2 - "A" | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; Table 2 - "S" | &nbsp;&nbsp; 143.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 170.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.7 |

---

The operating cost escalation by area is presented in Table 21-8.

**Table 21-8:** **SLR 2021 Escalated Base Case Operating Cost Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cost Summary** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Scaled 2015 Cost** <br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Escalated Q1 2021 <br>Cost<sup>1</sup>**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variance** <br>**(US$000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9533 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11575 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2150 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32527 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39494 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7413 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 540 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 656 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 116 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22711 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3154 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Site Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **65311** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **77590** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **12833** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1291 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1533 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 241 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Production Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **66602** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **79123** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **12521** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; % Variance |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.8% |

---

Note:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Escalated Q1 2021 G&A expenses include an extra allowance of $1.5 million for preproduction activity in Year -1 as this cost was not in the original 2015 cost estimate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 21-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

The escalation effect on direct operating costs during this five year period from 2015 through Q1 2021 is estimated to be approximately 18.8% for the Complex over the adjusted 2015 capital costs at 4.0 Mlb production schedule.

**21.2.3 Workforce Summary**

The operation will employ a total of 25 employees at the site, as presented in Table 21-9. It is assumed that corporate-related functions such as administration, finance, human resources, and procurement will be done from EFR's Lakewood, Colorado, head office.

**Table 21-9:** **Workforce Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Drilling, Wellfield Development and Surface Reclamation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Drilling, Wellfield Development and Surface Reclamation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Geologist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Subtotal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Projects, Construction & Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Projects, Construction & Maintenance** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Construction Supervisor | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Construction Technician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Maintenance | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Subtotal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Plant Operations** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Plant Operations** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Operators | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Subtotal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Wellfield Operations** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Wellfield Operations** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Utility Technician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Subtotal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **General and Administrative** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **General and Administrative** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mine Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Environmental, Safety, and Health (ESH) Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Radiation Safety Technician (RST) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Environmental Technician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Lab Technician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Subtotal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **25** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 21-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**22.0** **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS**

An economic analysis was performed using the assumptions presented in this Technical Report. The SLR QP notes that, unlike Mineral Reserves, Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. This PEA is preliminary in nature, and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too geologically speculative to have modifying factors applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that this economic assessment will be realized.

The Nichols Ranch base case cash flow is based on Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources (the latter being 17% of the total). An alternative case with only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources is also presented in this Technical Report.

**22.1** **Base Case (Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources)**

**22.1.1 Economic Criteria**

An after-tax cash flow projection for the base case has been generated from the LOM schedule and capital and operating cost estimates in this Technical Report for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit (Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank areas), and is summarized in the Section 22.1.2. A summary of the key criteria is provided below.

**22.1.1.1** **Revenue**

* Mineral Resource used for LOM planning: 3.3 Mst at 0.114% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> with 7.54 Mlb contained U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (6.66 Mlb contained U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> attributable to EFR)

* Project Areas mined (with % ownership): Nichols Ranch (100%), Jane Dough (81%), and Hank (100%) for net attributable basis of 88.3%

* An estimated 85% of the Mineral Resource will be under pattern with 71% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>recovery, equating to an effective resource recovery of 60.4%, or 4.02 Mlb recovered U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> attributable to EFR

* A total of 17% of the LOM tonnage is Inferred Mineral Resource

* Average LOM flow rate: 3,016 gallons per minute (gpm)

* Average LOM pregnant leach solution (PLS) concentration: 33 milligrams U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per liter (mg/L)

* Sold U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>: 4.02 Mlb attributable to EFR

* Avg annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> sales: 393 klb/y

* Metal price: US$65.00/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

* Concentrate shipping cost from the Mill to customer: $760/ton U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> or $0.38/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

**22.1.1.2** **Capital and Operating Costs**

* One year of preproduction period for wellfield development for production in Year 1. All other infrastructure necessary to resume operations at the Complex is already constructed.

* Mine life of 11 years

* LOM sustaining capital costs of $81.4 million in Q1 2021 US dollar basis

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

* LOM site operating cost (including preproduction wellfield and G&A costs but excluding product transport to market cost, royalties, Ad Valorem tax, and Wyoming severance tax) of $76.7 million, or $19.28/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>produced, on Q1 2021 US dollar basis

* LOM Restoration/decommissioning costs of $20.7 million in Q1 2021 US dollar basis.

**22.1.1.3** **Royalties and Production Taxes**

* Royalties for the Project are applicable to approximately 30% of the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough Mineral Resources in the production schedule. Royalties are estimated using a rate of 8% of gross revenue generated over these areas.

* The Ad Valorem (or Gross Products) tax varies by county and is exclusively a volume based assessment.

* The current Wyoming state severance tax for the privilege of extracting uranium is 4% of Gross Product value above $60.00/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. However, after the allowable wellhead deduction the effective severance tax rate can range from 0% to 5% of gross revenue, depending on the price paid. For the Project, it is estimated at approximately 2.45% of gross revenue over LOM.

**22.1.1.4** **Income Taxes**

The economic analysis includes the following assumptions for corporate income taxes (CIT):

* Unit of Production depreciation method was used with total allowance of $81.4 million taken during LOM

* Percentage depletion method was used with total allowance of $31.0 million taken during LOM

* Loss Carry Forwards - Income tax losses may be carried forward indefinitely but may not be used for prior tax years

* Federal tax rate of 21%

* Wyoming has no corporate income tax

**22.1.2 Cash Flow Analysis**

The SLR QP notes that, unlike Mineral Reserves, Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. The economic analysis for the base case contained in this Technical Report is based, in part, on Inferred Resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred Resources are considered too geologically speculative to have modifying factors applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that this economic assessment will be realized. The SLR QP notes that with the future exploration drilling planned at the Complex, it would be reasonable to expect a significant amount of Inferred Mineral Resources to become converted into the Indicated category through a subsequent resource model.

The Project production schedule, with one year of preproduction, and as currently envisioned with 17% Inferred Mineral Resources and 83% combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources is shown in Figure 22-1 and the resulting after-tax free cash flow profile is shown in Figure 22-2.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz038.jpg)

Note:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. PLS = Pregnant Leach Solution

**Figure 22-1:** **Base Case Annual U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Production by Area**

![](exhibit99-1xz039.jpg)

**Figure 22-2:** **Base Case Project After-Tax Metrics Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Table 22-1 presents a summary of the Nichols Ranch base case economics at an U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $65.00/lb. The full annual cash flow model is presented in Appendix 1 of this Technical Report. On a pre-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $58.6 million over the mine life. The pre-tax NPV at a 5% discount rate is $46.1 million. On an after-tax basis for the base case, the undiscounted cash flow totals $41.1 million over the mine life. The after-tax NPV at 5% discount rate is $31.5 million. The SLR QP notes that after-tax IRR is not applicable as the Nichols Ranch Plant at the Complex is already constructed and already operated for a number of years. Capital identified in the economics is for sustaining operations and plant rebuilds as necessary.

**Table 22-1:** **Base Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mlb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Gross Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **262** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (12) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (39) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (26) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (2) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Production Taxes/Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (22) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(101)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Margin** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **161**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Operating Margin | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (17) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cash Flow** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **143**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Sustaining Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; (81) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; (21) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(102)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **46.1**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **31.5**  |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Table 22-2 shows the average annual U<sub>3</sub> O<sub>8</sub> sales for the base case during the 11 years of operation (and one year of preproduction expense) is 393 klb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>per year at an average All-in Sustaining Cost (AISC) of $50.43/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (or $45.30/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> excluding Restoration/ Decommissioning costs).

**Table 22-2:** **Base Case All-In Sustaining Costs Composition**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$ M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Cost**<br>**(US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.81 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Site Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78 | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.28**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Direct Cash Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 79 | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.66**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Taxes/Royalties** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cash Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **101** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **25.06**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Sustaining Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; 81 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Sustaining Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 102 | &nbsp;&nbsp; **25.37**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total All-in Sustaining Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 203 | &nbsp;&nbsp; **50.43**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales (Mlb) |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Average U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales per Year (klb) |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 393 |

---

Figure 22-3 shows the annual AISC trend during the base case mine operations against an overall average AISC of $50.43/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> over the 11-year LOM. The AISC variations are mainly due to changes in grades and mine schedule. The AISC metric can range from $24/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>to $75/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> through the Project life.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz040.jpg)

**Figure 22-3:** **Base Case Annual AISC Curve Profile**

**22.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis**

Project risks can be identified in both economic and non-economic terms. Key economic risks were examined by running cash flow sensitivities calculated over a range of variations based on realistic fluctuations within the listed factors:

* U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price: $10/lb increments between $45/lb and $85/lb

* Net Recovery: -20%/+20% (percentage under pattern and metallurgical recovery)

* Operating cost per ton milled: -30%/+50% (AACE International Class 4 range)

* Capital cost: -30%/+50% (AACE International Class 4 range)

The after-tax cash flow sensitivities for the base case are shown in Table 22-3 and Figure 22-4. The Project is most sensitive to uranium price and recovery, and only slightly less sensitive to operating cost and capital cost at an AACE International Class 4 accuracy level. The sensitivities to pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and metal price are nearly identical**.** The SLR QP notes that head grade variations in ISR mining are difficult to measure at this PEA stage and thus were not included in this sensitivity analysis.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 22-3:** **Base Case After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Price**<br>**(US$/lb)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$ M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (18) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 55.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **65.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **31**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Net Recovery**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$ M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **60.4** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 66.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Costs**<br>**(US$/ton milled)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$ M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.28**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **31**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Costs**<br>**(US$ M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$ M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 71 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **102**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **31**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 153 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (6) |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz041.jpg)

**Figure 22-4:** **Base Case After-tax NPV 5% Sensitivity Analysis**

**22.2** **Alternate Case (Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources Only)**

The SLR QP also undertook an analysis of an alternative case, considering only combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources (83% of the base case production schedule). The SLR QP notes that while the alternate case does not contain Inferred Mineral Resources, Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that economic forecasts on which this PEA is based will be realized.

Using the same cost parameters and ISR mining and processing assumptions as the base case, the alternate case production schedule generates 3.36 Mlb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> over a nine year mine life as shown in Figure 22-5.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz042.jpg)

**Figure 22-5:** **Alternate Case Annual U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Production by Area**

Table 22-4 presents a summary of the Nichols Ranch alternate case economics at an U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $65.00/lb. The full annual cash flow model is presented in Appendix 1 of this Technical Report. On a pre-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $43.7 million over the mine life. The pre-tax NPV at a 5% discount rate is $37.4 million. On an after-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $27.4 million over the mine life. The after-tax NPV at 5% discount rate is $23.7 million.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 22-4:** **Alternate Case After-Tax Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mlb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Gross Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **219**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Wellfield Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (10) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (33) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (21) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Production Taxes/Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (19) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(85)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Margin** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **133** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Operating Margin | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; (16) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cash Flow** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **117**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Sustaining Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; (73) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; (17) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(90)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 43.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **37.4**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ M | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **23.7**  |

---

Table 22-5 shows the average annual U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> sales for the alternate case during the nine years of operation are 418 klb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per year at an average AISC of $52.00/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (or $47.05/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> excluding Restoration/Decommissioning costs).

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 22-5:** **Alternate Case All-in Sustaining Costs Composition**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$ M** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Deep Well Disposal | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Site Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **65**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.4**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Direct Cash Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **66**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **19.8**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Production Taxes/Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cash Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **85**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **25.3**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Sustaining Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; 73 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Restoration/Decommissioning | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Sustaining Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **90**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **26.7**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total All-in Sustaining Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **175**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **52.00**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales (Mlb) |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Average U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales per Year (klb) |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 418 |

---

The after-tax cash flow sensitivities for the alternate case are shown in Figure 22-6 and are similar in magnitude to the base case with the Project being most sensitive to uranium price and recovery, and only slightly less sensitive to operating cost and capital cost at a AACE International Class 4 level of accuracy.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz043.jpg)

**Figure 22-6:** **Alternate Case After-tax NPV 5% Sensitivity Analysis**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 22-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**23.0** **ADJACENT PROPERTIES**

The Complex is located within the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District, which was the first commercial uranium production district in Wyoming. Uranium was first discovered in the Pumpkin Buttes in 1951. Through 1967, intermittent production from approximately 55 small mines produced 36,737 tons of mined product containing 208,143 lb of uranium (Breckenridge et al., 1974). This early mining focused on shallow oxidized areas by small open pit mines. Primary exploration methods included geologic mapping and ground radiometric surveys. Modern exploration and mining in the district have focused on deeper reduced mineralization.

Significant mine developments located near the Nichols Ranch property and within and or near the Pumpkin Butte Mining District in which EFR has no material interest include:

More recent ISR tests and operating uranium production near the Complex include:

* The Willow Creek Project (formerly known as the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Project), a commercial ISR mine, now controlled by Uranium Energy Corp, and located seven miles north of Nichols Ranch, has produced over 4.5 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and is currently undergoing renovations in preparation for the resumption of operations.

* CCI had a small ISR pilot plant, located approximately three miles south of the Willow Draw project and four miles southeast of the Nichols Ranch/Jane Dough areas, which reportedly produced approximately 12,000 lb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (Beahm and Anderson, 2007).

* The Ruth pilot test located six miles southwest of North Rolling Pin produced 32,000 lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

* The Cameco Smith Ranch-Highland Mine is located approximately 45 miles from the Project. Smith Ranch-Highland Mine utilizes ISR for uranium extraction and has been in production since 1997. 

* The Cameco North Butte Project located immediately north of Hank.

The SLR QP has been unable to verify this information on adjacent properties. This information on adjacent properties is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization at the Nichols Ranch property.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 23-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**24.0** **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**

No additional information or explanation is necessary to make this Technical Report understandable and not misleading.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 24-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**25.0** **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**

The SLR QPs offer the following conclusions by area.

**25.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

* The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2021. Estimated uranium grades are based on radiometric probe grades using GT contour methodology.

* Mineral Resources for the Complex are reported at a GT cut-off grade of 0.20 %-ft and have been depleted as of December 31, 2021.

* The total production from Nichols Ranch is 1,276,589 lb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> as of December 31, 2021.

* Total Measured + Indicated Resources for the Complex are 3.29 Mst at an average grade of 0.106% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 6.99 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Additional Inferred Resources total 650,000 tons at an average grade of 0.097% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 1.25 Mlb eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

* There is a low risk of depletion of chemical uranium compared to radiometrically determined uranium at the Complex. Furthermore, there is no evidence that radiometric disequilibrium would be expected to negatively affect the uranium resource estimates of the deposits. PFN geophysical logging provides direct analysis of the in situ chemical uranium content and is considered by the SLR QP as reliable for the purposes of assessing radiometric equilibrium

* The SLR QP is of the opinion the historical radiometric logging, analysis, and security procedures at the Complex were adequate for use in the estimation of the Mineral Resources. The SLR QP also opines that, based on the information available, the original gamma log data and subsequent conversion to % eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values are reliable. 

* The sampling, sample preparation, and sample analysis programs are appropriate and to industry standards for the style of mineralization.

* Although continuity of mineralization is variable, drilling to date confirms that local continuity exists within individual sandstone units.

* No significant discrepancies were identified with the drilling and radiometric logging data and GT interpretations in Nichols Ranch Mining Unit.

* Nichols Ranch had near-continuous production for over five years beginning in 2014. There has been adequate drilling to develop the Mineral Resource models that have been used in the GT contour models and for successful mine planning. The Mineral Resource models at Nichols Ranch performed well during production, and the SLR QP is of the opinion that the database verification procedures for the remaining properties included in the Mineral Resource estimate (Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, Hank, and North Rolling Pin) comply with industry best practices and standards and are deemed suitable for use in mineralized material estimation.

* Significant discrepancies were identified with the coordinated location and GT contour interpretations for West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek.

* EFR has not completed a thorough verification of drilling data reported on the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek deposits. The SLR QP opines that although the resource estimate completed in 2008 adhered to industry best practices and standards at the time, the inability for EFR or the SLR QP to validate the model excludes it from the current resource estimate discussed in Section 14.0 of this Technical Report. The resource estimate should be regarded as historic and not relied upon until EFR completes validation of the historic drilling.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 25-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

* Descriptions of recent drilling programs, logging, and sampling procedures have been well documented by EFR, with no significant discrepancies identified.

* The QA/QC procedures undertaken support the integrity of the database used for Mineral Resource estimation.

* The resource database is valid and suitable for Mineral Resource estimation under S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 standards.

* In the SLR QP's opinion, the assumptions, parameters, and methodology used for the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and North Rolling Pin Mineral Resource estimate are appropriate for the style of mineralization and mining methods.

* The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the current resource estimate.

**25.2** **Mining Methods**

* The Complex is currently on care and maintenance status.

**25.3** **Mineral Processing**

* The Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed and designed to have four major solution circuits: 1) the recovery circuit, 2) the elution circuit, 3) the precipitation and filtration circuit, 4) the drying and packaging circuit. The Nichols Ranch Unit processing plant is currently constructed and operated with the first three solution circuit installed.

* Due to the absence of the on-site drying and packaging circuit, the Project proposes to truck the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> produced on-site 643 road miles to the Mill near Blanding, Utah, for drying and drumming for final delivery to end users. 

* The Mill has been in operation since 1981 and is equipped with the required equipment using a proven process for the production of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> product, called "yellowcake". In addition, although it is not part of the production schedule in this Technical Report, the Mill also has the capacity to produce V<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>.

* The Mill is currently on a reduced operating schedule processing materials as they become available. The Mill is currently processing REE materials in part of the circuit, functioning essentially as a pilot plant, therefore the facility is sufficiently staffed to initiate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> production relatively quickly.

**25.4** **Infrastructure**

* The Complex and the Mill are in historically important, uranium-producing regions of eastern Wyoming and southeastern Utah, respectively. All the regional infrastructure necessary to mine and process commercial quantities of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> is in place.

* EFR has operated the Mill tailings cells since 1981, under the requirements of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Radioactive Materials License.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 25-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**25.5** **Environment**

* Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and the Hank Unit are fully licensed and permitted for ISR mining by major licenses and permits issued by the NRC, the WDEQ/LQD, and the WDEQ/AQD. The Hank Unit is also permitted for operation by a Decision Record issued by the Bureau of Land management (BLM). 

* EFR has strong relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies and has a positive record of environmental performance at Nichols Ranch.

* The SLR QP is not aware of environmental, permitting, or social/community factors which would materially affect the Mineral Resource estimates.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 25-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**26.0** **RECOMMENDATIONS**

The SLR QPs offer the following recommendations by area:

**26.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

The SLR QP offers the following recommendations regarding the data supporting the drillhole database at the Project:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Transition from a Microsoft Excel database to acQuire or a similar database.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Verify all drilling data collar coordinates as Wyoming NAD27 UTM zone 13 coordinates. EFR should also consider moving to an updated coordinate system, such as WGS 84, for use in online graphic programs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Create 3D geologic models of the Wasatch Formation and individual Sand Units for use in verifying and auditing uranium mineralization.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Use a handheld XRF tool to replace the scintillometer reading in order to obtain more precise mineralogical information.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Resume using PFN as a QA/QC tool to confirm disequilibrium within the Satellite Properties not yet exposed to ISR mining.

In addition, the SLR QP provides the following deposit specific recommendations:

**26.1.1 Nichols Ranch Mining Unit**

**26.1.1.1** **Nichols Ranch**

The SLR QP makes the following recommendations regarding advancing the Project with Production Planning and Development for PA2:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Conduct drilling of 55 delineation to better define the mineralized trends in PA2 to meet a minimum 100 ft grid spacing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Based on the results of the 55 delineation holes, drill and install 120 development wells, associated header houses and manifold to main production pipeline for the remaining four wellfields.

Additional plant upgrades are not required to put PA2 into production. The proposed budget for bringing PA2 into production is shown in Table 26-1.

**Table 26-1:** **PA2 Wellfield Development**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Nichols Ranch Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost**<br>**(US$)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Drilling (Delineation - 55 holes) | &nbsp;&nbsp; $110000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Drill and Install Wellfield (120 wells) | &nbsp;&nbsp; $1800000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Header House and Manifold Construction | &nbsp;&nbsp; $390000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total | &nbsp;&nbsp; $2300000 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 26-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**26.1.1.2** **Jane Dough**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Complete exploration and delineation drilling at Jane Dough, in concurrence with ongoing delineation and production well drilling at Nichols Ranch, starting in the areas most proximate to Nichols Ranch and proceeding southward.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Complete an Engineering study to define the most efficient infrastructure for production.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Install monitor wells and conduct pump tests for state and federal permit/license requirements in a phased approach as drilling will define multiple Pas.

**26.1.1.3** **Hank**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Complete additional drilling at Hank to access, define, and upgrade classification of the Mineral Resource.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. After drilling, complete the economic evaluation of the Hank area project.

**26.1.2 Satellite Properties**

**26.1.2.1** **North Rolling Pin**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Install additional monitor wells for future EFR hydrologic studies. Determine groundwater levels and conduct pump tests to evaluate groundwater quality and impact on possible ISR mining.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Complete additional delineation drilling to meet a minimum 100 ft grid spacing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Conduct additional radiological disequilibrium studies using PFN, DFN logging, and/or core assays to develop a site-specific model. Also, conduct a bench scale leach tests to determine amenability to ISR.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Complete environmental baseline studies for preparation of state and federal permit/license applications.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*5.* After drilling, complete an economic evaluation of the North Rolling Pin project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Update the current drilling database with all possible historical holes.

**26.1.2.2** **West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Update, verify, and certify the drilling database and ensure that all drilling, both historical and recent, is included.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Prepare an updated resource estimation upon completion of updating and verifying the database to make 2008 resource estimations current.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Install additional monitor wells for future EFR hydrologic studies. Determine groundwater levels and conduct pump tests to evaluate groundwater quality and impact on possible ISR mining.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Complete additional drilling to access the mineral resource.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Conduct additional radiological disequilibrium studies using PFN, DFN logging, and/or core assays to develop a site-specific model. Also, conduct bench scale leach tests to determine amenability to ISR.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Complete environmental baseline studies for preparation of state and federal permit/license applications.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*7.* After drilling, complete an economic evaluation of the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 26-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**26.2** **Mining Methods**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Consistent with the state and federal regulations requirements, environmental monitoring and analysis programs should be implemented to continually collect water level and water quality data when the mine site becomes fully operational.

**26.3** **Mineral Processing**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Continue the intermittent Mill operations with maintenance program.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Evaluate the Nichols Ranch Plant's historical operating data to determine possible flow sheet improvements or modifications to improve production rate/economics and make these changes before commencing production.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 26-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**27.0** **REFERENCES**

AACE International, 2012, Cost Estimate Classification System - As applied in the Mining and Mineral Processing Industries, AACE International Recommended Practice No. 47R-11, 17 p.

Agnerian, H., and W. E. Roscoe, 2003, The Contour Method of Estimating Mineral Resources, Roscoe Pestle Associates, Inc. paper, 9 pp

Andrew Johns, Raymond James Uranium Price Outlook, http://www.andrewjohns.ca/sites/default/files/iMin111814c_061826.pdf

Beahm, D. and A. Anderson, 2007, Nichols Ranch uranium project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, WY. Mineral Resource Report 43-101, prepared for Uranerz Energy Corp. BRS Inc. , April 3, 2007, update Sept. 13, 2007, 44 p

Beahm, D.L., and P. Goranson, 2015, Nichols Ranch Uranium Project Preliminary Economic Assessment, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA, prepared for Uranerz Energy Corp. BRS Engineering, February 28, 2015, 112 p

Berglund, A., 2006, Willow Creek Project, Uranium Resource Estimation, prepared in March 2006.

Berglund, A., 2007a: North Rolling Pin Project, Uranium Resource Estimation, prepared in March 2007.

Berglund, A., 2007b: Northwest North Butte Project, Uranium Resource Estimation, prepared in November 2007.

Breckenridge, R.M., G.B. Glass, F.K. Root, and W.G. Wendell, 1974: Campbell County, Wyoming: Geologic Map Atlas and Summary of Land, Water, and Mineral Resources. County Resource Series (CRS-3), Wyoming State Geological Survey.

Brown, Drew, Massey & Durham, LLP, 2022, Ownership Summary, Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, letter report to Uranerz Energy Corporation and Energy Fuels Resources, February 7, 2022, 4 pp.

Brown, K., 2005, Uranerz Internal Report North Butte Uranium Ore Reserve Estimate on the Shook, Don and UEC Claims, August 2005.

Brown, K., 2006, Uranerz Internal Report Geology and Uranium Reserves, Nichols Ranch Claims, Wyoming, February 2006.

Brown, K., 2006a, Uranerz Internal Report, Geology and Uranium Reserves, Hank Claims, Wyoming, April 2006.

Brown, K., 2006b, Uranerz Internal Report, Geology and Uranium Reserves of the Collins Draw Claims, Pumpkin Buttes, Wyoming, September 2006.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 27-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Brown, K., 2007, Uranerz Internal Report, Geology and Uranium Reserves of the Doughstick Claims, Pumpkin Buttes, Wyoming, January 2007.

Brown, K., 2009, Technical Report, Nichols Ranch Property Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, June 2009.

Bureau of Land Management and Wyoming (BLM and WY). 2015. Environmental Assessment for Uranerz Energy Corporation's Proposed Hank Unit Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, Campbell County, Wyoming,WYW-169904.

Cameco, Uranium Price, https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price (accessed Month, Day, Year).

Campbell County, Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding [No. WY 19] Between the Governor of Wyoming and the United States By and Through the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Campbell, M. D., and K. T. Biddle, 1977, Frontier areas and exploration techniques - Frontier uranium exploration in the South-Central United States, in Geology [and environmental considerations] of alternate energy resources, uranium, lignite, and geothermal energy in the South-Central States, pp. 3-40 (Figure 17 - p. 34): Published by the Houston Geological Society, 364 p.

Campbell, M.D., et al., 2008, The Nature and Extent of Uranium Reserves and Resources and their Environmental Development in the U.S. and Overseas, AAPG Energy Mineral Div., Uranium Committee Annual Report of 2008, AAPG EMD Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, April 23, 2008, 21p.

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), 2014, CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the CIM Council on May 10, 2014.

CIM, 2003, Best Practices in Uranium Estimation Guidelines, published by CIM Estimation Best Practice Committee, November 23, 2003.

Dahlkamp, F. J., 2010, Uranium Deposits of the World, USA and Latin America, Springer, 2010<sup>th</sup> Edition, August 20, 2010, 536 pp.

Davis, J.F., 1969: Uranium Deposits of the Powder River Basin, Contributions to Geology, Wyoming Uranium Issue, University of Wyoming.

Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. Technical Report Summary for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Compliant Report Initial Assessment, December 31, 2020.

Energy Laboratories, Inc, 2007, Report on Leach Amenability to George Hartman/Uranerz Energy Corporation, June 4, 2007, unpublished, p. 9

Energy Laboratories, Inc, 2009a, Report on Leach Amenability Doughstick to Glenda Thomas/Uranerz Energy Corporation, February 6, 2009, unpublished, p. 9

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 27-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Energy Laboratories, Inc, 2009b, Report on Leach Amenability South Doughstick to Glenda Thomas/Uranerz Energy Corporation, February 6, 2009, unpublished, p. 6

Garling, R. A., 2013, Uranium Leach Amenability Test Summary, R and D Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum to Glenda Thomas/Uranerz Energy Corporation, February 5, 2013

Granger, H.C. and C.G. Warren, 1979: Zoning in the altered tongue with roll-type uranium deposits, IAEA-SM-183/6.

Graves, D.H. and D.R. Woody, 2008, Technical Report West North Butte Satellite Properties Campbell County, Wyoming, U.S.A., TREC, Inc., NI 43-101 Technical Report prepared for Uranerz Energy Corporation, December 9, 2008, p. 47

Graves, D.H., 2010, Technical Report North Rolling Pin Property, Campbell County, Wyoming, U.S.A., TREC, Inc., NI 43-101 Technical Report prepared for Uranerz Energy Corporation, June 4, 2010, p. 47

Harbaugh, A.W., McDonald, M.G. (1996) Open-File Report Vol. 1996 (96-486), Programmer's documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Hodson, W.G., Pearl, R.H., and Druse, S.A., 1973, Water resources of the Powder River basin and adjacent areas, northeastern Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-465.

In-Situ Consulting, 1979: North Rolling Pin In-Situ Solution Mine Test and Restoration Summary. Prepared by Dick Watkins for the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) January 1979.

McKay, A.D., P. Stoker, K.F. Bampton, I.B. Lambert, I.B., 2007. Resource estimates for in situ leach uranium projects and reporting under the JORC code, November 2007, pp. 58-67.

NRC, 2011. In Situ Uranium Recovery Process. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. <u>https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-methods/isl-recovery-facilities.html</u>. Accessed February, 2022.

NRC, 2016. In Situ Uranium Recovery Process. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2016. <u>https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-methods/isl-recovery-facilities.html</u>. Accessed January 21, 2022.

Penney, R., 2011, From kicking rocks to PFN, the exploration and the technology, UXA's approach to finding uranium, UXA Resources Limited, ABN 65 112 714 397, The AusIMM, Sydney Branch, February 16, 2011, p. 40

Rackley, R.I., 1972: Environment of Wyoming Tertiary Uranium Deposits, AAPG Bulletin Vol. 56, No. 4.

Scott, J.H., 1962: GAMLOG A Computer Program for Interpreting Gamma-Ray Logs; United States Atomic Energy Commission, Grand Junction Office, Production Evaluation Division, Ore Reserves Branch, TM-179, September 1962.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 27-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

Sharp, W.N. and A.B. Gibbons, 1964: Geology and Uranium Deposits of the Southern Part of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1147-D, 164 pp.

TREC, Inc., 2008, Technical Report, Hank Property, Campbell County, Wyoming, USA. Prepared for Uranerz Energy Corporation, May 1, 2008.

Uranerz Energy Corporation, 2010: Nichols Ranch ISR Project Uranium Solution Mine Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application, Appendix D5 Geology.

Uranerz Energy Corporation, 2010a, Nichols Ranch ISR Project Uranium Solution Mine Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. U.S.N.R.C. Source Material License Application, Appendix D5 Geology.

Uranerz Energy Corporation, 2012, Nichols Ranch ISR Project WDEQ Permit to Mine N. 778 NRC SUA-1597. Nichols Ranch Unit PA#1, Wellfield Package Hydrologic Test.

Uranerz Energy Corporation, 2014, Nichols Ranch ISR Project U.S.N.R.C Source Material SUA-1597 Jane Dough Amendment, April 2014, 28pp.

Uranerz Energy Corporation, 2019, Nichols Ranch ISR Project Mine Plan.

US Securities and Exchange Commission, 2018, Regulation S-K, Subpart 229.1300, Item 1300 Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary.

Visher, G.S., 1972, Physical characteristics of fluvial deposits, in Rigby, J. K., and Hamblin, W. K., eds., Recognition of ancient sedimentary environments: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mineralogists Spec. Pub. 16, pp. 84-97.

Walton, W.C. 1989. Analytical Groundwater Modeling: Flow and Contaminant Migration. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Whitehead, R.L., 1996, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, chap. I *of* Ground water atlas of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 730, 24 p. [Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/index.html.]

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Permit to Mine No. 778, 206_01_Appendix D6_Hydrology_Nichols Hank_Text

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Permit to Mine No. 778, 206_05_Appendix JD-D6_Hydrology Text_JaneDough_Text

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Permit to Mine No. 778, 206_01_Appendix D6_Hydrology_Nichols Hank_Text

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 27-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**28.0** **DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE**

This report titled, "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project , Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA", with an effective date of December 31, 2021, was prepared and signed by:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Grant A. Malensek*** |
| Dated at Lakewood, CO | Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng. |
| February 22, 2022 | Senior Principal Mining Engineer, SLR |
| Amended: February 8, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Mark B. Mathisen*** |
| Dated at Lakewood, CO | Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G. |
| February 22, 2022 | Principal Geologist, SLR |
| Amended: February 8, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Jeremy Scott Collyard*** |
| Dated at Lakewood, CO | Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP |
| February 22, 2022 | Mining & Minerals Sector Lead, SLR |
| Amended: February 8, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Jeffrey L. Woods*** |
| Dated at Sparks, NV | Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP |
| February 22, 2022 | Principal Consulting Metallurgist, |
| Amended: February 8, 2023 | Woods Process Services |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Phillip E. Brown*** |
| Dated at Evergreen, CO | Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G. |
| February 22, 2022 | Principal Consulting Hydrogeologist, |
| Amended: February 8, 2023 | Consultants in Hydrogeology |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 28-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**29.0** **CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**29.1** **Grant A. Malensek**

I, Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021, prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Senior Principal Mining Engineer with SLR International Corporation, of Suite 100, 1658 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, USA 80401.

2. I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, Canada, in 1987 with a B.Sc. degree in Geological Sciences and Colorado School of Mines, USA in 1997 with a M.Eng. degree in Geological Engineering.

3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer/Geoscientist in the Province of British Columbia (Reg.# 23905). I have worked as a mining engineer for a total of 25 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Feasibility, Prefeasibility, and scoping studies

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Fatal flaw, due diligence, and Independent Engineer reviews for equity and project financings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Financial and technical-economic modelling, analysis, budgeting, and forecasting

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Property and project valuations

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Capital cost estimates and reviews

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mine strategy reviews

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Options analysis and project evaluations in connection with mergers and acquisitions

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Nichols Ranch Project on October 28, 2021.

6. I am responsible for Sections 1.2, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 19, 21, 22, and 30, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections 1.2, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 19, 21, 22, and 30 of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 22<sup>nd</sup> day of February, 2022, and amended this 8<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2023,

**(Signed & Sealed)** ***Grant A. Malensek***

Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 29-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**29.2** **Mark B. Mathisen**

I, Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021 prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Geologist with SLR International Corporation, of Suite 100, 1658 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, USA 80401.

2. I am a graduate of Colorado School of Mines in 1984 with a B.Sc. degree in Geophysical Engineering.

3. I am a Registered Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming (No. PG-2821), a Certified Professional Geologist with the American Institute of Professional Geologists (No. CPG-11648), and a Registered Member of SME (RM #04156896). I have worked as a geologist for a total of 23 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Resource estimation and preparation of NI 43-101 Technical Reports.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Director, Project Resources, with Denison Mines Corp., responsible for resource evaluation and reporting for uranium projects in the USA, Canada, Africa, and Mongolia.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Project Geologist with Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., responsible for planning and direction of field activities and project development for an in situ leach uranium project in the USA. Cost analysis software development.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Design and direction of geophysical programs for US and international base metal and gold exploration joint venture programs.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Nichols Ranch Project on October 28, 2021.

6. I am responsible for Sections 1.1.1.1, 1.1.2.1, 1.3.1 to 1.3.7, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1 to 5.4, 5.6, 6 to 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25.1, and 26.1, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, Sections 1.1.1.1, 1.1.2.1, 1.3.1 to 1.3.7, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1 to 5.4, 5.6, 6 to 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25.1, and 26.1 of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 22<sup>nd</sup> day of February 2022, and amended this 8<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2023,

**(Signed & Sealed)** ***Mark B. Mathisen***

Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 29-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**29.3** **Jeremy Scott Collyard**

I, Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP, as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021 prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am the United States Mining and Minerals Sector Lead and a Director Environmental Scientist with SLR International Corporation, of Suite 100, 1658 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, USA 80401.

2. I am a graduate of the University of Montana in 2022 with a B.S. degree in Forestry.

3. I am a registered Qualified Person with the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (MMSA) (QP No. 1544QP). I have worked as an environmental scientist in the mining sector for a total of 18 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Previous involvement in the preparation of NI 43-101 reports.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• My past experience as an Associate - Senior Environmental Scientist, MWH Americas, Inc./Stantec responsible for environmental permitting and compliance in the mining and industrial sector. Responsible for mine closure planning, cost estimating, and implementation.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Nichols Ranch Project on October 28, 2021.

6. I am responsible for Sections 1.1.1.5, 1.3.12, 4.3, 4.6, 20, and 25.5, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, Sections 1.1.1.5, 1.3.12, 4.3, 4.6, 20, and 25.5 of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 22<sup>nd</sup> day of February, 2022, and amended this 8<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2023,

**(Signed & Sealed)** ***Jeremy Scott Collyard***

Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 29-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**29.4** **Jeffery L. Woods**

I, Jeffery L. Woods, MMSA QP, as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021 prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am Principal Consulting Metallurgist with Woods Process Services, of 1112 Fuggles Drive, Sparks, NV 89441.

2. I am a graduate of Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A., in 1988 with a B.S. degree in Metallurgical Engineering.

3. I am a member in good standing of Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, membership #4018591.I have practiced my profession continuously for 34 years since graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Review and report as a consultant on numerous exploration, development, and production mining projects around the world for due diligence and regulatory requirements

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Metallurgical engineering, test work review and development, process operations and metallurgical process analyses, involving copper, gold, silver, nickel, cobalt, uranium, and base metals located in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, Turkey, Cameroon, Peru, Argentina, and Colombia

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Senior Process Engineer for a number of mining-related companies

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Manager and Business Development for a small, privately owned metallurgical testing laboratory in Plano, Texas, USA

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Vice President Process Engineering for at a large copper mining company in Sonora, Mexico

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Global Director Metallurgy and Processing Engineering for a mid-tier international mining company

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Nichols Ranch Project on October 28, 2021, and the White Mesa Mill on November 11, 2011.

6. I am responsible for Section 1.1.1.3, 1.1.1.4, 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.4, 1.3.9, 1.3.10, 5.5, 13, 17, 18, 25.3, 25.4, 26.3, and 26.4, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 29-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections 1.1.1.3, 1.1.1.4, 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.4, 1.3.9, 1.3.10, 5.5, 13, 17, 18, 25.3, 25.4, 26.3, and 26.4, in the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated 22<sup>nd</sup> day of February, 2022, and amended this 8<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2023,

**(Signed & Sealed)** ***Jeffrey L. Woods***

Jeffery L. Woods, MMSA QP

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 29-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**29.5** **Phillip E. Brown**

I, Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G.., as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021 prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am Principal Consulting Hydrogeologist with Consultants in Hydrogeology, of 26241 Wolverine Trail, Evergreen, Colorado 80439.

2. I am a graduate of Virginia Tech in 1972 with a B.S. Geology and M.S. in Civil Engineering.

3. I am registered as a Certified Professional Geologist Reg# CPG-6209 and as Professional Engineer/Geologist in the State of Alaska Reg#560. I have worked as a mining hydrogeologist for a total of 45 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Review Consultant on the Jackpile Uranium Mine.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Performed a hydrogeologic investigation for Power Tech's Centennial In-situ Uranium Project in Weld County, Colorado.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Former Senior Hydrogeologist for Peabody Coal Company.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Performed numerous hydrogeologic evaluations dewatering studies on mines throughout the Western United States and the World. Mines have included Nevada Copper's, Pumpkin Hollow Mine in Nevada, B2 Gold, Santa Pancha Mine, Nicaragua, New Market Gold's Cosmo Howley Gold Mine in the Northern Territory, Australia, Entrée Gold's Ann Mason Copper Project in Nevada, improved underground dewatering system at the Palmarejo Gold Mine in Chihuahua, Mexico, and numerous others.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I am responsible for Section 1.1.1.2, 1.1.2.2, 1.3.8, 16, 25.2, and 26.2, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

6. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

7. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

8. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

9. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections 1.1.1.2, 1.1.2.2, 1.3.8, 16, 25.2, and 26.2 in the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated 22<sup>nd</sup> day of February, 2022, and amended this 8<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2023,

**(Signed & Sealed)** ***Phillip E. Brown***

Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 29-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**30.0** **APPENDIX 1**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 30-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 30-1:** **Base Case Annual Cash Flow Model**

**Energy Fuels Inc. -Nichols Ranch Project**

![](exhibit99-1xz044.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 30-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz045.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 30-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

**Table 30-2:** **Alternate Case Annual Cash Flow Model**

**Energy Fuels Inc. -Nichols Ranch Project**

![](exhibit99-1xz046.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 30-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz048.jpg)

![](exhibit99-1xz047.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-1xz049.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 | Energy Fuels Inc. \| Nichols Ranch Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00001 |
| Technical Report - February 22, 2022, Amended February 8, 2023 | 30-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-1xz051.jpg)

------

## Exhibit 99.2

------

**Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep <br>Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, <br>USA**

**<br>US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Compliant Report**

**National Instrument 43-101-*****Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects<br>***

<br> ![](exhibit99-2x003.jpg)

**Prepared by the following Qualified Persons:**

*Dan Kapostasy, P.G, SME R.M*

*Douglas Beahm, PE, PG SME R.M.*

*Terence P. McNulty, PE, PHD*

**Effective Date: December 31, 2021**

**Signature Date: January 30, 2023** 

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Date and Signature Page**

<u>**Energy Fuels Personnel:**</u>

**Dan Kapostasy, P.G, SME R.M**

The Technical Report titled "Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA" has an amended signature date of January 30, 2023. I am a co-author of the report.

Dated this January 30, 2023

*"Original signed and sealed"*

<u>*/s/* Dan Kapostasy</u>

*Dan Kapostasy, P.G, SME R.M*

<u>**Third Party Consultants:**</u>

**Douglas L. Beahm:**

The Technical Report titled "Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA" has an amended signature date of January 30, 2023. I am a co-author of the report.

Dated this January 30, 2023

*"Original signed and sealed"* 

<u>*/s/* Douglas L. Beahm</u>

Douglas L. Beahm, PE, PG, SME Registered Member

**Dr. Terence P. McNulty:**

The Technical Report titled "Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA" has an amended signature date of January 30, 2023. I am a co-author of the report.

Dated this January 30, 2023

*"Original signed and sealed"*

<u>/s/ Terence P. McNulty</u>

Terence P. McNulty, D. Sc., P. E., SME Registered Member

<br> TOC i <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Contents**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.1 Project Overview | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 Project Description and Ownership | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.3 Development Status | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 Regulatory Status | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 Geology and Mineralization | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.6 Exploration and Drilling Status | 5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.7 Mineral Resources and Reserves | 5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.8 Capital and Operating Costs | 6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.9 Economic Analysis | 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 Interpretations and Conclusions | 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 Recommendations | 9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.12 Risks | 9 |
| 2.0 INTRODUCTION | 11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1 Introduction | 11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.2 Registrant of Filing | 12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.3 Terms of Reference | 12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.4 Sources of Information | 12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 Site Visit | 13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.6 Purpose of Report | 13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.7 Update of a Previously Filed Technical Report | 13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.8 Effective Date | 13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.9 List of Abbreviations | 13 |
| 3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS | 15 |
| 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION | 16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.1 Introduction | 16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.2 Land Tenure | 16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.3 Royalties | 17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.4 Permits | 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.5 Surface Rights | 21 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.6 Taxes | 21 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.7 Encumbrances and Risks | 21 |
| 5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY | 22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.1 Introduction | 22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.2 Physiography | 22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.2.1 Topography and Elevation | 22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.2.2 Vegetation | 22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.2.3 Climate | 22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.3 Access | 23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.4 Infrastructure | 23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.5 Personnel | 23 |
| 6.0 HISTORY | 24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.1 Introduction | 24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.2 Ownership History | 24 |

---

<br> TOC ii <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.3 Historical Resource Estimates | 24.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.4 Historical Production | 25.0 |
| 7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION | 26.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.1 Regional Geology | 26.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2 Local and Property Geology | 26.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2.1 Quaternary Alluvium and Colluvium | 26.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2.2 Crooks Gap Conglomerate | 26.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2.3 Tertiary Battle Spring Formation | 29.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2.4 Tertiary Fort Union Formation | 29.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2.5 Cretaceous Cody Shale | 29.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2.6 Structural Geology | 29.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.3 Hydrogeology | 29.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.4 Geotechnical | 30.0 |
| 8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES | 31.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8.1 Mineralization and Deposit Types | 31.0 |
| 9.0 EXPLORATION | 33.0 |
| 10.0 DRILLING | 34.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.1 Drilling | 34.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.1.1 Pre-1988 Drilling | 34.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.1.2 Titan Drill Program | 34.0 |
| 11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS, AND SECURITY | 37.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.1 Introduction | 37.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.2 Gamma Logging | 37.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.2.1 Disequilibrium | 38.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.3 Core Sampling | 38.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.3.1 Sample Preparation | 38.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.3.2 Assaying and Analytical Procedure | 38.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.3.3 Density Analyses | 39.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.4 Opinion of Author | 39.0 |
| 12.0 DATA VERIFICATION | 40.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.1 Congo | 40.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 Sheep Underground | 40.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 Radiometric Equilibrium | 41.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 Opinions of Author | 43.0 |
| 13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING | 44.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.1 Historic Mineral Processing | 44.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.2 Pre-Feasibility Metallurgical Studies | 44.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.3 Column Leach Studies | 45.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.4 Supplemental Laboratory Experiments | 46.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.5 Current Metallurgical Background and Industry Practice: | 47.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.6 Opinion of Author | 48.0 |
| 14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES | 49.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.1 General Statement | 49.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.2 Drill Hole Database | 50.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.2.1 Congo Open Pit | 50.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.2.2 Sheep Underground | 52.0 |

---

<br> TOC iii <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.3 Statistical Analysis | 54.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.3.1 Grade Capping | 54.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.4 Resource Estimation Methods | 56.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.4.1 Geologic Model | 56.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.4.2 GT Contour Method | 56.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.5 Past Production | 93.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.5.1 Congo Open Pit Mine | 93.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.5.2 Sheep Underground Mine | 93.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.6 Classification | 93.0 |
| 15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE | 95.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.1 General Statement | 95.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.2 Congo Pit Conversion of Resources to Reserves | 95.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.3 Sheep Underground Conversion of Resources to Reserves | 95.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.4 Cut-off Grade | 96.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.4.1 Mining and Mineral Processing Recovery Parameters and Sensitivity | 96.0 |
| 16.0 MINING METHODS | 98.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.1 Introduction | 98.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.2 Mine Productivity and Scheduling | 98.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.3 Congo Open Pit | 98.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.4 Sheep Underground | 115.0 |
| 17.0 RECOVERY METHODS | 130.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.1 Introduction | 130.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.2 Site Layout and Construction | 132.0 |
| 18.0 INFRASTRUCTURE | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.1 Introduction | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.2 Rights of Way | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.3 Power and Utilities | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.4 Process Water | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.5 Site Access | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.6 Mine Support Facilities | 138.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.7 Public Safety and Facility Maintenance | 138.0 |
| 19.0 MARKET STUDIES | 141.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19.1 Uranium Market and Price | 141.0 |
| 20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS | 143.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.1 Introduction | 143.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.1 Environmental Studies | 143.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.2 Land Use | 144.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.3 Cultural Resource Surveys | 144.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.4 Meteorology and Air Monitoring | 144.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.5 Geology | 144.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.6 Hydrology | 144.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.7 Soils and Vegetation | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.8 Wildlife | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.9 Radiology | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.10 Operating Plans | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11 Permitting Requirements | 146.0 |

---

<br> TOC iv <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.1 Fremont County | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.2 Wyoming Land Quality Division | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.3 Wyoming Air Quality Division | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.4 Wyoming Water Quality Division | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.5 Wyoming State Engineers Office | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.6 U.S. Bureau of Land Management | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Wyoming Agreement State) | 146.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.11.8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | 147.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.12 Social and Community Relations | 147.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.13 Closure and Reclamation Plans | 147.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.13.1 Congo Pit and Sheep Underground | 147.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.13.2 Heap Leach and Processing Plant | 148.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.14 Opinion of Author | 148.0 |
| 21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS | 149.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.1 Introduction | 149.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.2 Cost Assumptions | 149.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.3 Production Profile | 150.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.4 Capital Costs | 152.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.5 Operating Costs | 152.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.6 Reclamation and Closure Costs | 153.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.7 Additional Costs | 153.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.8 Personnel | 155.0 |
| 22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | 156.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;22.1 Sensitivity to Price | 156.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;22.2 Sensitivity to Other Factors | 157.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;22.3 Payback Period | 157.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;22.4 Breakeven Price | 157.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;22.5 Cash Flow | 157.0 |
| 23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES | 160.0 |
| 24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION | 161.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;24.1 Ground Water Conditions | 161.0 |
| 25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS | 162.0 |
| 26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS | 163.0 |
| 27.0 REFERENCES | 164.0 |
| 28.0 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORS | 166.0 |

---

<br> TOC v <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Tables**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 1-1 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019 | 5 |
| Table 1-2 Sheep Mountain Mineral Reserves - April 13, 2012 | 6 |
| Table 1-3 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Exclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019 | 6 |
| Table 1-4 Sheep Mountain Capital Costs | 6 |
| Table 1-5 Sheep Mountain Operating Costs | 7 |
| Table 1-6 Sheep Mountain Recommended Work Program | 9 |
| Table 2-1 List of Abbreviations | 14 |
| Table 4-1. List of Claims held by EFR | 16 |
| Table 5-1 Jeffrey City, Wyoming, Monthly Climate Summary<sup>1</sup> | 22 |
| Table 12-1 Comparison of 2009 Drilling to Historic Drilling | 40 |
| Table 12-2 Comparison of Radiometric Equilibrium based on Gamma and USAT Logging | 42 |
| Table 13-1 Summary of Column Leach Results | 46 |
| Table 14-1 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019 | 50 |
| Table 14-2 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Exclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019 | 50 |
| Table 14-3. Congo Pit Area General Statistics (Raw Data) | 52 |
| Table 14-4. Congo Pit Area General Statistics (Composited Data) | 53 |
| Table 14-5 Congo Pit Area Statistics by Mineralized Zone | 53 |
| Table 14-6 Sheep Underground Area General Statistics (1 of 2) | 54 |
| Table 14-7 Sheep Underground Area General Statistics (2 of 2) | 54 |
| Table 14-8 Sheep Underground Area Statistics by Mineralized Zone | 54 |
| Table 15-1 Sheep Mountain Mineral Reserves- April 13, 2012 | 95 |
| Table 15-2 Breakeven Cut-off Grade | 96 |
| Table 16-1 Open Pit Mining Equipment List | 115 |
| Table 16-2 Underground Mining Equipment List | 128 |
| Table 21-1 Underground and Open pit Production Profile | 151 |
| Table 21-2 Sheep Mountain Capital Cost Summary | 152 |
| Table 21-3 Sheep Mountain Operating Costs\*\* | 154 |
| Table 22-1 Sheep Mountain Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value | 156 |
| Table 22-2 Pre-tax Sensitivity Summary | 156 |
| Table 22-3 Pre-tax Sensitivity Summary | 157 |
| Table 22-4 Cash Flow | 158 |
| Table 22-5 Cash Flow (Continued) | 159 |
| Table 26-1 Recommended Work Program | 163 |

---

<br> TOC vi <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Figures**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 1-1 Sheep Mountain Existing Conditions | 3 |
| Figure 4-1. Sheep Mountain Location Map | 18 |
| Figure 4-2. Sheep Mountain Land Tenure Map | 19 |
| Figure 7-1. Stratigraphy of the Crooks Gap Area (modified from Stephens, 1964) | 27 |
| Figure 7-2. Geologic Map of the Sheep Mountain Area | 28 |
| Figure 7-3. Geologic Cross-Section (See Figure 7-2 for Location) | 29 |
| Figure 8-1 Uranium Roll Front in Golden Goose Mine | 31 |
| Figure 8-2 Little Sheep Decline | 32 |
| Figure 10-1. Drill Hole Location Map | 36 |
| Figure 14-1. GT Histogram for Congo Pit (12,070 Samples) | 52 |
| Figure 14-2. GT Histogram for Sheep Underground (3,222 Samples) | 55 |
| Figure 14-3. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 94 | 58 |
| Figure 14-4. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 89 | 59 |
| Figure 14-5. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 86 | 60 |
| Figure 14-6. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 83 | 61 |
| Figure 14-7. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 79 | 62 |
| Figure 14-8. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 75 | 63 |
| Figure 14-9. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 72 | 64 |
| Figure 14-10. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 67 | 65 |
| Figure 14-11. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 66 | 66 |
| Figure 14-12. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 63 | 67 |
| Figure 14-13. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 59 | 68 |
| Figure 14-14. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 54-56 | 69 |
| Figure 14-15. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 52 | 70 |
| Figure 14-16. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 48 | 71 |
| Figure 14-17. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 4 | 72 |
| Figure 14-18. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 41 | 73 |
| Figure 14-19. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 41A | 74 |
| Figure 14-20. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 01 | 76 |
| Figure 14-21. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 02U | 77 |
| Figure 14-22. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 02L | 78 |
| Figure 14-23. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 03 | 79 |
| Figure 14-24. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 04 | 80 |
| Figure 14-25. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 05 | 81 |
| Figure 14-26. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 06 | 82 |
| Figure 14-27. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 07 | 83 |
| Figure 14-28. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 08 | 84 |
| Figure 14-29. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 09 | 85 |
| Figure 14-30. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 10 | 86 |
| Figure 14-31. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 11 | 87 |
| Figure 14-32. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 12 | 88 |
| Figure 14-33. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 13 | 89 |
| Figure 14-34. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 14 | 90 |

---

<br> TOC vii <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 14-35. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 15 | 91 |
| Figure 14-36. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 16 | 92 |
| Figure 16-2. McIntosh Pit Circa 2010 | 100 |
| Figure 16-4. Congo Pit - Year 01 | 102 |
| Figure 16-5. Congo Pit - Year 02 | 103 |
| Figure 16-6. Congo Pit - Year 03 | 104 |
| Figure 16-7. Congo Pit - Year 04 | 105 |
| Figure 16-8. Congo Pit - Year 05 | 106 |
| Figure 16-9. Congo Pit - Year 06 | 107 |
| Figure 16-10. Congo Pit - Year 07 | 108 |
| Figure 16-11. Congo Pit - Year 08 | 109 |
| Figure 16-12. Congo Pit - Year 09 | 110 |
| Figure 16-13. Congo Pit - Year 10 | 111 |
| Figure 16-14. Congo Pit - Year 11 | 112 |
| Figure 16-15. Congo Pit - Year 12 | 113 |
| Figure 16-16. Sheep Underground Overview Map | 117 |
| Figure 16-17. Sheep Underground - Year 01 | 118 |
| Figure 16-18. Sheep Underground - Year 02 | 119 |
| Figure 16-19. Sheep Underground - Year 03 | 120 |
| Figure 16-20. Sheep Underground - Year 04 | 121 |
| Figure 16-21. Sheep Underground - Year 05 | 122 |
| Figure 16-22. Sheep Underground - Year 06 | 123 |
| Figure 16-23. Sheep Underground - Year 07 | 124 |
| Figure 16-24. Sheep Underground - Year 08 | 125 |
| Figure 16-25. Sheep Underground - Year 09 | 126 |
| Figure 16-26. Sheep Underground - Year 10 | 127 |
| Figure 16-27. Sheep Underground - Year 11 | 128 |
| Figure 17-1. Typical Heap Leach Schematic | 131 |
| Figure 17-2. Heap Leach Process Block Flow Diagram | 132 |
| Figure 17-3. Heap Leach Initial Site Layout | 134 |
| Figure 17-4. Heap Leach Year 08 Expansion | 135 |
| Figure 17-5. Heap Leach Reclamation Cover | 136 |
| Figure 17-6. Heap Leach Reclamation Cover Cross-Section (A-A') | 137 |
| Figure 18-1 Existing Infrastructure Map | 140 |
| Figure 19-1 TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM1 (Nominal US$) | 142 |
| Figure 19-2 TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM1 (Nominal US$) | 142 |
| Figure 21-1. Project Organizational Chart | 155 |

---

<br> TOC viii <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

This Technical Report has been prepared for Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels), the parent company of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFR) by Dan Kapostasy, Douglas Beahm and Dr. Terry McNulty (collectively, the authors), on the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project), located in Fremont County, Wyoming, USA. and is based on a 2020 Canadian NI 43-101 compliant preliminary feasibility report by independent mining consultant Douglas Beahm, PE, Principal Engineer for BRS Engineering (BRS).

Mr. Kapostasy is the Director of Technical Services of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFR"), while Mr. Beahm is an independent consultant and Principal Engineer of BRS and Dr. McNulty is President of T.P. McNulty and Associates Inc. This report is a technical report summary and preliminary feasibility study that conforms to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation S-K subpart 1300 disclosure requirements and policies for mining properties (S-K 1300) and a technical report and preliminary feasibility study that meets the requirements of the Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 -Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101") and the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM) Best Practice Guidelines for the Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves ("CIM Standards").

EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels, is incorporated in Ontario, Canada and is a wholly US-based uranium and vanadium mining company with projects located in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Texas and New Mexico. EFR acts as the operator to this project, including the White Mesa Mill in Blanding Utah, the only conventional uranium mill operating in the U.S. today with a licensed capacity of over eight million pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> per year. Energy Fuels is listed on the NYSE American Stock Exchange (symbol UUUU), and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol EFR).

In February 2012, EFR and Titan Uranium Inc. ("TUI") announced that a Certificate of Arrangement giving effect to the Plan of Arrangement between the two companies was entered into on February 29, 2012, whereby EFR acquired TUI, thereby making its subsidiary, Titan Uranium USA Inc. ("Titan) a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels which is now named Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.1 Project Overview**

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the Congo Pit, a proposed open pit development, and the re-opening of the existing Sheep Underground mine. While several processing alternatives have been considered, the recommended uranium recovery utilizes the processing of mined materials via an on-site heap leach facility. Figure 1.1 shows the overall project layout.

Permitting and licensing of the project is well advanced. A Plan of Operations ("POO") was approved by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") on January 6, 2017, through issuance of a Record of Decision ("RoD") and supporting Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"). In addition, a Major Revision to Mine Permit 381C was approved by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division ("WDEQ/LQD") on July 8, 2015 and remains in good standing. Other major permits that have been approved include an Air Quality Permit that was approved by the WDEQ, Air Quality Division ("AQD") on July 6, 2015, and a Water Discharge Permit that was approved by WDEQ, Water Quality Division ("WQD") on October 5, 2015.

Mining methods include a combination of underground and open pit methods. Mined product from the underground and open pit mine operations will be commingled at the stockpile site located near the underground portal 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 triple-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."

The current open pit life of mine plan is 12 years, with an additional four years allotted for mine closure and reclamation. Similarly, the underground life of mine is planned for 12 years including one year for development of the primary decline. The heap leach facility is designed to accommodate the mined material from both open pit and underground mine operations over an operating life compatible with the open pit operations.

<br> Page 1 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Estimated production rates vary from a low of 270,000 tons processed with approximately 640,000 pounds of uranium produced per year during the start of operations of the open pit and heap leach, to a high of 780,000 tons per year processed with approximately 2,000,000 pounds of uranium produced per year at peak production with both the open pit and underground mines in operation. On average the open pit is expected to produce 330,000 tons per year containing 760,000 pounds of uranium. Similarly, the underground is expected to produce an average of 290,000 tons per year containing 770,000 pounds of uranium. Average production from the heap leach and processing facility is estimated to be 1.4 million pounds of uranium recovered per year.

An economic analysis is presented in Section 22.0.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.2 Project Description and Ownership**

The Sheep Mountain Project is located in portions of Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 28 North, Range 92 West at approximate Latitude 42º 24' North and Longitude 107º 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 (see Figure 4-1. Sheep Mountain Location Map).

The mineral properties at the Sheep Mountain Project are comprised of 218 unpatented mining claims on land administered by the BLM, and approximately 640 acres within a State of Wyoming lease. The combination of the mineral holdings comprises approximately 5,055 acres.

In February 2012, EFR purchased 320 acres of private surface overlaying some of the federal minerals covered by 18 of the claims. The purchased parcel includes the SW¼ Section 28 and SE¼, E½ SW¼, and NW¼ SW¼ Section 29, T28N, R92W. A final payment of $5,000 was made in January 2016 for the purchased parcel. The combination of land holdings gives EFR mineral rights to resources as defined in the Congo Pit and the Sheep Underground areas. After the 2012 Technical Report, EFR increased the Sheep Mountain property size by 26 unpatented mining claims (approximately 520 acres) through the acquisition of Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd. ("Strathmore"). These contiguous claims form a larger buffer, with potential for additional uranium resources, along the west side of the Project.

To maintain these mineral rights, EFR must comply with the lease provisions, including annual payments with respect to the State of Wyoming 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 $155 per claim. 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 January 1, 2024. Annual payments to maintain ML 0-15536 are $2,560 per year.

The original claims owned by Western Nuclear in the Sheep Mountain Project are subject to an overall sliding scale royalty of 1% to 4% due to Western Nuclear, based on the Nuclear Exchange Corporation Exchange ("NUEXCO") Value. Claims which were not included in the agreement are not subject to this royalty. 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.

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).

<br> Page 2 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Figure 1-1 Sheep Mountain Existing Conditions**

![](exhibit99-2x004.jpg)

<br> Page 3 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.3 Development Status**

This preliminary feasibility study for the project includes the preliminary design and sequencing of the open pit and underground mine operations in addition to the heap leach mineral processing facility. Designs and sequencing include pre-production, production, and decommissioning and reclamation phases. Capital and operating costs estimates ("CAPEX" and "OPEX") have been completed and are in 2021 U.S. dollars.

Telephone, electric and natural gas service has been established to the proposed plant site. In addition, electric service and a waterline have been extended via a Right of Way ("ROW") issued by the BLM in 2011 to the Sheep I and II shafts. Water rights held are adequate for planned operations. Publicly maintained access roads exist to within one mile of the project and private access roads from past operations are established throughout the project area.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.4 Regulatory Status**

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the proposed Congo Open Pit, the re-opening of the existing Sheep Underground Mine and the proposed Heap Leach processing of the mined product to produce yellowcake.

Permitting and licensing of the project is well advanced including:

* Baseline environmental studies have been completed for the requisite time frames required and/or recommended by state and federal regulatory guidance.

* A Major Revision to Mine Permit 381C has been approved by the WDEQ/LQD. 

* An Air Quality Permit has been approved by the WDEQ/AQD.

* A Water Discharge Permit has been approved by the WDEQ/AQD.

* A PoO has been approved by the BLM.

* A draft Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Source Material License application has been prepared including the Environmental Report ("ER") and Technical Report ("TR").

* A pre-application audit with the NRC has been completed and technical comments received.

* Wyoming is now an Agreement State and will issue and administer the Source Material License through the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ).

* Previous work and submittals to the NRC will be applicable for submission to WDEQ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.5 Geology and Mineralization**

Within the Sheep Mountain Project area, uranium mineralization is contained in the lower to middle Eocene Battle Spring Formation. The Battle Spring Formation, consisting of upper and lower members (designated the "A" for the lower and "B" for the upper), is a fluvial deposit. Mineralization is hosted by the Battle Spring Formation and has been described extensively since the 1960s and has been termed a "Wyoming Roll Front System." These deposits are often organic-rich, fine-grained lenses in tabular, or "roll front," configurations. The uranium mineralization occurs primarily in the lower member of the Battle Spring Formation (Stephens, 1964).

<br> Page 4 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.6 Exploration and Drilling Status**

While mineralization was originally discovered by aerial and ground radiometric surveys completed in the early 1950s, exploration since that time has been dominantly by drilling. Drill data from approximately 4,000 drill holes were utilized in this study. EFR has the original geophysical and lithologic logs for the majority of the drill holes. This data was reviewed, reinterpreted and verified. In addition, 159 new drill holes have been completed on the project since 2005 to confirm and extend known mineralization and to delineate areas for mine planning.

Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates for the Sheep Mountain Project are based on radiometric data. Disequilibrium conditions were evaluated during drilling programs in 2006 and 2009 including the testing of 223 discrete samples taken in 2006 and the testing of 45 mineralized intervals in 2009. As discussed in this report, available data indicates that variations in radiometric equilibrium are local in their effect, which impacts the mining grade control program but does not appreciably affect the overall Mineral Resources or Reserves. Overall, a slight enrichment in uranium values with respect to radiometric equivalent values was noted.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.7 Mineral Resources and Reserves**

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 NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource. Detailed information relative to Mineral Resources is provided in Section 14.0 of this report.

A summary of total Mineral Resources inclusive of Mineral reserves is provided in Table 1-1. A summary of the total Mineral Reserve estimate, fully exclusive and are not additive to the total Mineral Resources, is provided in Table 1.2. A summary of total Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral reserves is provided in Table 1-3.

**Table 1-1 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**G.T. <br>Cut-off** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons <br>(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade % <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pounds <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sheep Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.118% | &nbsp;&nbsp;13034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Congo Pit Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.122% | &nbsp;&nbsp;14903 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**11663** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.120%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**27935** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.9** |

---

Notes:

1: NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 definitions were followed for Mineral Resources

2: Mineral Resource are estimated at GT cut-off of 0.10 (2 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for open pit and 0.30 (6 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for underground

3: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$65 per pound

4: Bulk density is 0.0625 tons/ft<sup>3</sup> (16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

5: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability

6: Numbers may not add due to rounding

Mineral resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The following Mineral Reserves are fully exclusive and are not additive to the total Mineral Resources, Table 1-1. The Probable Mineral Reserves for the Sheep Mountain Project, including both open pit and underground projected mining areas, is that portion of the indicated mineral resource that is included in current mine designs and is considered economic under current costs and a forward-looking commodity price of $65 per pound of uranium oxide. The Mineral Reserve estimates presented herein have been completed in accordance with NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 standards. A summary of the total Mineral Reserve estimate is provided in Table 1.2.

Detailed information relative to Probable Mineral Reserves is provided in Section 15.0 of this report.

<br> Page 5 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 1-2 Sheep Mountain Mineral Reserves - December 31, 2021**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**G.T. <br>Cut-off** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons <br>(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade % <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pounds <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Probable* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sheep Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Probable* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Congo Pit Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3955 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Probable** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Probable** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**7453** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.123%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**18365** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.9** |

---

Notes:

1: NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 definitions were followed for Mineral Reserve

2: Mineral Reserves are estimated at GT cut-off of 0.10 (2 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for open pit and 0.45 (6 ft. of 0.075% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for underground

3: Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$65 per pound

4: Bulk density is 0.0625 tons/ft<sup>3</sup> (16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

5: Numbers may not add due to rounding

A summary of total Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral reserves is provided in Table 1-3.

**Table 1-3 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Exclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**G.T. <br>Cut-off** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons <br>(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade % <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pounds <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sheep Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09% | &nbsp;&nbsp;3786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Congo Pit Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13% | &nbsp;&nbsp;5786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4210** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.11%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**9570** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.9** |

---

Notes:

1: NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 definitions were followed for Mineral Resources

2: Mineral Resource are estimated at GT cut-off of 0.10 (2 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for open pit and 0.30 (6 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for underground

3: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$65 per pound

4: Bulk density is 0.0625 tons/ft<sup>3</sup> (16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

5: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability

6: Numbers may not add due to rounding

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.8 Capital and Operating Costs**

The plan for development of the Sheep Mountain Project is an open pit and underground conventional mine operation with on-site mineral processing featuring an acid heap leach and solvent extraction recovery facility.

Estimated operating and capital costs are summarized in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 that follow.

**Table 1-4 Sheep Mountain Capital Costs**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  **Capital Expenditures: \*** | **Contingency** | **Initial Capital\*** | **Years 4-12** | **Life of Mine** |
|  Permitting (WDEQ) | ----- | $3000 | $1000 | $4000 |
|  Pre-Development Mine Design | ----- | $1200 | --------- | $1200 |
|  OP Mine Equipment | 15% | $21141 | $3200 | $24341 |
|  UG Mine Equipment | 15-30% | $51504 | $13000 | $64504 |
|  Office, Shop, Dry, and support | 15% | $3234 | ----- | $3234 |
|  Mineral Processing | 25% | $32086 | $6461 | $38546 |
|  **TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES** |  | **$112165** | **$23661** | **$135826** |
|  **COST PER POUND RECOVERED** |  |  |  | **$8.05** |

---

All costs in 2021 US dollars x 1,000

\*Initial Capital includes year 0 to year 3. Does not include working capital and initial warehouse inventory.

<br> Page 6 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 1-5 Sheep Mountain Operating Costs**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Operating Costs - OPEN PIT AND <br>UNDERGROUND MINING** | **Open Pit and <br>UG (US$000s)** | **Cost Per <br>Ton Mined <br>(US$)** | **Cost Per lb <br>Mined (US$)** | **Cost Per lb <br>Recovered <br>(US$)** |
| *Open Pit* |  |  |  |  |
| Strip | $80331 | $20.31 | $8.81 |  |
| Mining | $18625 | $4.71 | $2.04 |  |
| Support | $15834 | $4.00 | $1.74 |  |
| Staff | $23485 | $5.94 | $2.58 |  |
| Contingency | $11062 | $2.80 | $1.21 |  |
| **Total Surface Mine (3,955,000 tons, 9,117,000 lbs)** | $**149336** | $**37.76** | $**16.38** |  |
| *Underground Mine* |  |  |  |  |
| Production | $169217 | $48.38 | $18.30 |  |
| Development | $53166 | $15.20 | $5.75 |  |
| Support | $44913 | $12.84 | $4.86 |  |
| Staff | $18825 | $5.38 | $2.04 |  |
| Contingency | $22890 | $6.54 | $2.48 |  |
| **Total Underground Mine**<br>**(3,498,000 tons, 9,248,000 lbs)** | $**309011** | $**88.35** | $**33.42** |  |
| **Blended Mining Costs\*** <br>**(7,435,000 tons, 18,365,000 lbs)** | $**458347** | $**61.50** | $**24.96** | $**27.16** |
| *Reclamation and Closure* |  |  |  |  |
| Wyoming Agreement State Annual Inspection Fees | $1800 | $0.24 | $0.10 |  |
| Final Grading and Revegetation | $2180 | $0.29 | $0.12 |  |
| Plant Decommissioning and Reclamation | $11166 | $1.50 | $0.61 |  |
| **Total Reclamation and Closure** | $**15146** | $**2.03** | $**0.83** | $**0.91** |
| *Heap Leach* |  |  |  |  |
| Cost per ton | $143585 | $19.27 | $7.82 |  |
| **Total Heap Leach** | $**143585** | $**19.27** | $**7.82** | $**8.51** |
| **Reclamation Bond Mine and Heap** | $**6120** | $**0.82** | $**0.33** | $**0.36** |
| *Taxes & Royalties* |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gross Products tax per/lb | $39702 | $5.33 | $2.16 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Severance Tax per/lb | $21965 | $2.95 | $1.20 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;State lease (pit) | $26966 | $3.62 | $1.47 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Claim royalties (UG) | $21640 | $2.90 | $1.18 |  |
| **Total Taxes and Royalties** | $**110273** | $**14.80** | $**6.00** | $**6.53** |
| **TOTAL DIRECT COSTS** | $**733471** | $**98.42** | $**39.94** | $**43.47** |

---

\*Blended mine cost represents the weighted average of open pit and underground mines and include open pit backfill.

Open pit and underground mine costs, itemized separately above, are not additive but are included in the blended mine costs.

\*\*All costs 2021 US dollars x 1,000

<br> Page 7 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.9 Economic Analysis**

The financial evaluation assumes constant U.S. dollars (2021) and an average sales price of US$65.00 per pound of uranium oxide. All costs are forward looking and do not include any previous project expenditures or sunk costs. Table 1-5 provides the Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") for the and the calculated Net Present Value ("NPV") at a range of discount rates before and after federal income tax (US$ x 1,000).

**Table 1-6 Sheep Mountain Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value ($000)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Before Federal <br>Income Tax** | **After Federal <br>Income Tax** |
| IRR | 28% | 26% |
| NPV 5% | $141749 | $120725 |
| NPV 7% | $116412 | $98492 |
| NPV 10% | $85627 | $71381 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.10 Interpretations and Conclusions**

The planned development of the Sheep Mountain Project is as an open pit and underground mine operation with an acid heap leach and solvent extraction recovery facility. The open pit and underground mine operations would be concurrent with a mine life of approximately 12 years.

The Sheep Mountain Project is profitable under the base case scenario and US$65 per pound selling price; the project is estimated to generate an IRR of 28% before taxes and has an NPV of approximately US$141.7 million at a 7% discount rate. The breakeven price of $51.00 per pound of uranium oxide for the project is based on the foregoing assumptions and preliminary mine limits. The technical risks related to the project are low as the mining and recovery methods are proven. The mining methods recommended have been employed successfully at the Project in the past. Successful uranium recovery from the mineralized material at Sheep Mountain and similar project such as the Gas Hills has been demonstrated via both conventional milling and heap leach recovery.

Risks are discussed below in Section 1.12.

<br> Page 8 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.11 Recommendations**

As the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is sensitive to mining factors including resource recovery, dilution, and grade, and mineral processing factors related to the performance of the heap leach, it is recommended that a bulk sampling program and pilot scale heap leach testing be completed. Mineralization is shallow (less than 40 feet) in the northern portions of the Congo pit. A small test mine could be developed under the existing WDEQ Mine Permit and BLM Plan of Operations. This would allow access to examine and test the mineralization with respect to mining parameters and to collect a bulk sample for pilot scale heap leach testing. It is recommended that a bulk sample of approximately 2,000 tons be collected and transported to Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill. At the Mill and under the Mill's Source Materials License, the mineralized material could be stacked at various heights in the range of 15 to 30 feet. The test plots would be lined and could be cribbed on two sides with an open face stacked at the angle of repose. Using 20 x 20-foot pads, four pilot tests could be completed. The testing would determine the geotechnical behavior of the material with respect to consolidation, slope stability, and the leaching characteristics with respect to acid consumption and mineral recovery. Flow and/or percolation rates retained moisture and other characteristics at various stacking heights could also be determined.

Table 1-6 summarizes the recommended work program to further develop the Project.

**Table 1-6 Sheep Mountain Recommended Work Program**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Scope of Work** | **Est. Cost US$** |
| Test mine approximately ½ acre, 40,000 cy excavation at $150/cy | $60000 |
| Testing the mineralization and collection of a bulk sample | $40000 |
| Transportation of 2,000 tons, 500 miles at $0.17/ton mile | $170000 |
| Heap pilot testing | $200000 |
| Reclamation of test pit | $60000 |
| Revise Preliminary Feasibility Study | $100000 |
| **Total** | **$630000** |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.12 Risks**

The technical risks related to the project are low as the mining and recovery methods are proven. The mining methods recommended have been employed successfully at the project in the past. Successful uranium recovery from the mineralized material at Sheep Mountain and similar project such as the Gas Hills has been demonstrated via both conventional milling and heap leach recovery.

Risks related to permitting and licensing the project are also low as the WDEQ Mine Permit and BLM Plan of Operations have been approved. The only major remaining permit needed for operations is the Source Materials License which would be issued through the WDEQ as Wyoming is an agreement state with the NRC.

The authors are not aware of any other specific risks or uncertainties that might significantly affect the Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates or the consequent economic analysis. Estimation of costs and uranium price for the purposes of the economic analysis over the life of mine is by its nature forward-looking and subject to various risks and uncertainties. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

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, operation, and closure of mineral properties and processing facilities. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation:

<br> Page 9 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

* risks associated with mineral reserve and resource estimates, including the risk of errors in assumptions or methodologies;

* risks associated with estimating mineral extraction and recovery, forecasting future price levels necessary to support mineral extraction and recovery, and EFR's ability to increase mineral extraction and recovery in response to any increases in commodity prices or other market conditions;

* uncertainties and liabilities inherent to conventional mineral extraction and recovery;

* geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, less than expected recoveries, ground control problems, process upsets, and equipment malfunctions;

* risks associated with labor costs, labor disturbances, and unavailability of skilled labor;

* risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in the production processes;

* actions taken by regulatory authorities with respect to mineral extraction and recovery activities;

* mineral tenure consists primarily of unpatented mining lode claims based on US laws dating to the Mining Act of 1872 and a change in the Act could affect the mineral tenure; and

* risks associated with the EFR's dependence on third parties in the provision of transportation and other critical services.

<br> Page 10 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**2.0 INTRODUCTION** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.1 Introduction**

This Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS has been prepared by the authors for Energy Fuels on the Sheep Mountain underground and open pit project (the Project), located in Fremont County, Wyoming, USA to satisfy the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure requirements under S-K 1300 and policies for mining properties and the requirements of NI 43-101. This report supersedes the previous NI 43-101 report, "Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101, Technical Report, Amended and Restated" by Douglas L. Beahm of BRS and dated February 28, 2020.

The Sheep Mountain Project is located eight miles south of the Jeffrey City, Wyoming in portions of Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 28 North, Range 92 West at approximate Latitude 42º 24' North and Longitude 107º 49' West, within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the Great Divide Basin at the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin. The mineral properties at the Sheep Mountain Project are comprised of 218 unpatented mining claims on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and approximately 640 acres within a State of Wyoming lease. The combination of the mineral holdings comprises approximately 5,055 acres.

Uranium was first discovered in the Crooks Gap district, which includes the Sheep Mountain area, 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-1950s: Western Nuclear Corporation (WNC), Phelps Dodge (PD) and Continental Uranium Corporation (CUC). WNC 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. PD was the principal shareholder and operator of the Green Mountain Uranium Corporation's Ravine Mine which began production in 1956. CUC developed the Seismic Pit in 1956, the Seismic Mine in 1957, the Reserve Mine in 1961 and the Congo Decline in 1968. In 1967 CUC acquired the PD properties and in 1972 WNC acquired all of CUC's Crooks Gap holdings. During the mid-1970s PD acquired an interest in WNC which began work on Sheep Mountain I in 1974, the McIntosh Pit in 1975, and Sheep Mountain II in 1976. WNC ceased production from the area in 1982.

Subsequent to closure of the Sheep Mountain I by WNC, during April to September 1987, Pathfinder Mines Corp. ("PMC") mined a reported 12,959 tons, containing 39,898 pounds of uranium at an average grade of 0.154% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> from Sheep Mountain I, (PMC, 1987). U.S. Energy-Crested Corp. ("USECC") acquired the properties from WNC 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% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (WGM, 1999). The material was treated at PMC's Shirley Basin mill, 130 miles east of the mine.

In December 2004, Uranium Power Corp. ("UPC") (then known as Bell Coast Capital) entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement with USECC to acquire a 50% interest in the Sheep Mountain property. The acquisition was completed in late 2007 with aggregate payments to USECC of $7.05 million and the issuance of four million common shares to USECC. USECC sold all of its uranium assets, including its 50% interest in Sheep Mountain, to Uranium 1 (U1) in April 2007. Titan Uranium Inc. (Titan) acquired a 50% interest in the property when it acquired Uranium Power Corp (UPC) by a Plan of Arrangement in July 2009. The ownership was subsequently transferred to Titan wholly-owned subsidiary, Titan. The remaining 50% interest was purchased from U1 on October 1, 2009. Subsequently Energy Fuels Inc. and Titan announced that a Certificate of Arrangement giving effect to the Plan of Arrangement between Energy Fuels was issued on February 29, 2012, making, Titan a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels which is now named Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc.

Historic reports by Pathfinder Mines, Western Nuclear, and others show that properties within the current Sheep Mountain project boundary were operated as underground and open pit mines at various times in the 1970s and 1980s. There were 5,063,813 tons of material mined and milled, yielding 17,385,116 pounds of uranium at an average grade of 0.17% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Mining was suspended in 1988.

<br> Page 11 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.2 Registrant of Filing**

This PFS report was prepared for Energy Fuels which is incorporated in Ontario, Canada. Energy Fuel's subsidiary, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., is a US-based uranium and vanadium exploration and mine development company with projects located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico. Energy Fuels is listed on the NYSE American Stock Exchange (symbol: UUUU) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: EFR).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.3 Terms of Reference**

This work is based on an updated preliminary feasibility study conforming to Canadian NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects completed by BRS on the Sheep Mountain Project in February, 2020 and is available on the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) filing system ("SEDAR", <u>https://www.sedar.com/homepage_en.htm</u>).

As the project continues on care and maintenance since the effective date of BRS's 2020 updated preliminary feasibility study, there has been no material change in the project.

The purpose of this report is to declare Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, and to constitute the inaugural S-K 1300 compliant technical report summary for the Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.4 Sources of Information**

This Technical Report is based on an original independent Technical Report conforming to Canadian NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects completed by BRS on the project in 2020.

EFR QP's and the sections they are responsible for are:

Dan Kapostasy (P.G), Director of Technical Services: Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 20 and relevant portions of Sections 1 and 2. Mr. Kapostasy is a registered Professional Geologist in the States of Wyoming and Utah and is a Registered Member of SME with 16 years of experience in the Uranium mining industry with Strathmore Resources and EFR. Mr. Kapostasy last visited the project on April 8, 2014. Since that time, no material changes have taken place at the Sheep Mountain Property.

Third Party QP's are:

Douglas L. Beahm, PE, PG and SME Registered Member. Mr. Beahm is independent of EFR and has no financial interest in the project. Mr. Beahm is experienced with uranium exploration, development, and mining including past employment with Homestake Mining Company, Union Carbide Mining and Metals Division, AGIP Mining USA and as a consultant. Mr. Beahm's professional experience dates to 1974. Mr. Beahm has worked previously on the project and was at the site 9 days in 2009, 23 days in 2010, and 19 days in 2011 assisting in the planning and execution of the drilling programs in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Mr. Beahm has been on site periodically since 2011. Mr. Beahm is responsible for Sections 3, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27and relevant portions of Sections 1, 2, and 21, specifically the mining capital and operating costs.

Terrence P. McNulty, P.E., D.Sc.: Dr. McNulty is a Professional Engineer and Registered Member of the US Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc. (SME Inc.). Dr. McNulty's experience in uranium dates to the 1960s when Dr. McNulty was involved in laboratory testing and process development for uranium resources being evaluated at Anaconda's exploration department, as well as providing technical services to the uranium operations. Dr. McNulty assisted in the planning and execution of the column leach testing and other metallurgical program for the project circa 2010 through 2012. Dr. McNulty is familiar with the extractive metallurgy of sandstone-hosted uranium deposits and is professionally qualified to address the requirements related to Section 17 of this report. Mr. McNulty is responsible for Sections 13, 17, and relevant portions of Section 21, specifically the mineral processing and heap leach facility capital and operating costs..

<br> Page 12 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

The documentation reviewed and other sources of information utilized in this report are listed in Section 27.0 (References).

Sources of information and data contained in this technical report or used in its preparation are from publicly available sources in addition to private information owned by EFR, including that of past property owners.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.5 Site Visit**

Mr. Kapostasy last visited the project site on April 8, 2014 while Mr. Beahm visited it on the 16<sup>th</sup> of September of 2021 and Dr. McNulty last visited the site in August of 2010.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.6 Purpose of Report**

The authors have prepared this study on the Sheep Mountain project in accordance with NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 requirements for preliminary feasibility studies.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.7 Update of a Previously Filed Technical Report**

This SEC compliant report is not an update of a previous technical report summary on the property, as it is the first S-K 1300 compliant technical report summary with respect to the Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.8 Effective Date**

The amended signature date of this report is January 30, 2023. The effective date of the mineral resource estimate is April 9, 2019. The effective date of the mineral reserve and cost estimate is December 31, 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**2.9 List of Abbreviations**

Units of measurement used in this report conform to the metric system. All currency in this report is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted.

Table 2-1 shows the abbreviations used in this report.

<br> Page 13 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 2-1 List of Abbreviations**

![](exhibit99-2x005.jpg)

<br> Page 14 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**3.1 Reliance Upon Information Provided by the Registrant** 

<br> The Authors have relied upon Energy Fuels through Mr. Curtis Moore, Energy Fuel's V.P. Marketing and Corporate Development for uranium pricing in Section 19.0 (Market Studies and Contracts) to the extent such information constitutes macroeconomic trends, data and assumptions. In this role Mr. Moore is in regular contact with uranium trade associations and utilities and has a detailed understanding of uranium markets in general. Mr. Kapostasy has reviewed Mr. Moore's recommendations for commodity pricing and is of the opinion that it is reasonable for the purposes of this report.

<br> Page 15 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.1 Introduction**

The Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is located in portions of Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 28 North, Range 92 West at approximate Latitude 42º 24' North and Longitude 107º 49' West, approximately, eight miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming. (Figure 4-1). The Project is located the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the Great Divide Basin at the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.2 Land Tenure**

Figure 4-2 represents the approximate location of unpatented mining lode claims and the state lease held by EFR. The mineral properties at the Sheep Mountain Project comprise approximately 5,195 acres consisting of:

* 218 unpatented mining claims on land administered by the BLM comprising, including:
 
179 unpatented mining claims acquired through the acquisition of Titan.
13 unpatented mining claims located by EFR.
26 unpatented mining claims acquired through the acquisition of Strathmore Resources: and

* An approximately 640 acre of State of Wyoming lease ML 0-15536.

**Table 4-1. List of Claims held by EFR**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Claim Block** | **Claim Numbers** | **No. of <br>Claims** | **PLSS Location** | **Royalty (Y/N)** |
| Christie | 4E | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 27 | Y |
| Cindy | 1D | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 29 | Y |
| Golden Goose | 1D, 2, 3C, 4D | 4 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21 | Y |
| Highland | 4D, 5D, 6D, 7D | 4 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21, 22 | Y |
| Key | 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5C, 6D, 7D, 8D | 8 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21, 22, 27,28 | Y |
| Louise | 1D | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21 | Y |
| Mike | A | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21 | Y |
| NH | 1D ,2D, 3D, 4D | 4 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21, 22 | Y |
| Paydirt | 6, 7, 12D, 13C | 4 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21 | Y |
| Poorboy | 1D (amended) | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21, 22 | Y |
| Snoball | 1D-4D, 5C, 6C (amended), 7D, 8C (amended) | 8 | T28N R92W; Sec. 28, 29 | Y |
| Sun | 3C, 4C, 5D | 3 | T28N R92W; Sec. 28 | Y |
| Sundog | 2D, 17C-22C | 7 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21, 28 | Y |
| Susan James | 4D | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 28 | Y |
| Trey | 1D, 2D | 2 | T28N R92W; Sec. 28, 29 | Y |
| Trey Jr. | 1D | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 29 | Y |
| Zeb | 1C, 2C-4C, 5D, 6D | 6 | T28N R92W; Sec.28 | Y |
| Carrie | 1-6 | 6 | T28N R92W; Sec. 29, 32 | N |
| Jamie | 1-46 | 46 | T28N R92W; Sec. 21, 22, 27, 28, | N |
| New Sheep | 1, 2 | 2 | T28N R92W; Sec. 28 | N |
| Last Chance | 1D | 1 | T28N R92W; Sec. 22 | N |
| JK | 3, 9, 15, 18 | 4 | T28N R92W; Sec. 8, 9 | N |
| Frankie | 1, 2, 3 | 3 | T28N R92W; Sec. 8, 29 | N |
| SM | 1-8, 8A, 9-28 | 29 | T28N R92W; Sec. 20, 21, 29 | N |
| Bev | 1-33, 33A, 34, 34A, 35-42 | 44 | T28N R92W; Sec. 8, 9 | N |
| SMN | 1-20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 | 26 | T28N R92W; Sec. 17, 20 | N |
| Total w/ Royalty |  | 57 |  |  |
| Total w/o Royalty |  | 161 |  |  |
| **Grand Total** |  | **218** |  |  |

---

<br> Page 16 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

In February 2012, EFR purchased 320 acres of private surface overlaying some of the federal minerals covered by 18 of the claims. The purchased parcel includes the SW¼ Section 28 and SE¼, E½ SW¼, and NW¼ SW¼ Section 29, T28N, R92W. A final payment of $5,000 was made in January 2016 for the purchased parcel.

A mineral title opinion was completed for the project on behalf of Titan prior to the acquisition by EFR and is the basis of the information summarized herein up to that time (Harris & Thompson, 2011). No material changes have occurred since that time.

To maintain these mineral rights, EFR must comply with the 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 $165 per claim. 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.3 Royalties**

The Sheep Mountain Project is subject to an overall sliding scale royalty of 1% to 4% due to Western Nuclear, based on the NUEXCO value. The Western Nuclear claims included additional royalties to private parties. These royalties vary from $0.50 per pound to 5% Gross Royalty depending on the claim. The total burden could reach 9%. These additional royalties are summarized in Appendix F of RPA, 2006. Claims which were not included in the agreement are not subject to this royalty. Federal mineral claims subject to the Western Nuclear royalty are located in sections 21, 22, 26, 28, and 29, T28N R92W.

Under Wyoming State Lease ML 0-15536 (Sec. 16, T28N R92W), there is a royalty of 4% of the quantity or gross realization value of the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, based on the total arms-length consideration received for uranium products sold.

Approximately 90% of the Congo pit mineable resource is located under the Wyoming State lease and 10% is located under the federal claims. The remainder of the mineral resource, Sheep Underground, is located under the federal claims.

Land purchased from Ellen Fox on February 12, 2012, carries a 4% production royalty for any uranium from the property, based on the price for which the products are sold. However, no Mineral Resources are known to exist on this property.

<br> Page 17 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x006.jpg)

**Figure 4-1. Sheep Mountain Location Map**

<br> Page 18 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x007.jpg)

**Figure 4-2. Sheep Mountain Land Tenure Map**

<br> Page 19 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.4 Permits**

In June 2010, baseline environmental studies commenced to support an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a Source Material and By-product Material License (the "License") for operation of a heap leach facility. Work was also initiated on a revision to the existing Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Mine Permit, as well as a Plan of Operation (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 environmental impact statement (EIS) was initiated in August 2011. EFR revised the PO in July 2012, consistent with the modified plan presented in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report. 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 mineralized material off-site for processing. The Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) was completed in August of 2016. On January 6, 2017, the BLM issued its Record of Decision (RoD) and approved the PO.

In October 2011, a draft revision was submitted to the existing Mine Permit 381C to WDEQ. WDEQ then provided review comments as part of its "courtesy review." The proposed permit amendment was revised and resubmitted in January 2014. In July 2015, the revision was approved by WDEQ. The revision includes expansion of surface and underground mining operations and an updated reclamation plan consistent with current reclamation practices.

Development of an application to the NRC for a license to construct and operate the uranium recovery facility was taken to an advanced stage of preparation. This license would allow EFR to process the mineralized material into 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 should be provided. During September 2018, the State of Wyoming became an NRC Agreement State for licensing of uranium milling activities, including heap leach facilities. Previous data, designs, and related applications prepared for NRC will now be referred to and reviewed by the State of Wyoming WDEQ as an Agreement State with the NRC with respect to Source Materials licensing. The review and approval process for the license by the State of Wyoming is anticipated to take approximately three to four years from the date submitted. Submittal of the license application to the State of Wyoming is on hold pending the Company's evaluation of off-site processing options for this project, and whether or not to proceed with an on-site uranium recovery facility, pending improvements in uranium market conditions.

The heap leach facility has been permitted through the BLM, yet still requires Source Material and Byproduct Material licensing through the State of Wyoming. The permitted capacity is 4 million tons of mineralized material which is 53% of the estimated Mineral Reserves. An expansion to the heap leach facility (including permitting) will be required in the future to process the remaining 47% of the estimated Mineral Reserves. Costs for the permitting, construction, and closure of the heap expansion are accounted for in the PFS. Mining could commence at this time under the existing PO and Mine Permit, but the mined material would need to be processed at a licensed off-site processing facility under a toll-milling or other arrangement. Costs to permit the expansion of the heap leach facility are accounted for in the first two years of the project's cash flow.

EFR is subject to liabilities for existing mine disturbances at the Sheep Mountain Project. The Company maintains a reclamation bond with the State of Wyoming in the total amount of US$950,000 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.

<br> Page 20 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.5 Surface Rights**

EFR has federal surface rights to approximately 127 unpatented mining claims (2,624 acres). The remainder surface rights are split estate with state and private surface ownership.

EFR owns the surface of following described lands acquired under a transaction with Ellen Fox on February 22, 2012 (ref. examination of the described documents):

<u>Township 28 North, Range 92 West, 6th P.M.:</u>

Section 28: SW¼SW¼

Section 29: SE¼, E½SW¼, NW¼SW¼

This parcel was originally purchased by Titan for a processing facility and shop.

Under the terms of the State Lease, ML 0-15536, the lessee is given the exclusive right and privilege to prospect, mine, extract, and remove any deposits, together with the right to construct and maintain all works, buildings, plants, waterways, roads, communication lines, power lines, tipples, hoists, or other structures and appurtenances necessary for the full enjoyment thereof. A detailed description of the allowable workings is included in the state Lease, including both underground and surface extraction (see examination of the State Lease).

No other surface rights are needed for the planned operations. EFR is not aware of any other specific risks affecting the mineral title for the property.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.6 Taxes**

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).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**4.7 Encumbrances and Risks**

To the authors knowledge there are no other significant factors or risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property, if the aforementioned requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

<br> Page 21 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.1 Introduction**

The Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is located at approximate Latitude 42º 24' North and Longitude 107º 49' West, within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province at the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin. The Project is approximately 8 miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming the nearest population center. 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, as follows: Proceed south from Jeffrey City on the Crooks Gap/Wamsutter Road, County Road 23, towards Crooks Gap, approximately 7.2 miles; then proceed easterly on EFR's private road approximately 1 mile to the site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.2 Physiography**

**5.2.1 Topography and Elevation**

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 Project.

**5.2.2 Vegetation**

The ground at the Project is sparsely vegetated with sage and grasses and occasional small to medium sized pine trees at higher elevations.

**5.2.3 Climate**

The Project falls within the inter-mountain 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 monthly precipitation ranging from 0.36 inches (January) to 2.04 inches (May).

Historic climate records were available through a National Weather Service cooperative station until 2005. The Project falls within the intermountain semi-desert weather province. Table 5-1 is a summary of the climatic conditions.

**Table 5-1 Jeffrey City, Wyoming, Monthly Climate Summary<sup>1</sup>**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Jan** | **Feb** | **Mar** | **Apr** | **May** | **Jun** | **Jul** | **Aug** | **Sep** | **Oct** | **Nov** | **Dec** | **Annual** |
| *Avg. Max Temp. (F)* | 31.1 | 34.0 | 43.5 | 54.7 | 64.5 | 75.1 | 84.9 | 82.8 | 71.8 | 59.4 | 40.1 | 31.1 | 56.1 |
| *Avg. Min Temp. (F)* | 9.1 | 10.3 | 18.5 | 26.4 | 34.8 | 42.5 | 49.2 | 48.1 | 38.2 | 28.7 | 16.6 | 9.5 | 27.7 |
| *Avg. Total Precip. (in)* | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.79 | 1.28 | 2.04 | 1.07 | 0.89 | 0.64 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.62 | 0.40 | 10.12 |
| *Avg. Total Snowfall (in)* | 5.1 | 6.6 | 8.3 | 9.7 | 4.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 5.4 | 9.7 | 6.2 | 56.5 |
| *Avg. Snow Depth (in)* | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 |

---

Notes: <sup>1</sup>Period of Record: April 10, 1964, to December 31, 2005

Past mining and mineral processing operations at the site and within the general area were conducted on a year-round basis. Current planning includes year-round operations.

<br> Page 22 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.3 Access**

The project is located approximately 8 miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming the nearest population center. 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, as follows: Proceed south from Jeffrey City on the Crooks Gap/Wamsutter Road, County Road 23, towards Crooks Gap, approximately 7.2 miles; then proceed easterly on EFR's private road approximately 1 mile to the site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.4 Infrastructure**

Telephone, electric and natural gas service adequate for planned mine and mineral processing operations has been established to the proposed plant site. In addition, electric service and a waterline have been extended via a ROW issued by the BLM in 2011 to both the Sheep I and II shafts. Adequate water rights are held by EFR 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.

All planned mining, mineral processing, and related activities are located within the existing Mine Permit 381C. These lands are adequate for all planned mining operations including the disposal of mine wastes, but not heap leaching. The heap leach facility, including a triple lined pad, has adequate capacity to process 53% of the Mineral Resource with the remaining capacity planned to be permitted in the first two years of project development. The mineral processing waste or tailings will be decommissioned and reclaimed in place. EFR owns the land surface where the heap leach and ultimate disposal tailings will occur. As for the operational phases of the project, the mineral processing facility has been designed to accommodate the volume of waste and/or tailings generated by the operation over the planned mine life.

Personnel requirements for the planned operation are addressed in Section 21 of this report. The majority of the personnel can be recruited locally with some skilled and staff positions recruited regionally.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**5.5 Personnel**

At full production, the Project will require approximately 176 employees. Roughly, 56 employees will be required for operation of the open pit, heap leach, and mineral processing plant with the remainder required for the underground mine. Personnel for the open pit mine operation can be readily recruited locally as can the majority of the personnel needed for the heap leach and mineral processing plant. Some skilled positions and staff positions will need to be recruited regionally. Recruitment of underground mine personnel may pose a greater challenge. As a result, cost allowances for recruiting and training of underground miners were included in the cost estimate.

<br> Page 23 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**6.0 HISTORY**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.1 Introduction**

Uranium was first discovered in the Crooks Gap district, which includes the Sheep Mountain area, 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.2 Ownership History**

Three companies dominated the district by the mid-1950s: Western Nuclear Corporation (WNC), Phelps Dodge (PD) and Continental Uranium Corporation (CUC). WNC 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. PD was the principal shareholder and operator of the Green Mountain Uranium Corporation's Ravine Mine, which began production in 1956. CUC developed the Seismic Pit in 1956, the Seismic Mine in 1957, the Reserve Mine in 1961 and the Congo Decline in 1968. In 1967, CUC acquired the PD properties and in 1972, WNC acquired all of CUC's Crooks Gap holdings. During the mid-1970s, PD acquired an interest in WNC, which began work on Sheep Mountain I in 1974, the McIntosh Pit in 1975, and Sheep Mountain II in 1976. WNC ceased production from the area in 1982.

Subsequent to closure of the Sheep Mountain I by WNC, during April to September 1987, Pathfinder Mines Corp. (PMC) mined a reported 12,959 tons, containing 39,898 pounds of uranium at an average grade of 0.154% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> from Sheep Mountain I, (PMC, 1987). U.S. Energy-Crested Corp. (USECC) acquired the properties from WNC 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% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (WGM, 1999). The material was treated at PMC's Shirley Basin mill, 130 miles east of the mine.

In December 2004, Uranium Power Corp. (UPC), then known as Bell Coast Capital, entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement with USECC to acquire a 50% interest in the Sheep Mountain property. The acquisition was completed in late 2007 with aggregate payments to USECC of $7.05 million and the issuance of four million common shares to USECC. USECC sold all of its uranium assets, including its 50% interest in Sheep Mountain, to Uranium One Inc. (U1) in April 2007. Titan Uranium Inc. acquired a 50% interest in the property when it acquired Uranium Power Corp (UPC) by a Plan of Arrangement in July 2009. The ownership was subsequently transferred to Titan Uranium Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Titan Uranium USA (referred herein to as Titan). The remaining 50% interest was purchased from U1 on October 1, 2009. Subsequently Energy Fuels Inc. and Titan Uranium Inc. announced that a Certificate of Arrangement giving effect to the Plan of Arrangement between Energy Fuels was issued on February 29, 2012, making, Titan a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels which is now named Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.3 Historical Resource Estimates**

Historical Mineral Resource and Reserves can be found publicly in previous technical reports completed to Canadian NI 43-101 standards, including:

* "Technical Report on the Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Wyoming, Prepared for the Uranium Power Corp., NI 43-101 Report", Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates, Inc., October 10, 2006.

* "Sheep Mountain Mines, Fremont County WY, USA, Pre-Feasibility Study, Prepared for Titan Uranium USA", BRS Engineering, April 8, 2010

* "Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, Wyoming USA, 43-101 Mineral Reserve and Resource Report, Prepared for Titan Uranium USA", BRS Engineering, March 20, 2012

<br> Page 24 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Historical mineral Resource/Reserve estimates were prepared in accordance with Canada's NI 43-101 standards which were in effect at the time the report was issued and do not necessarily meet current standards. The reader should not rely on the historical Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve estimates as they are superseded by the Mineral Resource estimate presented in Section 14.0 (Mineral Resource Estimates) and Section 15.0 (Mineral Reserve Estimate) of this report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**6.4 Historical Production**

Historic reports by Pathfinder Mines, Western Nuclear, and others show that properties within the current Sheep Mountain project boundary were operated as underground and open pit mines at various times in the 1970s and 1980s. There were 5,063,813 tons of material mined and milled, yielding 17,385,116 pounds of uranium at an average grade of 0.17% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Mining was suspended in 1988.

<br> Page 25 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.1 Regional Geology**

The host of uranium mineralization for the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is the Eocene Battle Spring Formation. Prior to deposition of the Battle Spring Formation and subsequent younger Tertiary formations, including the White River and Split Rock 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 (Rackely, 1975). Coincident with this mountain building event Paleocene and older formations were folded in a series of en 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. With continued erosion of the Granite Mountains and deposition of sediments into the surrounding basins, the pre-tertiary surface was buried successively by the Battle Spring, White River, and Split Rock formations. The formations once blanketed the entire area. Subsequently, the Granite Mountains collapsed forming a series of normal faults including the Kirk Normal Fault at the northern end of the project.

The nature of the folding and faulting in the Battle Spring suggests that it was either contemporaneous with deposition of the sediments or occurred shortly after deposition. Post-Miocene erosion has exhumed portions of the Granite Mountains regionally and has exposed the Battle Spring Formation at the project.

The geologic setting of the project is important in that it controlled uranium mineralization by focusing the movement of the groundwater, which emplaced the uranium into the stream channels, which had developed on the pre-tertiary landscape. In a similar manner, the geologic setting influences the present groundwater system. Groundwater flow is from the north-northeast to the south-southwest. Groundwater flow in the Battle Spring at the site is isolated in the subsurface from the local surface drainages, Crooks Creek to the west, and Sheep Creek to the east. In addition, the recharge area for the groundwater system is limited, which will in turn limit dewatering requirements.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.2 Local and Property Geology**

Surface geology within the Project area includes Quaternary alluvium and colluvium, the Tertiary Crooks Gap Conglomerate, Battle Spring Formation, and Fort Union Formations and the Cretaceous Cody Shale. Descriptions of each of the units are below and are taken from the Geologic Map of the Bairoil 30'x60' Quadrangle, Carbon, Sweetwater, Fremont, and Natrona Counties, Wyoming (Jones, et al, 2001). Figure 7.1 shows local stratigraphy. Local geology is shown in plan on Figure 7.2 and in cross-section of Figure 7.3.

**7.2.1 Quaternary Alluvium and Colluvium**

Gravel, sand, silt, clay, weathered bedrock, and soil, deposited along recent and older flood plains; includes slop wash, weathered bedrock, and smaller alluvial fan deposits that coalesce with alluvium

**7.2.2 Crooks Gap Conglomerate**

Very large, subrounded granitic boulders, up to 40 feet across in a pink and gray siltstone and arkosic sandstone matric; abundant iron oxide-stained rinds on most boulders; occurs largely as remnants of fan deposits shed by the Granite Mountains. Thickness up to 1,500 feet. Historically the Crooks Gap Conglomerate is referred to as Member B of the Battle Spring Formation

<br> Page 26 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x008.jpg)

**Figure 7-1. Stratigraphy of the Crooks Gap Area (modified from Stephens, 1964)**

<br> Page 27 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x009.jpg)

**Figure 7-2. Geologic Map of the Sheep Mountain Area**

<br> Page 28 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x010.jpg)

**Figure 7-3. Geologic Cross-Section (See Figure 7-2 for Location)**

**7.2.3 Tertiary Battle Spring Formation**

Light-gray, brown, yellowish-tan, medium-grained to very coarse grained, pebbly arkosic sandstone and conglomerate, with local greenish-gray, sandy mudstone; brownish, carbonaceous mudstone and claystone; yellowish-gray conglomerate interbedded with very coarse conglomerate' poorly indurated, with local well-indurated lenses and paleo-channels, cemented with calcite cement' scattered cobbles and boulders over one foot in diameter with some boulders up to several feet across which may be remnants of Crooks Gap Conglomerate; numerous iron-rich irregular and spheroidal concretions. Thickness varies considerably but generally increases basinward from approximately 1,000 to 3,500 feet. At the Project, the Battle Spring Formation is subdivided into an upper (Member B - Crooks Gap Conglomerate) and lower (Member A) unit.

**7.2.4 Tertiary Fort Union Formation**

Complexly interbedded, commonly lenticular or discontinuous sequence of beds; sandstone, light-brown to gray, argillaceous, very fine to medium-grained, commonly contains ferruginous concretions; siltstone, light-brown to orange, commonly ferruginous and argillaceous; shale, light- to dark-gray, locally maroon, locally contains numerous vertebrate and common invertebrate fossils, and plant fossils; coal beds are generally thin and discontinuous with lenticular thickenings to as much as 9 feet. Thickness approximately 1,500 feet.

**7.2.5 Cretaceous Cody Shale**

Marine shale, soft, gray to olive-gray, numerous bentonitic shales and siltstones, partly sandy, with limestone concretions; sandstone, very fine to fine-grained, gray to orangish-gray, glauconitic, thin-bedded, with trace fossils; lower part of Cody Formation is equivalent to the Niobara Formation (not present); shale gray to dark-gray, laminated, and calcareous; fossil-rich chalk beds near top, light-tan to buff, and laminated. Formation thickness ranges from 4,000-6,000 feet.

**7.2.6 Structural Geology**

Within the Project area, only limited faulting has been observed within the Battle Spring Formation, and where present, displacement is minor. The largest reported displacement from the historic mining is four feet. The Battle Spring is folded with a series of southeast plunging anticline/syncline features. Folding is reported to be more extensive in the lower Battle Spring or A Member than in the upper or B Member.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.3 Hydrogeology**

Groundwater within the Mine Permit boundary exists within the synclinal fold of the Battle Spring Formation and Fort Union Formation and is bounded by the Cody Shale, which acts as a local aquiclude to vertical groundwater migration. Groundwater in the uppermost aquifer, hosted predominantly by the Battle Spring Formation, has been well characterized over more than 20 years spanning active mining, a long post-mining period and current annual monitoring.

<br> Page 29 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

The Crooks Gap area regional hydrology, as determined by the Platte River Basin Water Plan, includes two separate formations or groups of formations that qualify as potentially productive for groundwater. The Quaternary aquifer system has both an alluvial and non-alluvial division. This is considered to be a discontinuous but major aquifer in the State of Wyoming. It is undetermined at this time whether this surface aquifer exists in the project area.

The second aquifer in the Crooks Gap area is the Tertiary Aquifer System. The System in the Crooks Gap region is comprised of the Fort Union and Battle Spring Formations. The Platte River Basin Water Plan describes the aquifer as comprised of complex inter-tonguing fluvial and lacustrine sediments. This is also classified as a major aquifer for the State of Wyoming.

Mining will occur in the Battle Spring Formation. Historic data indicates that sustained dewatering of the Sheep Underground mines required approximately 200 gpm, but that the cone of depression is limited in area and will not impact surface water sources in the area. In addition, dewatering of the Congo Open pit requires an estimated 150 gpm beginning in year seven and extending to the end of mining. Thus, approximately 350 gpm of water will be produced by the mines.

Despite a history of both open pit and underground mining on the project, no formal hydrologic study nor model was completed and utilized for the underground or surface mine design in this report. Mine design work is based on past water inflows, which were handled with pumping systems during past mining operations.

Future work is recommended to complete a detailed geotechnical study of both underground and surface mining.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7.4 Geotechnical**

Despite a history of both open pit and underground mining on the project, no formal geotechnical on open pit slope stability nor underground drift and stope ground support was completed. Mine design work is based on past slope angles and stope dimensions which proved feasible during mine operations.

Future work is recommended to complete a detailed geotechnical study of both underground and surface mining.

<br> Page 30 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**8.1 Mineralization and Deposit Types**

The host of uranium mineralization for the Project is the Battle Spring Formation. Most of the mineralization in the Crooks Gap district occurs in roll-front deposits (Bendix, 1982). 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 (Stephens, 1964). The two major uranium minerals are uranophane and autunite. Exploration drilling indicates 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 (Granite Mountains).

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 (Stephens, 1964). Uranium has also been localized along the edges of stream channels and at contacts with carbonaceous shales (Bendix, 1982).

Further documentation of the type of mineralization can be found in the literature as with this historic photo (Figure 8.1) of a uranium roll front in the Golden Goose Mine (Bailey, 1969).

![](exhibit99-2x011.jpg)

**Figure 8-1 Uranium Roll Front in Golden Goose Mine**

The following photo (Figure 8-2) shows alteration in the rib of the Little Sheep decline with remnant uranium mineralization concentrated around a clast of carbonaceous clay near the center of the photo. This exposure is typical of the geochemical alteration that occurs within the altered zone in advance of roll fronts.

<br> Page 31 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x012.jpg)

**Figure 8-2 Little Sheep Decline**

<br> Page 32 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**9.0 EXPLORATION**

To the author's knowledge, no relevant exploration work, other than drilling, as described in Section 10: Drilling, of this report 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 1953 (Stephens, 1964), but since that time exploratory work on the site has been primarily drilling.

During the National Uranium Resource Evaluation ("NURE") program conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 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 (Bendix, 1982). No specific data analysis of the aerial surveys was completed and the report, however, it is stated in the report that anomalous radioactivity was observed related to the Battle Spring Formation at the Crooks Gap mining district (Bendix, 1982), herein referred to as Sheep Mountain.

Since Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. acquired the Sheep Mountain Project in 2012, no exploration work has been conducted. All drilling is considered historical in nature and is summarized in Section 10.0 of this report

<br> Page 33 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**10.0 DRILLING**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**10.1 Drilling**

All drilling and drill data associated with the Project is considered historical in nature, as it was completed prior to EFR acquiring the Project in February 2012. The extent of drilling is shown for both the Congo Pit and Sheep underground areas in Figure 10.1.

**10.1.1 Pre-1988 Drilling**

Drilling in the mineral resource areas investigated as part of this report includes approximately 4,000 drill holes, most of which were open-hole rotary drilling, reliant upon down-hole geophysical logging to determine uranium grade. Some core drilling for chemical analyses was also completed; however, no physical samples are available for inspection or sampling. Pre-1988 drill maps show drill hole locations at the surface and downhole drift, the thickness and radiometric grade of uranium measured in weight percent eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, elevation to the bottom of mineralized intercept, collar elevation, and elevation of the bottom of the hole. Also available are half foot and composite intercept data in paper printouts from Western Nuclear's 1979 and 1980 preliminary feasibility study and geostatistical resource modeling.

**10.1.2 Titan Drill Program**

In 2005, a drilling program consisting of 19 drill holes totaling 12,072 feet was completed. Coring was attempted in one hole, but recoveries were poor. Two of the 19 holes were located in Section 28 with the purpose of confirming mineralization within the Sheep Underground mine area. The remaining seventeen drill holes were completed in the planned Congo Pit area to test both shallow mineralization within the Congo Pit and to explore a deeper mineralized horizon, the 58 sand, which was shown in two historic drill holes. (RPA, 2006). Consultants Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) were present during the 2005 drilling program and concluded in their report of October 10, 2005, that drilling has confirmed the presence of mineralization with the shallow horizons in the Congo Pit area and has identified and extended roll front mineralization in the 58 sands along strike. Further, RPA concluded that drilling in the Sheep Mountain area (referred to herein as the Sheep underground) has validated the presence of mineralization at depth.

In consideration of both the recommendations included in RPA's 2006 report and identified data needs for the continued development of the project, five holes were drilled in the Congo Pit in 2009 for a total of 1,700 feet. The five drill holes were planned and completed to serve multiple purposes including:

* Additional verification of mineralization in the Congo Pit area.

* Determination of radiometric equilibrium conditions utilizing a direct comparison of the Uranium Spectrum Analysis Tool (USAT) and conventional gamma logging.

* Collection of bulk samples of mineralized material for metallurgical testing; and

* Collection of bulk samples for characterization of overburden materials as required by WDEQ regulations.

The goals of the 2009 drilling program were met. The drill holes were completed by rotary air drilling to depths exceeding 300 feet using a top drive rotary drilling rig. Drill cuttings were collected continuously during the drilling process, in two-foot increments near anticipated mineralized horizons and in five-foot increments for overburden sampling. Over 500 pounds of mineralized material for metallurgical testing was collected in addition to the collection of representative samples for overburden analysis and characterization in accordance with WDEQ guidelines. In situ mineral grades for 2009 drilling were determined by geophysical logging including both conventional radiometric logging and the state-of-the-art USAT (BRS, 2010). Each drill hole was first logged using a conventional logging tool that provided a suite of gamma ray, Spontaneous Potential (SP), resistivity, and deviation. The best-mineralized zones were chosen for USAT logging. Both geophysical logging tools were provided commercially by Century Wireline Services (Century).

<br> Page 34 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

The 2010 and 2011 drilling programs were primarily designed to delineate the Congo Pit. The drilling was exclusively vertical rotary in 2010, while in 2011 the drilling included vertical rotary and reverse circulation. The drill holes generally ranged from 200 to slightly over 400 feet in depth, although some were designed to test deeper horizons at slightly greater than 600 feet. Geophysical logging was completed for all drill holes and was provided commercially by Century who delivered both hard copy geophysical logs and electronic files including LAS files. Estimations of equivalent uranium grades in weight percent were reported in half-foot intervals.

In 2010, an additional 62 exploratory drill holes and five monitor wells were completed in the Congo Pit Area with the intention of defining the pit limits. All of these drill holes encountered mineralization extending the pit limits, however, drilling extended mineralization and did not completely define the pit limits. Of the 62 drill holes completed in 2010 within the Congo Pit Area:

* 1 hole was lost

* 7 holes were barren

* 54 holes exceeded a 0.1 GT at a minimum grade of 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> including:
 
51 exceeding a 0.25 GT
37 exceeding a 0.50 GT
25 exceeding a 1.0 GT

In 2011, an additional 73 exploratory drill holes and five monitor wells were completed in the Congo Pit Area to define the pit limits and confirm mineralization and the absence of underground mining in select areas. These objectives were met, and the pit limits and Mineral Reserves were expanded as detailed in this report. No additional holes have been drilled on the property since August 11, 2011.

Of the 73 drill holes completed in 2011 within the Congo Pit Area:

* 17 holes were barren

* 56 holes exceeded a 0.1 GT at a minimum grade of 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> including:
 
35 exceeding a 0.25 GT
20 exceeding a 0.50 GT9
1 exceeding a 1.0 GT

<br> Page 35 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x013.jpg)

**Figure 10-1. Drill Hole Location Map**

<br> Page 36 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS, AND SECURITY**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.1 Introduction**

Most of the sample data available for the evaluation of resources for the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is radiometric geophysical log data. Radiometric geophysical logs are completed following the drilling of a hole and provide a reading of equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> in percent (%eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) at depth down hole. The practice of collecting geophysical logs as opposed to drill cuttings or core is common for uranium deposits in the United States.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.2 Gamma Logging**

The radiometric or gamma probe measures gamma radiation which is emitted during the natural radioactive decay of uranium (U) and variations in the natural radioactivity originating from changes in concentrations of the trace element thorium (Th) as well as changes in concentration of the major rock forming element potassium (K).

Potassium decays into two stable isotopes (argon and calcium) which are no longer radioactive and emits gamma rays with energies of 1.46 mega electron-volts (MeV). Uranium and thorium, however, decay into daughter products which are unstable (i.e., radioactive). The decay of uranium forms a series of about a dozen radioactive elements in nature that finally decay to a stable isotope of lead. The decay of thorium forms a similar series of radioelements. As each radioelement in the series decays, it is accompanied by emissions of alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays. The gamma rays have specific energies associated with the decaying radionuclide. The most prominent of the gamma rays in the uranium series originate from decay of 214Bi (bismuth 214), and in the thorium series from decay of 208Tl (thallium 208).

The natural gamma measurement is made when a detector emits a pulse of light when struck by a gamma ray. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier tube, which outputs a current pulse that is accumulated and reported as counts per second (cps). The gamma probe is lowered to the bottom of a drillhole, and data are recorded as the tool travels to the bottom and then is pulled back up to the surface. The current pulse is carried up a conductive cable and processed by a logging system computer that stores the raw gamma cps data.

The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred to as "eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>" for "equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>") is the sensitivity of the detector used in the probe, which is the ratio of cps to known uranium grade and is referred to as the probe calibration factor. Each detector's sensitivity is measured when it is first manufactured and is also periodically checked throughout the operating life of each probe against a known set of standard "test pits," with various known grades of uranium mineralization or through empirical calculations. Application of the calibration factor, along with other probe correction factors, allows for immediate grade estimation in the field as each drillhole is logged.

Downhole total gamma data are 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 any type of drillhole casing. The result is an indirect measurement of uranium content within the sphere of measurement of the gamma detector.

The conversion coefficients for conversion of probe counts per second to %eU3O8 equivalent uranium grades are based on the calibration results obtained at the United States Department of Energy Uranium Calibration Pits.

Most of the sample data available for the evaluation of resources for the Sheep Mountain Project is radiometric geophysical log data. EFR possesses the complete hard copy data set which was passed through the chain of property title from WNC; through 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 EFR, though its acquisition of Titan.

For the Congo Pit and Sheep Underground, 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 and were reviewed for both data verification and for geologic interpretation. 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.

<br> Page 37 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates for the Sheep Mountain Project are based on radiometric data.

**11.2.1 Disequilibrium**

Disequilibrium in uranium deposits is the difference between equivalent (eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) grades and assayed U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades. Disequilibrium can be either positive, where the assayed grade is greater than the equivalent grades, or negative, where the assayed grade is less than the equivalent grade. A uranium deposit is in equilibrium when the daughter products of uranium decay accurately represent the uranium present. Equilibrium occurs after the uranium is deposited and has not been added to or removed by fluids after approximately one million years. Disequilibrium is determined during drilling when a piece of core is taken and measured by two different methods, a counting method (closed-can) and chemical assay. If a positive or negative disequilibrium is determined, a disequilibrium factor can be applied to eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades to account for this issue.

Chemical assays for verification of radiometric equilibrium are discussed in Section 12, Radiometric Equilibrium. As discussed in this report, available data indicates that variations in radiometric equilibrium are local in their effect which impacts the mining grade control program but does not appreciably affect the overall Mineral Resources or Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.3 Core Sampling**

Confirmatory drilling in accordance with Canadian NI 43-101 standards began in 2005. As part of this drilling program, drill core was collected for assay confirmation and overburden and metallurgical testing. A review by an EFR Consultant of the geologic and geophysical log data concluded that the data was 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.

**11.3.1 Sample Preparation**

With respect to the 2009 drilling program, drill samples were collected for overburden testing per WDEQ regulations and 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 radiometric 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.

**11.3.2 Assaying and Analytical Procedure**

Assays from the 2009 drilling program 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% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and averaging 0.045% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Bottle 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. 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 and verification of assay data is discussed in Section 12.

<br> Page 38 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

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 ½ foot equivalent % U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades. The author was present during the 2010 drilling program.

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 this report.

The reader should note that it is common industry practice for the exploration and evaluation of uranium mineralization in the United States to rely upon downhole radiometric 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 radiometric 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 Atomic Energy Commission ("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.

**11.3.3 Density Analyses**

A unit weight of 16 cubic feet per ton or 2.439 tonnes/m3 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 but was not independently confirmed. Some previous estimates used a density of 15 cubic feet per ton. The use of 16 cubic feet per ton is recommended the Authors as a conservative value.

In summary, the data utilized in this report is considered accurate and reliable for the purposes of this report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11.4 Opinion of Author**

In the opinion the Authors, the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures are reliable and adequate for the purposes of this report

<br> Page 39 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**12.0 DATA VERIFICATION**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.1 Congo**

Historic drill data for each drillhole consisting of radiometric data was posted on drill maps including collar elevation, elevation to the bottom of the mineralized intercept, thickness of mineralization, grade of mineralization, and elevation of the bottom of the hole. Half foot and composite intercept data in paper printouts were available from Western Nuclear's 1979 and 1980 Preliminary Feasibility Study geostatistical model. Data entry was checked and confirmed including a review of the original drill geophysical and lithologic logs. Drillhole locations were digitized from the drill maps to create a coordinate listing and then plotted. The resultant drill maps were then checked and confirmed by overlaying with the original maps.

Titan drilled 5 exploration holes for a total of 1,700 feet in 2009. The purpose of this program was to take samples for overburden classification and also to take bulk mineralized samples for heap leach testing. Overburden samples were gathered every five feet down hole until water was added for lifting cuttings. The depth where the holes either started making water or water was added was approximately 330 to 360 feet. Sampling stopped at that point in each hole if it was drilled deep enough to encounter that zone. Bulk samples were gathered every two feet through known mineralized zones. The drill locations were picked by "twinning" historic drill holes.

The following table provides a comparison of the 2009 drilling to adjacent or twinned historic drill holes.

**Table 12-1 Comparison of 2009 Drilling to Historic Drilling**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Drill hole** | **Twinned <br>hole** | **Offset <br>Distance** | **Results** |
| Congo 1 | S16-96 | 3' | Good correlation, marginally higher radiometric grades encountered |
| Congo 2 | S16-291 | 3' | Good correlation, slightly lower radiometric grades in some zones with higher in others |
| Congo 3 | GG1-36 | 24' | Radiometric zones correlated |
| Congo 3 | GG1-37 | 35' | Radiometric zones correlated |
| Congo 4 | S16-253 | 24' | Acceptable correlation, slightly lower radiometric grades in some zones with higher in others |
| Congo 5 | S16-146 | 21' | Good correlation, marginally higher radiometric grades encountered |

---

Drilling completed within the Congo Pit area in 2010 and 2011 helped to confirm and extend the mineralization as projected in the Congo Pit Area. The 2010 and 2011 drill data were compared to historic drilling by collating the geophysical logs and comparing the GT of the 2010 and 2011 drilling to historic drilling by individual sands.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.2 Sheep Underground**

Historic drill data for each drill hole consisting of radiometric data was posted on drill maps including collar elevation, elevation to the bottom of the mineralized intercept, thickness of mineralization, grade of mineralization, and elevation of the bottom of the hole. Data entry was checked and confirmed including a review of the original drill geophysical and lithologic logs. Drill hole locations were digitized from the drill maps to create a coordinate listing and then plotted. The resultant drill maps were then checked and confirmed by overlaying the original maps.

<br> Page 40 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Once the database had been developed and data entry confirmed, each mineralized intercept within an individual drill hole was evaluated on a hole by hole basis and combined into the corresponding zone to represent a probable mining thickness appropriate for underground mining methods (minimum of six feet). This process eliminated some thin and/or isolated mineralized intercepts. The resultant data was then utilized to develop the Grade Thickness ("GT") map, GT and Thickness (T) Contours. The GT map was then compared to mine plans available from previous studies to verify the data and geologic interpretation.

A confirmatory drilling program in 2005 was completed consisting of 19 drill holes totaling 12,072 feet. Two of the 19 holes completed by UPC were located in Section 28 with the purpose of confirming mineralization within the Sheep underground mine area. Previous report concluded that the confirmatory drilling did verify historic drilling. The author reviewed the drilling and found that the data did reasonably correlate with respect to the geologic sand units and the general thickness and tenor of mineralization.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.3 Radiometric Equilibrium**

Radiometric equilibrium studies completed in 2006 evaluated data including some 223 samples for which there was gamma equivalent closed can analyses and chemical assays and concluded "Although the data exhibit high variability, there does not appear to be a significant bias and Scott Wilson RPA is of the opinion that the eU3O8 values are appropriate for use in the resource estimate," (RPA, 2006).

This data was reviewed by the Authors; however, the samples had not been preserved so no confirmatory analysis could be completed. At the consultant's recommendation, during the 2009 drilling program, USAT was employed to further examine radiometric equilibrium conditions (BRS, 2010). This technique was used since past drill programs had reported difficulty in sample recovery from coring and this method would ensure a direct comparison of gamma equivalent values and direct uranium measurements via the USAT from downhole logging.

Table 12-2 provides a direct comparison of the equivalent gamma and direct USAT measurement of in situ uranium values for the five drillholes completed in the Congo Pit in 2009. For the 2009 drilling program downhole logging of the drillholes was completed using standard gamma technology as well as a USAT, operated by Century Wireline Services of Tulsa OK. The USAT method measures the gamma intensity of Pa<sup>234</sup>, the short lived (t½ = 6.7 hr.) second daughter product of U<sup>238</sup>. U<sup>238</sup> reaches secular equilibrium with Pa<sup>234</sup> within approximately 4 months thus USAT gives a nearly direct measurement of uranium content and therefore allows determination of the equilibrium state of the uranium mineralization intersected in the hole. Note that the measurements reflected various mineralized zones vary in depth from 24.5 to 464 feet from the surface. The table displays the depth in feet of the top and bottom of the mineralized zone (from and to), the thickness of the mineralized zone ("THK") in feet, the grade of equivalent uranium in weight percent and GT determined by downhole gamma, and the grade of uranium in weight percent and GT determined by downhole USAT logging.

The disequilibrium factor (DEF) was calculated for each mineralized intercept and summarized for each drillhole. A DEF factor of 1 indicates that radiometric equilibrium exists. DEF factors less than 1 indicate a depletion of uranium with respect to gamma equivalent measurements and a DEF factor greater than 1 indicates an enrichment of uranium values with respect to gamma equivalent values. The DEF from 45 mineralized intercepts from the 2009 drilling ranged from a low factor of 0.73 to a high factor of 2.07 with an average value of 1.05. Although this data indicates the potential for radiometric enrichment, a conservative DEF of 1was used in the resource calculations.

<br> Page 41 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 12-2 Comparison of Radiometric Equilibrium based on Gamma and USAT Logging**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Drill Hole** | **From** | **To** | **Thick** | **% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(gamma)** | **GT Gamma** | **% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(USAT)** | **GT USAT** | **DEF** |
| Congo 1 | 24.5 | 26.5 | 2 | 0.063 | 0.126 | 0.054 | 0.108 | 0.857 |
|  | 58 | 60 | 2 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.061 | 0.122 | 1.220 |
|  | 68 | 71 | 3 | 0.087 | 0.261 | 0.078 | 0.234 | 0.897 |
|  | 71 | 77 | 6 | 0.031 | 0.186 | 4ft @ .096 | 0.384 | 2.065 |
|  | 79.5 | 81 | 1.5 | 0.046 | 0.069 | 0.059 | 0.0885 | 1.283 |
|  | 115 | 119 | 4 | 0.049 | 0.196 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
| sum/average |  |  |  |  | 0.742 |  | 0.9365 | 1.262 |
| Congo 2 | 56.5 | 58.5 | 2 | 0.271 | 0.542 | 0.264 | 0.528 | 0.974 |
|  | 74.5 | 76.5 | 2 | 0.183 | 0.366 | 4' @ .137 | 0.548 | 1.497 |
|  | 95 | 98 | 3 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.048 | 0.144 | 0.800 |
|  | 118.5 | 120.5 | 2 | 0.103 | 0.206 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 213 | 216 | 3 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.066 | 0.198 | 0.733 |
|  | 219.5 | 222.5 | 3 | 0.183 | 0.549 | 0.169 | 0.507 | 0.923 |
|  | 236 | 239 | 3 | 0.114 | 0.342 | 0.111 | 0.333 | 0.974 |
|  | 464 | 466.5 | 2.5 | 0.035 | 0.0875 | 0.035 | 0.0875 | 1.000 |
| sum/average |  |  |  |  | 2.3365 |  | 2.3455 | 1.004 |
| Congo 3 | 52 | 65 | 13 | 0.073 | 0.949 | 0.071 | 0.923 | 0.973 |
|  | 79 | 81 | 2 | 0.028 | 0.056 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 90 | 94.5 | 4.5 | 0.097 | 0.4365 | 3' @ .115 | 0.345 | 0.790 |
|  | 96 | 101 | 5 | 0.107 | 0.535 | 0.117 | 0.585 | 1.093 |
|  | 117.5 | 121.5 | 4 | 0.08 | 0.32 | 6' @ .05 | 0.3 | 0.938 |
|  | 124 | 126.5 | 2.5 | 0.027 | 0.0675 | 0.031 | 0.0775 | 1.148 |
|  | 154 | 156.5 | 2.5 | 0.134 | 0.335 | 0.131 | 0.3275 | 0.978 |
|  | 172.5 | 178 | 5.5 | 0.044 | 0.242 | 0.04 | 0.22 | 0.909 |
| sum/average |  |  |  |  | 2.885 |  | 2.778 | 0.963 |
| Congo 4 | 49 | 52.5 | 3.5 | 0.028 | 0.098 | 0.023 | 0.0805 | 0.821 |
|  | 88 | 89.5 | 1.5 | 0.023 | 0.035 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 91 | 94 | 3 | 0.05 | 0.150 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 100 | 101.5 | 1.5 | 0.029 | 0.044 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 104.5 | 109 | 4.5 | 0.134 | 0.603 | 0.149 | 0.6705 | 1.112 |
|  | 113 | 114.5 | 1.5 | 0.028 | 0.042 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 132.5 | 136 | 3.5 | 0.072 | 0.252 | 0.073 | 0.2555 | 1.014 |
|  | 166.5 | 169.5 | 3 | 0.088 | 0.264 | 0.099 | 0.297 | 1.125 |
|  | 207.5 | 214 | 6.5 | 0.061 | 0.3965 | 0.054 | 0.351 | 0.885 |
| sum/average |  |  |  |  | 1.6135 |  | 1.6545 | 1.025 |
| Congo 5 | 131.5 | 133.5 | 2 | 0.054 | 0.108 | 0.041 | 0.082 | 0.759 |
|  | 143 | 146 | 3 | 0.025 | 0.075 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 153 | 158.5 | 5 | 0.076 | 0.38 | 0.07 | 0.35 | 0.921 |
|  | 160 | 167 | 7 | 0.151 | 1.057 | 0.162 | 1.134 | 1.073 |
|  | 172.5 | 179 | 6.5 | 0.07 | 0.455 | 0.066 | 0.429 | 0.943 |
|  | 199.5 | 206.5 | 7 | 0.047 | 0.329 | 0.041 | 0.287 | 0.872 |
|  | 219 | 222.5 | 3.5 | 0.027 | 0.095 | Not run | N/A | N/A |
|  | 267.5 | 272 | 4.5 | 0.051 | 0.2295 | 0.043 | 0.1935 | 0.843 |
|  | 293.5 | 297 | 3.5 | 0.062 | 0.217 | 0.071 | 0.2485 | 1.145 |
|  | 303.5 | 305.5 | 2 | 0.075 | 0.15 | .5'@ .062 | 0.31 | 2.067 |
|  | 311 | 316.5 | 5.5 | 0.056 | 0.308 | 0.076 | 0.418 | 1.357 |
|  | 325 | 335 | 10 | 0.126 | 1.26 | 7.5'@.143 | 1.0725 | 0.851 |
| sum/average |  |  |  |  | 4.4935 |  | 4.5245 | 1.007 |

---

<br> Page 42 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**12.4 Opinions of Author**

In the opinion the Authors, the data verification are reliable and adequate for the purposes of this report

<br> Page 43 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.1 Historic Mineral Processing**

Western Nuclear Corporation (WNC) processed feed from Sheep Mountain over a 30-year period from the early 1950s through the mid-1980s at their Split Rock Mill, which was located north of Jeffrey City, WY, along the haul road to the Gas Hills. WNC also processed Gas Hills ores at its mill and operated a commercial heap leach, as did Union Carbide Corp. (UCC). Historical and published data indicate an acid consumption of 50 pounds per ton H2SO4 and a loss during heap leaching of 0.008% U3O8 (Woolery, 1978). Recent metallurgical laboratory test results, are consistent with or better than historic heap leach experience, indicating potentially higher uranium recovery and lower acid consumption.

Early Heap Leaching by Western Nuclear Inc.

In 1961, Western Nuclear began heap leaching of low-grade uranium bearing material from the Gas Hills region in central Wyoming<sup>1</sup>. Mineralized material was crushed to 90 percent minus 1-inch and hauled with 15-ton dump trucks. The mineralized material averaged 0.05-0.06% U3O8 and the overall consumption of sulfuric acid averaged 50.6 pounds per ton of ore. Uranium extraction into the pregnant leach solution averaged 75 percent, corresponding to a leached residue assay of approximately 0.013% U3O8. It is possible that the heap preparation and leaching practices that were employed by Western Nuclear impaired leaching performance, since large column tests (4-feet diameter x 17-foot depth) using the same parameters obtained 88.3 percent uranium extraction, leaving a residue assaying 0.006% U3O8 from mineralized material assaying 0.051% U3O8.

Early Heap Leaching by Union Carbide Corp.

Following a comprehensive laboratory and pilot-scale program, Union Carbide began construction in 1973 of a 225,000-ton heap<sup>2</sup>. Low-grade stockpiled material that was mostly unconsolidated (and therefore not crushed) was added to the heap to a depth of 20 feet over a compacted clay liner. With a sulfuric acid addition of approximately 40 pounds per ton of ore, leach residues assayed 0.008% U3O8. Union Carbide elected to avoid winter operation and only operated the heap from May 1 until October 1.

It is important to point out that the leaching heaps operated by Western Nuclear and Union Carbide did not benefit from the vast amount of design and operating experience that has been accumulated since the early-1980s from hundreds of heaps treated globally for extraction of gold and copper from low-grade oxidized ores. Given this collection of evolutionary improvements, is quite likely that heap leaching of the same uranium ores now would result in significantly higher extractions.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.2 Pre-Feasibility Metallurgical Studies** 

In late-2009, drill cuttings and stockpile grab samples were obtained from the Congo Pit, the same resource that provided the feed for the Union Carbide heap leaching program. The drill cuttings were collected during mineral resource validation drilling and consisted of several wide-spaced holes The stockpiles had been left by UECC near the Sheep 1 Shaft. Bottle roll leach tests were conducted using both acid and alkaline lixiviants. Acid leaching was preferred on the basis of higher uranium extraction and lower reagent costs. Also, alkaline leaching caused swelling of clay minerals, which could reduce solution percolation in a heap leaching configuration. (This effect is commonly encountered with alkaline leaching and is usually the result of sodium ion.) These tests resulted in acid consumptions below 20 lb H2SO4 per ton of feed with residues assaying 0.009% U3O8 or less.

For the PFS, a constant residue of 0.010% U3O8, including soluble uranium losses in subsequent solution processing, was assumed. This assumption was conservative with respect to test results, but representative of historic heap leaching experience with similar mineralized material. The soluble uranium loss in the rinsed heap residue and the impurity bleed to the evaporation pond will likely be on the order of two percent, suggesting a heap extraction of about 91.8 percent. This initial laboratory work was followed by large-scale column leaching tests, as described in Section 13.3.

<sup>________________________________<br>1</sup> Mashbir, D. S., "Heap Leaching of Low-Grade Uranium Ore*"*, Mining Congress Journal, December 1964, pages 50-54.<br><sup>2</sup> Woolery, R. G., et al., "Heap Leaching of Uranium*: A* Case History", Mining Engineering, March 1978, pages 285-290.

<br> Page 44 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

In late 2009, drill cuttings were obtained from the Congo Pit during mineral resource validation drilling consisting of several wide spaced holes and from existing mineralized stockpiles left by USECC near the Sheep I Shaft. Bottle roll leach tests were conducted using both acid and alkaline lixiviants. Acid leaching was preferred based on recovery and cost of lixiviant. In addition, the alkaline leach tests showed some swelling of clay minerals, which could impede flow in the heap. Acid consumption was less than 20lbs./ton with losses of 0.009% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> or less.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.3 Column Leach Studies** 

Three laboratory-scale column leaching studies designed to mimic commercial heap performance were completed in mid-2010 to support the Sheep Mountain Project PFS. Mineralized material tested in the studies was obtained from existing stockpiles left in the 1980s and fresher mineralized rock collected during the 2010 exploration drilling program. The leaching chemistry that was selected was based on a combination of industry experience and results of the previous bottle roll tests. The lixiviant contained sulfuric acid, supplemented by sodium chlorate, NaClO3, which is traditionally used to oxidize insoluble tetravalent uranium to the soluble hexavalent state. Typically, bottle rolls will establish maximum estimates of both uranium extraction and acid consumption. The tests were conducted in Sheridan, WY, at Intermountain Laboratories, Inc., and were supervised by R. A. Garling of R&D Enterprises, Inc. Technical advice and support were provided by Lyntek, Inc., Dr. Terry McNulty, and Doug Beahm (author of the NI43-101 reports for Sheep Mountain).

The first two columns, Tests 1 and 2, were loaded with stockpile material which, due to 20-plus years of exposure to weathering, were believed to be fully oxidized. Two nearly identical columns were loaded with 70 kg (dry basis) of mineralized material assaying 0.075% U3O8. The columns were constructed of clear plastic with 6 inches inside diameter and a total height of 14 feet. The bottoms consisted of a supporting grid covered by canvas to minimize loss of fines into the pregnant leach solution (PLS). The initial charge height was 12 feet. The columns were operated in a downward flow mode to simulate heap leaching practice and the solution flowrate was 0.005 gallons per minute per square foot of charge surface, the industry standard for solution application rate. Following recommendations of the consultants, the lixiviant contained approximately 10 grams of sulfuric acid per liter (gpl H2SO4) and the equivalent of 3 lb/ton of sodium chlorate. After 22 days of leaching and a rinse and drain period of over one month, residue assays of 0.0001% U3O8 equated to about 99.9 percent extraction of the uranium.

Subsequently, a third column, Test 3, was conducted from November 12 through December 20, 2010. A single column was loaded with 80.5 kg of drill cuttings from the recent drilling program that assayed 0.104% U3O8. This test was designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the leaching conditions on unoxidized material with a uranium grade approximately equivalent to the anticipated life-of-mine grade. The same lixiviant chemistry used in the first two columns extracted 97.5 percent of the uranium, leaving a residue assaying 0.0029% U3O8. Unlike the first test, in which over 95 percent of the uranium in the column was extracted by the first pore volume (PV) of lixiviant, the fresh mineralized material exhibited more traditional leaching behavior and required approximately 2 PV to achieve similar uranium extraction. The overall acid consumption in Test 3 was approximately 4 lb/ton, compared with about 1.7 lb/ton in Tests 1 and 2. Very little oxidation was required in any of the three tests, as the initial sodium chlorate addition was sufficient to maintain an Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP) of +450 mv.

In addition to demonstrating uranium leaching efficiency, the three tests provided information relevant to heap and process plant design criteria, as well as supporting a Source Materials license application. Information regarding slump of the column charge, pooling of solution on the column surface, and maximum allowable solution application rates was obtained from the tests. Data related to future health physics (radiological and chemical) issues likely to be encountered during licensing activities were also collected. Table 13-1 summarizes results from the three column tests.

<br> Page 45 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 13-1 Summary of Column Leach Results**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Column #** | **1** | **2** | **3** |
| Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>) | 1.50 | 1.36 | 1.46 |
| Uranium Moisture (%) | 8.5 | 8.5 | 4.3 |
| Sulfuric Acid Consumed (lb/st) | 1.68 | 1.62 | 3.90 |
| Lixiviate [H2SO4] (g/L) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Sodium Chlorate Addition Rate (lb/st) | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Uranium Grade Assayed (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.077 | 0.077 | 0.1039 |
| Tails Grade Assayed (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0029 |
| Tails Moisture (%) | 13.7 | 14.7 | 17.0 |
| Uranium Grade (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.0763 | 0.0729 | 0.1128 |
| Uranium Recovery (%) | 99.87 | 99.86 | 97.47 |

---

(RDE, 2011)

**13.4 Supplemental Laboratory Experiments**

Supplemental duplicates of samples prepared by Lyntek were analyzed by Energy Labs and Hazen Research, Inc., and then delivered to J. E. Litz and Associates in Golden, CO, for additional agitation leach tests, also with dilute aqueous sulfuric acid, but using flasks with internal agitator, rather than bottle rolls<sup>3</sup>. The tests were conducted with minus 28-mesh material in a 33 percent solids slurry with samples taken at 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours; tests were terminated at 48 hours. These sampling intervals provided kinetic data. Acidity was maintained at pH 1.1-1.6 with acid additions as needed, and the oxidation potential was kept above +450 mv (standard platinum vs. calomel electrodes) with sodium chlorate additions that varied between 0 and 5 lb/ton for different samples. Final free acid concentrations were not titrated, so true acid consumptions could not be calculated, but total acid additions were only in the range of 5.6 to 20.7 pounds per ton.

The samples tested by Litz were somewhat acidic in the range pH 2.90 to 6.55 prior to the addition of sulfuric acid, so there was evidence of moderate oxidation prior to sample collection. This was probably due to natural weathering, possibly accelerated by the action of bacteria. Doug Beahm commented<sup>4</sup> that "fresh" mineralized material was actually highly oxidized during Union Carbide's 1980s mining period, frequently resulting in the presence of dissolved uranium in surface and underground water. Mining of the Sheep Mountain deposit will eliminate this potential source of groundwater contamination by uranium.

The 48-hour uranium extractions obtained by Litz ranged from 86.6 to 93.6 percent, but residue assays were proportional to head assays, rather than being constant. Three samples with head assays averaging 0.067% U3O8 yielded residues averaging 0.0087% U3O8, whereas two samples with heads averaging 0.123% U3O8 produced residues averaging 0.019% U3O8. Examination of the laboratory worksheets did not reveal a satisfactory resolution, but it is possible that the residues were not adequately rinsed to remove soluble uranium. The important lesson from the Litz test series was that a different leaching technique confirmed high extractability of the uranium with reasonable acid consumptions and low oxidant demand.

Key points with respect to project economics and operational efficiencies:

* The low acid consumptions observed in all of the column tests, if experienced on a production scale would significantly reduce operating costs per pound of U3O8, compared with most uranium milling operations. The 2010 PFS, completed prior to the column leach test program, made a conservative assumption, as discussed previously, of 50 pounds of acid per ton of material. Since all of the tests required much lower acid consumptions, as summarized in Table 13-1, the assumption of 30 lb/ton used in the 2010 PFS was very conservative and probably more than will be experienced in practice.

<sup>________________________________<br>3</sup> Litz, J. E., "Preliminary Tests of Titan Drill Cuttings", February 26, 2010.<br><sup>4</sup> Personal communication on February 10, 2010.

<br> Page 46 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

* The very high uranium extractions observed in the column leach studies, if experienced on a production scale, would also significantly reduce operating costs per pound of uranium. Although the column tests yielded very high uranium extractions, as summarized in Table 13-1, the PFS conservatively used an overall uranium recovery of 91.7 percent, based on the average sample grade and a constant residue assay of 0.010 % U3O8, assuming soluble uranium losses of 2 percent (McNulty 2012).

* The relatively short leach cycles (2-3 pore volumes of lixiviant) and realistic application rates, if experienced on a production scale, will reflect favorably on operating costs and efficiencies.

* The behavior of the column charges during leaching and the observed geotechnical properties indicate that the material could be placed directly on the leach pads without a gravel drain layer, thereby reducing capital costs. However, the PFS conservatively included the cost of a gravel drain.

The samples for column testing were collected spatially from within the mineral deposit in order to produce a composite representative of production during the mine life, however, only a relatively small amount of material was actually tested. Analysis of solutions produced during testing did not reveal any deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on process performance or yellowcake marketability (RDE 2011). Additional tests on future samples of the resource could yield results that vary either positively or negatively from those obtained for the PFS. Conservative assumptions based on available test results, as summarized in Table 13-1, were incorporated in the cost estimates and financial evaluations. Heap leaching and solution processing are discussed in Section 17.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.5 Current Metallurgical Background and Industry Practice:**

Sulfuric acid consumption has two components: (1) The uranium minerals themselves require acid for dissolution and complexing of the uranium as uranyl sulfate. At Sheep Mountain, the dominant uranium minerals are uranophane, Ca(UO2)2(SiO2)2(OH)2•5H2O, and autunite, Ca(UO2)2(PO4)2•10-12H2O. Dissolving these minerals will form hydrated calcium sulfate (gypsum), silicic acid, and phosphoric acid, but the total acid consumption with a low-grade mineralized material is minor; (2) Other minerals in the mineralized material are host rock constituents and will consume acid as they are dissolved. At Sheep Mountain, the principal acid consumer in this category is probably calcite, calcium carbonate, which reacts to form gypsum. The known geology does not suggest that other common acid consuming minerals such as orthoclase, a potassium aluminum silicate, are present. Therefore, it is not surprising that the laboratory tests and column tests on samples from Sheep Mountain have revealed low acid consumptions.

When the PEA was submitted in 2010, there was no recent industry experience in heap leaching of uranium mineralization. Few examples existed, but they were confined to the 1960s and 1970s; however, since then, there have been 40 years of accumulated experience in heap leaching of low-grade oxidized gold ores. This experience has vastly improved our understanding of variables such as crushing, agglomeration, and heap construction of copper ores, as well as gold ores. Now, over half of domestic copper production derives from heap leaching. Also, about 30 percent of domestic gold production is extracted from heaps.

Furthermore, commercial production of uranium from heap leaching operations began in Brazil in 2010 (Gomeiro and Morais, 2010) and is now being practiced in Africa at Somair and Imouraren in Niger and Trekkopje in Namibia (Dunne, et. al., 2019). Most uranium heap leaching employs sulfuric acid as the dissolving and complexing agent. However, Trekkopje was unique when it began operations in 2019 because it employs alkaline heap leaching to accommodate the calcareous host rock which would require excessive sulfuric acid consumption. These heap leaching operations all employ heap heights in the range 20-30 feet with low mineralized material grades in the range 0.02-0.05% U3O8.

<br> Page 47 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Although heap leaching is simple in principle, it is fairly complex in practice and judgment is required in designing and operating a heap to maximize contact of the rock fragments with leaching solution and to avoid solution loss. The uranium-bearing rock must be crushed to a small size to ensure adequate and rapid contact of the uranium minerals with the leaching solution. However, excessive crushing wastes energy and produces fines that can impede solution movement in the heap. The optimum top-size typically is in the range 0.75-2.0 inch but crushing to this product size will inevitably create fine particles that will migrate, collect, and create relatively impervious lenses which will block the downward percolation of leaching solution, thereby reducing uranium extraction.

The harmful effect of fines can be very effectively minimized by agglomeration, which binds the fine particles to coarser rock fragments. Whereas agglomeration ahead of the leaching of gold with alkaline cyanide solution is usually done with Portland cement, agglomeration of copper mineralized material is accomplished simply by addition of dilute aqueous sulfuric acid. The agglomeration mechanism is complex, but its effectiveness is partially due to the formation of gypsum, which acts as a cementing agent. The same technique can be applied to agglomeration of uranium-bearing material, and the method of acid addition as discussed in Section 17 of this report.

Another threat to heap permeability can occur during loading of mineralized material onto a pad while forming the heap. For a number of years, heaps that were leached for recovery of gold or copper were constructed by driving haul trucks onto the heap and dumping in piles that could be levelled with a tracked dozer. Eventually, the industry learned that this practice was also leading to impaired heap permeability resulting from compaction caused by ground pressure exerted by the trucks. Initial attempts to remedy compaction consisted of ripping the upper surface of the heap with a dozer tooth, but this generally proved to be ineffective.

Ultimately, the preferred solution was to construct the heap with a traversing conveyor that built the heap in a series of overlapping windrows. Various combinations of equipment were tried until the stacker was developed. This is a moveable conveyor with very high-speed belt that slings the mineralized material stream a distance of 50 to 100 feet, allowing construction of semi-circular rows of mineralized material that are uncompacted and uniformly permeable. The stacker is supplied with mineralized material by one or more conventional conveyors that can be moved to remain near the feed hopper for the mobile stacker. As discussed in Section 17, this is the heap construction method that is envisioned for the Sheep Mountain Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**13.6 Opinion of Author**

In the opinion of the Authors, the data are reliable and adequate for the purposes of this report.

<br> Page 48 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.1 General Statement**

The mineral resource estimation and geological interpretation methods methodology described herein have been employed by similar operating uranium mines in the Gas Hills. The mining methods and factors recommended have been employed successfully at the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) in the past. Successful uranium recovery from the mineralized material at Sheep Mountain and similar areas such as the Gas Hills has been demonstrated via both conventional milling and heap leach recovery. The Project is a brown-field development located in the State of Wyoming, 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. Wyoming ranks 16th among 83 mining jurisdictions surveyed by the Fraser Institute in with respect to favourability for mining ventures. The Authors are not aware of any factors including environmental, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other factors, which would materially affect the mineral resource estimate, herein.

The estimates of Mineral Resources were completed for the Sheep Underground and Congo Pit areas. Within these areas preliminary mine designs were completed. Preliminary mine designs focused on the areas with the strongest and most continuous mineralization and were not optimized for maximum mineral resource extraction. Mineral Resources were estimated adjacent to both the Congo pit and Sheep underground, which have reasonable prospects for economic extraction. These areas would be accessible for mining from the pit highwalls by conventional drift mining or using modern highwall mining systems and through the underground with additional stopping and/or raises.

Those portions of the Mineral Resources not readily accessible from either the Congo pit or Sheep underground mine were excluded from the mineral resource estimation as they do not currently meet the criteria for reasonable prospects of economic extraction. Additional areas of mineralization are known within the project area, which have not been fully evaluated and/or do not meet reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction based on currently available data. These areas have also been excluded in the mineral resource estimate.

Minimum cut-off grades, based on direct operating costs, are 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for open pit mining and 0.075% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for underground mining (Table 14-1). Mineral resource estimates were estimated using GT cut-offs of 0.1 for open pit mine areas and 0.3 for underground mine areas. Cut-off grades are discussed in Section 15.4.

The mineral resource estimates presented herein have been completed in accordance with NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 standards and represent the estimated in situ Mineral Resources. 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 NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource. A summary of total mineral resource is provided in Table 14-1.

A summary of total Mineral Resources inclusive of Mineral reserves is provided in Table 14-1. Mineral Reserve estimate is discussed in Section 15. A summary of the Mineral Resource estimate, fully exclusive and are not additive to the total Mineral Resources, is provided in Table 15-1. A summary of total Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral reserves is provided in Table 14-2.

A discussion of individual resource areas follows.

<br> Page 49 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 14-1 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**G.T. <br>Cut-off** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons <br>(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade % <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pounds <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sheep Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.118% | &nbsp;&nbsp;13034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Congo Pit Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.122% | &nbsp;&nbsp;14903 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**11663** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.120%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**27935** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.9** |

---

Notes:

1: NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 definitions were followed for Mineral Resources

2: In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at GT cut-off of 0.10 (2 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for open pit and 0.30 (6 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for underground

3: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$65 per pound

4: Bulk density is 0.0625 tons/ft<sup>3</sup> (16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

5: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability

6: Numbers may not add due to rounding

A summary of total Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral reserves is provided in Table 1-3.

**Table 14-2 Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources Exclusive of Mineral Reserves - April 9, 2019**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**G.T. <br>Cut-off** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons <br>(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade % <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pounds <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sheep Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09% | &nbsp;&nbsp;3786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Congo Pit Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13% | &nbsp;&nbsp;5786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4210** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.11%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**9570** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.9** |

---

Notes:

1: NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 definitions were followed for Mineral Resources

2: Mineral Resource are estimated at GT cut-off of 0.10 (2 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for open pit and 0.30 (6 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for underground

3: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$65 per pound

4: Bulk density is 0.0625 tons/ft<sup>3</sup> (16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

5: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability

6: Numbers may not add due to rounding

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.2 Drill Hole Database**

The current drill hole database consists of:

<u>Congo Open Pit Area</u>

* 2,780 drill holes in total: 2,673 mineralized, 107 barren

* Includes recent drilling: 90
 
2009 - 5 drill holes
2010 - 62 drill holes
2011 - 73 drill holes<br>

<u>Sheep Underground Area</u>

* 485 drill holes
 
Includes 2 holes completed in 2005

<br> Page 50 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

The uranium quantities and grades are reported as %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, as measured by downhole gamma logging. The industry standard protocol for reporting uranium in sandstone-hosted deposits in the U.S. has been validated for the Sheep Mountain Project by test drilling at the deposit, as well as by correlation with previous mining activities.

**14.2.1 Congo Open Pit**

The Congo data set is composed of 2,780 drill holes of which 107 are barren and the remaining 2,673 drill holes contain mineralization. Within the 2,673 mineralized drill holes, 12,070 individual intercepts were present. A portion of the historic data consisted of ½-foot data from the Century Geophysical Compulog™ system. For this data, a minimum cut-off thickness and grade of 2 feet of 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> was applied resulting in 2,667 composite intercepts. The remaining 2,462 intercepts did not have ½ foot data but consisted of composite intercepts interpreted using the half amplitude convention for geophysical log interpretation. Log interpretation and intercepts from the historic database were spot checked especially with regards to higher-grade mineralized intercepts. Correlation of the mineralized sand units was available from historic reports. This historic naming convention for the sand units was maintained. The following table summarizes the mineralized intercepts in the Congo database by sand unit. A summary of mineralization reflected in the drill holes follows.

<br> Page 51 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 14-3. Congo Pit Area General Statistics (Raw Data)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **No Cut-Off (12,070 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **No Cut-Off (12,070 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **No Cut-Off (12,070 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.1 GT Cut-Off (9,454 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.1 GT Cut-Off (9,454 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.1 GT Cut-Off (9,454 samples)** |
|  | **Grade<br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** |
| Min. | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| Lower. Quart. | 0.05 | 2.00 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 2.00 | 0.18 |
| Median | 0.08 | 2.50 | 0.24 | 0.10 | 3.00 | 0.32 |
| Upper Quart. | 0.15 | 4.50 | 0.51 | 0.18 | 5.00 | 0.63 |
| Max. | 5.43 | 35.00 | 46.17 | 5.43 | 35.00 | 46.17 |
| Avg. | 0.13 | 3.71 | 0.49 | 0.15 | 4.13 | 0.61 |
| Std. Deviation | 0.18 | 3.09 | 0.98 | 0.19 | 3.33 | 1.07 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x014.jpg)

**Figure 14-1. GT Histogram for Congo Pit (12,070 Samples)** <br>

<br> Page 52 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 14-4. Congo Pit Area General Statistics (Composited Data)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **No Cut-Off (5,129 samples)** | **No Cut-Off (5,129 samples)** | **No Cut-Off (5,129 samples)** | **0.1 GT Cut-Off (4,533 samples)** | **0.1 GT Cut-Off (4,533 samples)** | **0.1 GT Cut-Off (4,533 samples)** |
|  | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** |
| Min. | 0.030 | 2.0 | 0.06 | 0.030 | 2.0 | 0.10 |
| Lower. Quart. | 0.054 | 2.0 | 0.16 | 0.066 | 2.5 | 0.21 |
| Median | 0.090 | 3.0 | 0.32 | 0.100 | 3.5 | 0.37 |
| Upper Quart. | 0.150 | 5.0 | 0.62 | 0.160 | 5.1 | 0.69 |
| Max. | 5.432 | 5.4 | 46.17 | 5.432 | 5.4 | 46.17 |
| Avg. | 0.146 | 4.1 | 0.60 | 0.152 | 4.4 | 0.67 |
| Std. Deviation | 0.163 | 2.9 | 1.18 | 0.170 | 3.0 | 1.24 |

---

**Table 14-5 Congo Pit Area Statistics by Mineralized Zone**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Zone** | **# Of Composite <br>Intercepts** | **Avg. <br>Thickness (ft.)** | **Avg. Grade <br>(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Avg. GT (Grade <br>x Thickness)** | **Avg. Depth to Bottom <br>of Mineralization** |
| 41A | 213 | 4.4 | 0.176 | 0.77 | 266 |
| 41 | 228 | 3.7 | 0.168 | 0.62 | 298 |
| 45 | 404 | 4.4 | 0.167 | 0.73 | 279 |
| 48 | 435 | 4.2 | 0.152 | 0.63 | 255 |
| 52 | 556 | 4.1 | 0.139 | 0.57 | 268 |
| 54/56 | 407 | 4.2 | 0.149 | 0.63 | 243 |
| 59 | 375 | 3.9 | 0.106 | 0.41 | 196 |
| 63 | 436 | 4.1 | 0.117 | 0.48 | 170 |
| 66 | 456 | 4.3 | 0.134 | 0.57 | 202 |
| 67 | 242 | 3.8 | 0.149 | 0.57 | 209 |
| 72 | 271 | 4.1 | 0.130 | 0.53 | 232 |
| 75 | 233 | 4.0 | 0.129 | 0.52 | 195 |
| 79 | 133 | 3.7 | 0.178 | 0.67 | 204 |
| 83 | 122 | 4.8 | 0.169 | 0.81 | 204 |
| 86 | 50 | 3.5 | 0.131 | 0.46 | 253 |
| 89 | 27 | 4.1 | 0.099 | 0.41 | 176 |
| 94 | 28 | 3.1 | 0.176 | 0.30 | 207 |
| Total | 4616 | 4.0 | 0.143 | 0.57 | 189 |

---

**14.2.2 Sheep Underground**

The Sheep Underground data set is composed of 485 drill holes based on data from 483 historic drill holes and 2 confirmatory drill holes completed in 2005. Of those 485 drill holes only 33 were barren and 452 of the drill holes contained mineralization of at least 0.5 feet of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Within the 452 mineralized drill holes, 3,222 individual intercepts were present. Using the cut-off thickness and grade of 6 feet of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, 549 composites diluted to a minimum thickness of 6 feet were created from the 3,222 individual intercepts. These 549 composited intercepts were then correlated into one of the 17 different mineralized zones based on geologic interpretations. If the composite could not be correlated within a zone it was designated as isolated and its influence in subsequent mineral resource estimation limited. Data summaries follow in Tables 14.5 through Table 14.7. <br>

<br> Page 53 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 14-6 Sheep Underground Area General Statistics (1 of 2)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.02 GT Cut-off (3,222 Samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.02 GT Cut-off (3,222 Samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.02 GT Cut-off (3,222 Samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.3 GT Cut-Off (704 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.3 GT Cut-Off (704 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.3 GT Cut-Off (704 samples)** |
|  | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** |
| Min. | 0.03 | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 0.30 |
| Lower. Quart. | 0.06 | 1.00 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 2.50 | 0.39 |
| Median | 0.08 | 1.50 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 4.00 | 0.53 |
| Upper Quart. | 0.13 | 2.50 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 6.00 | 0.86 |
| Max. | 2.19 | 19.0 | 9.86 | 2.19 | 19.0 | 9.86 |
| Avg. | 0.13 | 2.15 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 4.44 | 0.81 |
| Std. Deviation | 0.11 | 1.89 | 0.50 | 0.18 | 2.70 | 0.87 |

---

**Table 14-7 Sheep Underground Area General Statistics (2 of 2)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.6 GT Cut-off (314 Samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.6 GT Cut-off (314 Samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.6 GT Cut-off (314 Samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.9 GT Cut-Off (165 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.9 GT Cut-Off (165 samples)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.9 GT Cut-Off (165 samples)** |
|  | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** | **Grade <br>(%eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Thickness <br>(ft.)** | **Grade x <br>Thickness (GT)** |
| Min. | 0.07 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.10 | 1.00 | 0.91 |
| Lower. Quart. | 0.15 | 4.00 | 0.72 | 0.17 | 5.50 | 1.12 |
| Median | 0.19 | 6.00 | 0.93 | 0.23 | 6.50 | 1.45 |
| Upper Quart. | 0.29 | 7.50 | 1.49 | 0.31 | 8.50 | 2.01 |
| Max. | 2.19 | 19.0 | 9.86 | 2.19 | 19.0 | 9.86 |
| Avg. | 0.22 | 5.94 | 1.31 | 0.26 | 7.07 | 1.84 |
| Std. Deviation | 0.23 | 2.91 | 1.12 | 0.28 | 3.06 | 1.34 |

---

**Table 14-8 Sheep Underground Area Statistics by Mineralized Zone**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Zone** | **# Of Composite <br>Intercepts** | **Avg. <br>Thickness (ft)** | **Avg. Grade <br>(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | **Avg. GT (Grade <br>x Thickness)** | **Avg. Depth to Bottom <br>of Mineralization** |
| 1 | 8 | 6.6 | 0.07 | 0.46 | 758 |
| 2U | 6 | 6.0 | 0.07 | 0.39 | 1040 |
| 2L | 11 | 6.4 | 0.10 | 0.66 | 878 |
| 3 | 24 | 6.6 | 0.11 | 0.73 | 838 |
| 4 | 50 | 6.8 | 0.12 | 0.82 | 1010 |
| 5 | 37 | 7.8 | 0.14 | 1.09 | 1039 |
| 6 | 35 | 7.3 | 0.15 | 1.12 | 1016 |
| 7 | 40 | 8.2 | 0.20 | 1.62 | 997 |
| 8 | 51 | 7.0 | 0.11 | 0.79 | 1038 |
| 9 | 47 | 7.4 | 0.16 | 1.19 | 957 |
| 10 | 38 | 8.2 | 0.14 | 1.19 | 1151 |
| 11 | 36 | 7.7 | 0.14 | 1.09 | 1173 |
| 12 | 28 | 8.5 | 0.13 | 1.07 | 1214 |
| 13 | 30 | 6.6 | 0.13 | 0.85 | 1313 |
| 14 | 31 | 7.4 | 0.11 | 0.83 | 1349 |
| 15 | 12 | 7.3 | 0.15 | 1.08 | 1354 |
| 16 | 11 | 6.3 | 0.13 | 0.79 | 1252 |
| Isolated | 54 | 6.5 | 0.11 | 0.69 | 1123 |
| Total | 549 | 7.1 | 0.13 | 0.91 | 1089 |

---

<br> Page 54 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x015.jpg)

**Figure 14-2. GT Histogram for Sheep Underground (3,222 Samples)**

Sheep Underground mineralized thickness ranges from 0.5 feet to 19.0 feet. Grade varies from the minimum grade cut-off of 0.03% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> to a maximum reported grade of 2.19% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

Estimated trend width and length were based on the geologic model and actual mine workings as follows. The Sheep typical trend width is approximately 100 feet. The mine maps available for the Sheep area show development drifts, ready for extraction, with widths greater than 100 feet. In the limited areas where full extraction occurred, mined out rooms were 50 feet to 100 feet or in some cases wider. The Sheep trend length varies from a few hundred feet to a maximum length of about 5,500 feet based on correlation of geophysical logs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.3 Statistical Analysis**

**14.3.1 Grade Capping**

The GT contour method naturally limits the extent of high-grade samples by containing its area of influence within a contour. In addition, high-grade samples tend to be thin, and the GT method again limits the extent by a thin high-grade zone having a similar GT to a thick lower-grade zone. No grade capping was done for either the Congo Open Pit Mineral Resource or the Sheep Underground Mineral Resource

<br> Page 55 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.4 Resource Estimation Methods**

**14.4.1 Geologic Model**

Drill spacing within the Project is not uniform due in part to the steep and irregular surface terrain and in part to random drill hole deviation. 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.

In developing the initial geologic envelope, both surface drill data and data from underground mine maps was reviewed. In the case of the Sheep Underground and other underground mines nearby (the Seismic and Reserve mines) and partially within the limits of the planned Congo Pit, the underground development and crosscut drifts were typically on 100-foot centers. Mining within the development drifts and crosscuts was completed by random room and pillar methods, extracting the mineralized material meeting the mine cut-off applicable at the time and leaving the lower grade material as pillars. In most cases entire 100x100 foot or larger blocks were mined and/or, in the case of the Sheep Underground, delineated by face sampling and longhole drilling but not mined.

The current geologic and resource model is in three dimensions based on geologic interpretation of 18 mineralized zones in the Congo area and 17 mineralized zones in the Sheep 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.

**14.4.2 GT Contour Method**

The mineral resource estimate was completed using the Grade x Thickness Contour Method (also known as the GT Method) on individual mineralized zones as defined in a full 3D geological model of the deposit. The GT Method is a well-established approach for estimating uranium resources and has been in use since the 1950s in the U.S. The technique is most useful in estimating tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies where lateral extent of the mineralized body is much greater than its thickness, as was observed in drilling of the Congo and Sheep deposits.

For tabular and roll front style deposits the GT Method provides a clear illustration of the distribution of the thickness and average grade of uranium mineralization. The GT Method is particularly applicable to the Congo and Sheep deposits as it can be effective in reducing the undue influence of high-grade or thick intersections as well as the effects of widely spaced, irregularly spaced, or clustered drill holes, all of which occur to some degree in the Congo and Sheep deposits. This method also makes it possible for the geologist to fit the contour pattern to the geologic interpretation of the deposit.

<br> Page 56 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

The GT Method is used as common practice for Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimates for similar sandstone-hosted uranium projects ("Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves," adopted by CIM November 23, 2003, p. 51). It is the Authors' opinion that the GT Method, when properly constrained by geologic interpretation, provides an accurate estimation of contained pounds of uranium.

**Congo Pit**

Figures 14-3 thru 14-19 - Congo Open Pit, for GT contour maps which show the mineral resource areas and the areas of historic mining for each individual sand.

The 2011 mineral resource estimate grouped sands for the North Gap and South Congo areas in to the five major sand units and calculated the amount of resource removed by historic mining based on a deduction from past production records, BRS, 2011. For this report the North Gap, South Congo, and Congo mineralized zones were combined into a single unified mineral resource model and deletions of resources related to past mining were determined from underground mine maps.

The current mineral resource model includes 18 separate sand units for all areas and includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that falls within the historic mine limits determined from mine maps, which equated to approximately 25% of the initial resource estimate. Historic mining limits were imported into the resource model by individual sand horizons in three dimensions. The extent of mining was taken to be the actual mapped underground mine limit or the GT boundary representing the historical mining cut-off (8 feet at 0.095 or a GT of 0.76), whichever was greatest. Although in many cases the mine maps showed remnant pillars, none of these areas were included in the Mineral Reserve estimate. Thus, the estimate of current Mineral Resources is conservative with respect to the exclusion of areas affected by historic mining.

The Congo sum GT, diluted to a minimum 2-foot mining thickness from the mineralized envelope for each drill hole, was plotted in AutoCAD. If the thickness exceeded 2 feet, no dilution was added. The diluted thickness of mineralization for each drill hole was also plotted. Resource estimates include deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that fall within the historic mine limits as previously discussed.

<br> Page 57 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x016.jpg)

**Figure 14-3. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 94**

<br> Page 58 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x017.jpg)

**Figure 14-4. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 89**

<br> Page 59 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x018.jpg)

**Figure 14-5. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 86**

<br> Page 60 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x019.jpg)

**Figure 14-6. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 83**

<br> Page 61 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x020.jpg)

**Figure 14-7. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 79**

<br> Page 62 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x021.jpg)

**Figure 14-8. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 75**

<br> Page 63 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x022.jpg)

**Figure 14-9. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 72**

<br> Page 64 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x023.jpg)

**Figure 14-10. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 67**

<br> Page 65 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x024.jpg)

**Figure 14-11. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 66**

<br> Page 66 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x025.jpg)

**Figure 14-12. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 63**

<br> Page 67 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x026.jpg)

**Figure 14-13. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 59**

<br> Page 68 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x027.jpg)

**Figure 14-14. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 54-56**

<br> Page 69 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x028.jpg)

**Figure 14-15. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 52**

<br> Page 70 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x029.jpg)

**Figure 14-16. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 48**

<br> Page 71 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x030.jpg)

**Figure 14-17. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 4**

<br> Page 72 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x031.jpg)

**Figure 14-18. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 41**

<br> Page 73 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x032.jpg)

**Figure 14-19. Congo Pit GT Contours - Sand 41A**

<br> Page 74 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Sheep Underground**

Figures 14-20 through Figure 14-36 show the GT contour maps for the Sheep Underground. They are separated into individual sand maps that show mineral resource areas and the areas of historic mining.

The GT, diluted to a minimum 6-foot mining thickness from the mineralized envelope for each drill hole and each horizon, was plotted in AutoCAD™. If the thickness exceeded 6 feet no dilution was added. The diluted thickness of mineralization for each drill hole was also plotted. Mineral resource estimates account for the deletion of mined areas within the resource model estimated from surface drilling. The total reported mined tonnage from the Sheep I underground mine was 275,000 tons containing 522,500 pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and an average grade of 0.095% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. However, the portions of the current mineral resource estimates which were within the defined previously mined area was only an estimated 62,618 tons of material containing 160,666 pounds of eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and an average grade of 0.128% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. From review of the Sheep, I and II as-built mine plans, it was apparent that little or no material was mined at Sheep II and that only development work was completed. Further, it was apparent at the Sheep I mine that many of the mined areas were located by underground delineation drilling rather than by surface drilling. The mine history clearly shows that underground development drilling and sampling expanded the resource as compared to that which could be projected from the surface drilling alone.

For mine planning purposes, a three-dimensional block model was created from the Sheep GT, geologic and mineralized envelope models. The modeling utilized an automated routine that assigned the thickness of mineralization, GT, and mineralized elevation reflected by their respective contours, to the centroids of a uniform 25 x 25-foot (25'x25') grid. From the thickness and GT contours, average grade, mineralized and waste tonnages, and contained pounds was calculated and assigned to each block. Each 25'x25' block was then evaluated based on its grade and thickness for mine planning and scheduling.

<br> Page 75 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x033.jpg)

**Figure 14-20. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 01**

<br> Page 76 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x034.jpg)

**Figure 14-21. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 02U**

<br> Page 77 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x035.jpg)

**Figure 14-22. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 02L**

<br> Page 78 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x036.jpg)

**Figure 14-23. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 03**

<br> Page 79 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x037.jpg)

**Figure 14-24. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 04**

<br> Page 80 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x038.jpg)

**Figure 14-25. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 05**

<br> Page 81 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x039.jpg)

**Figure 14-26. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 06**

<br> Page 82 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x040.jpg)

**Figure 14-27. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 07**

<br> Page 83 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x041.jpg)

**Figure 14-28. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 08**

<br> Page 84 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x042.jpg)

**Figure 14-29. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 09**

<br> Page 85 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x043.jpg)

**Figure 14-30. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 10**

<br> Page 86 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x044.jpg)

**Figure 14-31. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 11**

<br> Page 87 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x045.jpg)

**Figure 14-32. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 12**

<br> Page 88 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x046.jpg)

**Figure 14-33. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 13**

<br> Page 89 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x047.jpg)

**Figure 14-34. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 14**

<br> Page 90 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x048.jpg)

**Figure 14-35. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 15**

<br> Page 91 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x049.jpg)

**Figure 14-36. Sheep Underground GT Contours - Zone 16**

<br> Page 92 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.5 Past Production**

As the Project area was mined by both open pit and underground methods prior to 1988, removal of the resources from those past mining campaigns is necessary. Descriptions of how those resources were removed is detailed in the following sections.

**14.5.1 Congo Open Pit Mine**

This estimate includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that falls within the historic mine limits that equated to approximately 25% of the initial resource estimate. Historic mining limits were imported into the resource model by individual sand horizons in three dimensions. The extent of mining was taken to be the actual mapped underground mine limit or the GT boundary representing the historical mining cut-off (8 feet at 0.095 or a GT of 0.76), whichever was greatest. 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.

EFR independently verified the removal of 25% of the resource by digitizing and triangulating the existing underground workings in 3D using Maptek's Vulcan mining software. Then, mineralized intercepts were flagged as being mined or not mined based on whether or not that intercept intersected the mine workings. Two polygonal resources were then calculated, one using all the drill holes and one that subtracted out the resource associated with the intercepts flagged as being mined. The result was as 26% reduction in resource, or essentially the same as the 25% reduction used in this report.

**14.5.2 Sheep Underground Mine**

This mineral resource accounts for the deletion of mined areas within our resource model estimated from surface drilling. The total reported mined tonnage from the Sheep I underground mine was 275,000 tons containing 522,500 pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and an average grade of 0.095% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. However, the portions of the current mineral resource estimates which were within the defined previously mined area was only an estimated 62,618 tons of material containing 160,666 pounds of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and an average grade of 0.128% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

From review of the Sheep I and II as-built mine plans, it was apparent that little or no material was mined at Sheep II and that only development work was completed. Further, it was apparent at the Sheep I mine that many of the mined areas were located by underground delineation drilling rather than by surface drilling.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**14.6 Classification**

***Measured mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.*

***Indicated mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.*

<br> Page 93 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

***Inferred mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve.*

As is common with uranium deposits, the primary method of assay is by radiometric probe. The probe provides a continuous log of the gamma decay of the daughter products of uranium, which is used along with various calibration constants to calculate the equivalent uranium grade (%eU3O8). The majority of the data used in the estimation of mineral resources at Sheep Mountain is historical radiometric probe data. As the data was not collected by EFR, there may be a level of uncertainty regarding the quality of the radiometric probe data. It is expected that this level of uncertainty is very low. Determining equivalent uranium content by radiometric probe is an industry standard method and has been used by a number of companies over a number of years. Probes are regularly calibrated and operated properly, they are a very reliable method of assay. This is supported by the fact historical resources were based on radiometric probe grades during past mining operations at the project.

The estimation method of GT contours is an industry standard method for flat lying or slightly dipping uranium deposits and has been employed on a number of different uranium deposits across the U.S. The Author has direct knowledge of the Sheep Mountain deposit, having worked there in the past along with a number of other similar uranium mines/deposits in Wyoming. The inputs into the GT contour method are based on a working knowledge of these types of deposits. It is believed that the uncertainty associated with the estimation method is low.

The method of accounting for the previously mined resource beneath the proposed Congo Open Pit Mine poses a level of uncertainty. That level of uncertainty is low as the method used by the Author to calculate the mined out portion of the Mineral Resource are considered conservative. This method was also independently verified by EFR using a different method.

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 NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource.

<br> Page 94 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**15.1 General Statement**

With respect to the open pit mineral reserves, 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.

The following <u>Mineral Reserves are fully excluded in the total and are additive to the Indicated Mineral Resources</u> reported in Section 14.0, Table 14.1. The total Probable Mineral Reserve for the Sheep Mountain Project including both open pit and underground projected mining areas is tabulated below. The Mineral Reserve estimates presented herein have been completed in accordance with NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 standards.

The metal price used in calculating mineral reserves is $65 per pound, which is lower than the price used for mineral resources ($65), since mineral reserves have a higher prospect of economic extraction and can be exploited in the short term.

**Table 15-1 Sheep Mountain Mineral Reserves- April 13, 2012**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**G.T. <br>Cut-off** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons <br>(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade % <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pounds <br>eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **(000s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Probable* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sheep Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Probable* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Congo Pit Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3955 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Indicated** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**7453** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.123%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**18365** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.9** |

---

Notes:

1: NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 definitions were followed for Mineral Reserve

2: In situ Mineral Reserves are estimated at GT cut-off of 0.10 (2 ft. of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for open pit and 0.45 (6 ft. of 0.075% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) for underground

3: Mineral Reserves are estimated using a Uranium price of US$60 per pound

4: Bulk density is 0.0625 tons/ft<sup>3</sup> (16 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)

5: Numbers may not add due to rounding

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**15.2 Congo Pit Conversion of Resources to Reserves**

The following Probable Mineral Reserves for the Congo Pit are fully included in the total Indicated Mineral Resources and are not additive to that total. The Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the Indicated Mineral Resource that is economic under reasonably foreseeable cost and pricing conditions ("modifying factors").

This estimate includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that fall within the historic mine limits. Historic mining limits were imported into the resource model by individual sand horizons in three dimensions. The extent of mining was taken to be the actual mapped underground mine limit or the GT boundary representing the historical mining cut-off (8 feet at 0.095 or a GT of 0.76), whichever was greatest. Although in many cases the mine maps showed remnant pillars, none of these areas were included in the mineral reserve estimate, though the potential exists for these to be mined. Both the estimated mineral resources and mineral reserves were diluted to a minimum mining thickness of two feet. The reported Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the reported Indicated Mineral Resource that is within the current open pit design.

The cut-off grade of 0.05% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> at a minimum mining height of 2 feet equates to a 0.10 GT cut-off. Table 15.1 summarizes the portion of the Congo Pit that is economically mineable and meets the open pit cut-off criteria.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**15.3 Sheep Underground Conversion of Resources to Reserves**

The following Probable Mineral Reserves are fully included in the total Indicated Mineral Resources for the Sheep Underground. The Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the Indicated Mineral Resource that is economic under reasonably foreseeable cost and pricing conditions.

<br> Page 95 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

This estimate includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model which falls within the historic mine limits. Both the estimated Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves were diluted to a minimum mining thickness of six feet. The reported Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the reported Indicated Mineral Resource that is within the current underground mine design.

The cut-off grade of 0.075% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> at a minimum mining height of 6 feet equals a 0.45 GT cut-off. Table 15.1 summarizes the portion of the Sheep I and II Underground Mine that is economically mineable and meets the cut-off criteria.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**15.4 Cut-off Grade**

As the operating cost per ton varies substantially between the open pit and underground it is appropriate to have separate cut-off grade for the two operations. Table 15-2 provides a calculation of breakeven cut-off grades for both the open pit and underground mines based on current cost forecasts and a forward-looking commodity price of $65 per pound of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Costs per ton reflect operating costs only and do not include capital write off. Note that staff and support costs are included in both open pit and underground mining costs. Incremental underground mining costs are solely related to underground mining and mineral processing costs.

**Table 15-2 Breakeven Cut-off Grade**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating <br>Cost $/Ton<sup>1</sup>** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Breakeven Grade%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **at $65/lb. Price** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Approximate <br>Value per Ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metallurgical<br>Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Open Pit Mine and Mineral Processing OPEX | &nbsp;&nbsp;$61.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; $65.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Underground Mine and Mineral Processing OPEX | &nbsp;&nbsp;$102.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; $97.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.9 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Operating Costs include mining costs, support, staff, mineral processing, reclamation, taxes and royalties for open pit mining and underground mining, mineral processing, taxes and reclamation for underground mining.

From this evaluation, and other factors such as minimum mining thickness, the mine design cut-offs were set at or above the minimum breakeven cut-off grades at.

* Open Pit
 
Minimum 2-foot thickness
Minimum grade .05% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>
Minimum GT 0.10

* Underground
 
Minimum 6-foot thickness
Minimum grade 0.075% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>
Minimum GT 0.45<br>

Based on these parameters, the average grade mined from a combined open pit and underground operation is estimated at 0.123% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8.</sub> As mining proceeds, mineralized material encountered below the mine GT cut-off, 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 below calculated breakeven cut-off grades provided the grade would support haulage and mineral processing costs. The mineral reserve as stated herein does not include the potential mineralized material, which may be salvaged, which meets the breakeven grade cut-off but is less than the mine design GT cut-offs.

**15.4.1 Mining and Mineral Processing Recovery Parameters and Sensitivity**

Mineral reserves are that portion of the Indicated Mineral Resource, Section 14.0, which are economically recoverable under reasonably foreseeable cost and pricing conditions. The mineral resource model, the GT contour estimation methodology, and the geologic interpretations, as described in Section 14.0, also apply to the mineral reserve estimate. The key parameters in the conversion of mineral resource to mineral reserves include mine dilution and recovery.

<br> Page 96 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

As previously discussed in Sections 14.0 and 15.0, mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates account for mine dilution. Mine dilution is a function of the mineralized thickness and the mining method and selectivity. With respect to both the Congo Pit and Sheep Underground, selective mining methods and appropriate mining equipment were selected to minimize mine dilution. Mine dilution was assessed by diluting mineralized thicknesses to minimum mining thicknesses, 2 feet for open pit mining and 6 feet for underground mining. Thus, the dilution factor varies with the thickness of mineralization. The sensitivity of estimated costs with respect to mine dilution is further addressed in Section 22.0. A change of 10% in mine grade due to dilution is estimated to affect the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) by 6%. Mine recovery was assessed by the inclusion of only those mineralized zones with adequate thickness, grade, and continuity to be mined. Thin and/or low-grade mineralized zones were excluded from the mineral reserve through the application of dilution to minimum thickness and the subsequent application of GT cut-off. Isolated and/or discontinuous mineralization was excluded from the mineral reserve estimate through the mine planning process. For the Congo Pit an estimated 60% of the mineral resource was converted to a mineral reserve. For the Sheep Underground an estimated 70% of the mineral resource was converted to a mineral reserve. Preliminary mine designs focused on the areas with the strongest and most continuous mineralization and were not optimized for maximum mineral resource extraction. Mineral Resources were included in the mineral resource estimate in areas adjacent to both the Congo pit and Sheep underground, which have reasonable prospects for economic extraction. These areas would be accessible for mining from the open pit highwalls by conventional drift mining or using modern highwall mining systems and through the underground through additional stopping and/or raises. Those portions of the Mineral Resources not readily accessible from either the Congo pit or Sheep underground mine were excluded from the mineral resource estimation as they do not currently meet the criteria for reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction.

Mineral processing recovery is discussed in Section 13.0. Due to the nature of the mineralization whereby the uranium minerals occur as interstitial material between the sand grains, mineral processing commonly results in a rather uniform residual uranium value that remains in the solid material. This loss or "tail" is consistent irrespective of the initial grade. This has been confirmed by column leach testing which showed a constant tail of less than 0.002% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (RDE, 2011). In addition, there are uranium losses related to the recovery of the uranium values from the leach solutions. These "liquid' losses are typically 0.002% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (Woolery, 1978). Thus, based on testing to date an overall loss of 0.004% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> is indicated. However, to provide conservatism in the estimate and to account for potential variations in the mineralized material with respect to the materials tested and overall loss of 0.010% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> was applied. Based on the estimated mine life grade of 0.123% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> this results in an overall mineral processing recovery factor of approximately 92%.

The mining and mineral processing methods and factors recommended in this report have previously been successfully employed at similar projects in the Sheep Mountain area. Successful uranium recovery from the mineralized material at Sheep Mountain and similar areas such as the Gas Hills has been demonstrated via both conventional milling and heap leach recovery. 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 provide substantial revenues to both Fremont County and the State of Wyoming in addition to providing long-term employment for the region.

For these reasons, the Author believes that the Sheep Mountain reserves have a low probability of being affected by risk associated with the modifying factors, which include but are not limited to, mining; processing; metallurgical; infrastructure; economic; marketing; legal; environmental compliance; plans, negotiations or agreements with local individuals or groups; and governmental factors. The author is not aware of any factors including environmental, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other factors, which would materially affect the mineral resource estimate, herein.

<br> Page 97 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**16.0 MINING METHODS**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.1 Introduction**

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the Congo Pit, a proposed open pit development, and the re-opening of the existing Sheep Underground mine.

The open pit is phased in 12 smaller pits over a 12-year production life to facilitate internal backfilling in order to reduce longer haul distances to waste dumps. The average daily production rate of the open pit is 1300 mineralized material tons per day with a strip ratio over the life of mine of 33:1, or an average of 44000 tons per day of waste. The open pit uses backhoes to mine, on average, 4-foot thick mineralized material zones that are stacked in multiple sub-horizontal horizons. Mineralized material is loaded into trucks, while wheel tractor scrapers are used in waste stripping due to the weak nature of the waste rock. Past surface mining operations used this equipment and mining method in the Sheep Mountain and Gas Hills District.

Underground mining at Sheep Mountain averages 1300 mineralized material tons per day, also over a 12-year mine life, using a modified room and pillar mining method sequenced from bottom to top. A twin decline will be developed in the Paydirt open pit and end below the underground deposit. Mineralized material will be hauled using a 36-inch conveyor located in one of the declines to a surface stockpile shared with the open pit operations. An 8,500 foot long surface conveyor belt with take both surface and underground mineralized material to the processing facility.

Although other processing alternatives were considered, the recommended uranium recovery method includes the processing of mined materials via an on-site heap leach facility as discussed in Section 13.0 of this report.

Figure 16.1 depicts the overall project. Mining will be completed by both underground and open pit methods as subsequently described. 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 mined 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.

Personnel requirements are discussed in Sections 5.5 and 21.8

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.2 Mine Productivity and Scheduling**

The project consists of two distinct and independent mining areas, the Congo Open Pit and the Sheep Underground, with common processing on mine material via a heap leach recovery facility. The currently planned mine life of the open pit is 12 years with an additional four years allotted for mine closure and reclamation. The currently planned mine life of the underground is 12 years which includes one year for development and 11 years mine production. The heap leach facility is designed to accommodate the mined material from both open pit and underground mine operations over an operating life compatible with the open pit operations. Referring to the mine production profile in Table 21-1, both the open pit and underground mines are scheduled to end at approximately the same time.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.3 Congo Open Pit**

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

<br> Page 98 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x050.jpg)

**Figure 16-1 Project Overview**

<br> Page 99 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x051.jpg)

**Figure 16-2. McIntosh Pit Circa 2010**

Mountain and Gas Hills districts and includes an average highwall slope of 0.7:1 (horizontal: vertical), which reflects the average of a 10-foot bench width and 50-foot highwall at a 0.5:1 slope.

As depicted in Figure 16.2, the open pit highwalls at the McIntosh pit, built to a similar design some 40 years ago, remain remarkably stable. However, moving forward, geotechnical studies are recommended for final determination of highwall design parameters.

Figure 16.3 displays the general mine sequence and annual limits of mining. Due to the nature and extent of mineralization, the Congo Pit is essentially a single open pit that will be developed sequentially to accommodate the desired mine production and allow for internal backfilling. This sequential schedule and internal backfilling reduces the amount of double-handling of mine waste material required to backfill and reclaim the mined pit during the life of the mine.

The host formation is exposed at the surface and dips between 9 and 16 degrees to the southeast. The initial pit construction will create access from the open pit mine area to the mine waste and stockpile areas. Subsequent pit extensions will utilize this access. Shallow mineralized areas exist along the north and northwest portions of the pit. As a result, the overall mine sequence begins in the areas where the mineralized zones have the least amount of cover and proceeds essentially along formational dip. The first 6 pits are constructed in a panel along the up-dip portion of the deposit and are the shallowest. During this time, the out of pit mine spoils areas will be developed. Subsequent pits will be completed in successive panels proceeding down and along dip, i.e., pits 7 through 10; 11 through 12 which reach the greatest depths. Beginning with pit 7, the great majority of the mine waste will be sequentially backfilled in previous pits.

Detailed Open Pit Mine Sequence drawings follow as Figure 16.4 to Figure 16.15. representing the annual open pit mining sequence for pits 1 through 12, respectively.

<br> Page 100 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x052.jpg)

**Figure 16-3. Congo Pit - Annual Pit Sequence**

<br> Page 101 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x053.jpg)

**Figure 16-4. Congo Pit - Year 01**

<br> Page 102 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x054.jpg)

**Figure 16-5. Congo Pit - Year 02**

<br> Page 103 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x055.jpg)

**Figure 16-6. Congo Pit - Year 03**

<br> Page 104 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x056.jpg)

**Figure 16-7. Congo Pit - Year 04**

<br> Page 105 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x057.jpg)

**Figure 16-8. Congo Pit - Year 05**

<br> Page 106 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x058.jpg)

**Figure 16-9. Congo Pit - Year 06**

<br> Page 107 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x059.jpg)

**Figure 16-10. Congo Pit - Year 07**

<br> Page 108 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x060.jpg)

**Figure 16-11. Congo Pit - Year 08**

<br> Page 109 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x061.jpg)

**Figure 16-12. Congo Pit - Year 09**

<br> Page 110 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x062.jpg)

**Figure 16-13. Congo Pit - Year 10**

<br> Page 111 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x063.jpg)

**Figure 16-14. Congo Pit - Year 11**

<br> Page 112 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x064.jpg)

**Figure 16-15. Congo Pit - Year 12**

<br> Page 113 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Historic underground mine workings will be encountered during open pit operations. In order to ensure the safety of surface mine personnel, underground workings will be identified prior to surface mining in a given area by the Engineering department, with access to the digital 3D modeling of the underground mines based on the historic underground mine mapping. Underground workings identified in this way will be uncovered during the pit excavation by the use of a mining crew using a medium sized excavator, medium sized dozer and in-pit drill, all overseen by a field engineer. The basic procedure for this process will be to locate shallow underground zones below the pit floor based upon the mine mapping and backfill waste into the mine voids. This may be achieved by over-excavating around the voids and dumping in-pit waste into them or using the in-pit drilling equipment to drill into the workings and blast overlying waste rock into the cavities. Additional assistance in location of the voids may be provided by shallow seismic testing.

Based upon site relief in the Congo area, surface water inflow can be kept out of the pit by ditching around the highwall crest and day-lighting the runoff to offsite drainages. In addition to controlling surface water runoff, the ditching will serve as a safety berm to prevent access to the highwall. All offsite drainage will meet the requirements of the WYPDES permit, including appropriate sediment control measures. Excess groundwater inflow in the pit will be used as a part of the daily operation of the pit for dust control on haul roads or consumed at the processing facility.

With respect to ground water, current data indicates that ground water flow will average less than 150 gpm and will not be encountered until pit 7.

Equipment cycle times have been estimated for both stripping and mining using the specific haulage profile for each pit. Based on these estimates, both the stripping and mining can be accomplished in a single 10-hour daily shift, 5 days per week. This is desirable to accommodate the mining of multiple dipping mineralized zones which will be encountered. The proposed primary stripping fleet consists of four 637 CAT twin engine scrapers paired with four 631 CAT single engine scrapers in a push-pull configuration. Both stripping and mining equipment will be supported by dozers and motor graders. The nominal capacity of this configuration is capable of excavation and placement of 11.0 million tons of waste and 330,000 tons of mineralized material on an annual basis over the open pit life of mine.

Surface mining will be completed in a selective manner with a 2-3 cubic-yard bucket on a medium-size excavator loading four articulated mine haul trucks. The mining crew is projected to have excess annual capacity and will thus be responsible for handling the majority of the internal mine waste and an additional 845,000 tons of material per year. This increases the annual stripping capacity. Table 16-1 summarizes the open pit mining fleet.

In-pit grade control will be a critical aspect of the project. This type of sandstone hosted uranium deposit may exhibit local variability in grade and thickness, and potentially variable radiometric equilibrium conditions. To address these conditions, minimize mine dilution, and maximize mine extraction: a tiered systematic grade control program is essential. The following describes the grade control program.

* Tier 1, Radiometric Scanning: Field personnel equipped with calibrated hand-held gamma meters will be assigned to both the stripping and mining crews.

* Tier 2, In-Pit Assay: A portable sample trailer equipped with a portable x-ray fluorescence ("XRF") assay instrument, and appropriate sample preparation equipment will be located in the pit. Mine trucks will be sampled with an auger system; the samples prepped and assayed; and trucks will then be directed to deliver the material to the stockpile or mine waste area depending on the results of the assay. 

* Tier 3, Quality Control: As each mine truck is sampled and tested, the field assay sample rejects will be collected and separated by grade ranges. The daily pit samples will be blended and split to provide representative samples which will in turn be assayed at the plant laboratory. The plant lab will assay both solid and liquid samples and will be subject to an outside and/or third-party quality control system.

<br> Page 114 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 16-1 Open Pit Mining Equipment List**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Major Equipment\*** | **Number** | **Capacity/ Load Factor** |
| 336 Excavator | 1 | 2 to 3 cy |
| 345 Excavator | 1 | 4½ cy |
| 16M CAT Motor Grader | 1 | 16 ft blade |
| 140 CAT Motor Grader | 1 | 12 ft blade |
| D-6 LGP dozer | 1 | For Heap |
| D-8T CAT Track Dozer | 1 | 12.9 ft blade |
| D-9T CAT Track Dozer | 1 | 14.2 ft blade |
| D-10T CAT Track Dozer | 1 | 17.3 ft blade |
| A30D Volvo Articulated Truck | 4 | 32 tons/load |
| 980 CAT Wheel Loader | 1 | 6 cy |
| 637 CAT Twin Engine Scraper | 4 | 29 cy/load |
| 631G CAT Scraper | 4 | 29 cy/load |
| Water truck 3,000 gallons | 1 | 3,000 gal |
| Water truck 8,000 gallons | 1 | 8,000 gal |
| **Mine Support vehicles** |  |  |
| Fuel/lube truck | 1 |  |
| Mechanical service truck | 1 |  |
| Rubber tire backhoe CAT 414 | 1 |  |
| Pickup trucks, 4WD, ¾-ton | 8 |  |

---

\*Specific equipment as specified or equivalent.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**16.4 Sheep Underground**

The Sheep Underground mine has operated as a conventional underground mine on three separate occasions. No reports of adverse ground conditions, flooding, cave-ins or any other unusual mining conditions are known to EFR. The historic mining method was a modified room and pillar method using conventional techniques. Jacklegs were used to drill out the rounds and underground track haulage was used to transport the mined material to Shaft No. 1.

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 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. The deposit is comprised of 16 mineralized zones with a total thickness of approximately 350 feet. The deposit will be mined primarily from bottom to top.

Sheep Underground mining method summary:

* Development drifts will utilize dual openings. 10 by 15-foot openings will be used for haulage, and 8 by 10-foot openings will be used for transportation and ventilation.

* Mining panels will utilize multiple entries depending on the width of the zone. Entries will be approximately 12 feet wide, minimum of 6 feet high and averaging 7 feet high. 

<br> Page 115 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

* Crosscuts will be placed on 100-foot centers.

* Mining will be completed by advance and retreat methods.

* Advance mining is accomplished by driving approximately 12 by 7-foot drifts within zones meeting cut-off grade. Multiple drifts will be driven parallel to one another with crosscuts on 100-foot centers. The parallel drifts will be 27 feet apart on centerline. 

* This will leave a pillar with a dimension of approximately 15 feet wide and 90 feet long. On retreat mining, these pillars are removed if they meet cut-off grade. 

* Ventilation will be provided by two 500 HP exhaust fans at Sheep No. 1 Shaft and Sheep No. 2 Shaft assisted by multiple portable face fans. Ventilation requirements for this mine are approximately 220,000 cubic feet of air per minute. Fresh air must be directed across each of the working faces and through the drifts designed for personnel transport.

* Mine ventilation, which meets standards for removal of diesel emissions, will also provide adequate ventilation for radon gas given the anticipated mining grades.

* Blasting of the rock, both for development and mining, will be done by drilling 8 to 12-foot blast holes using jumbo drilling rigs and filling the blast holes with ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil). 

* Haulage from the working faces to the haulage conveyor or to the loading chutes will utilize 4 cubic yard scoop trams that load, haul and dump mined product.

* Mined product will be hauled through development drifts directly to the decline or to two loading chutes to transport the mined product to the decline. The decline will be equipped with a 36-inch conveyor that will take the mined product and waste, when necessary, to the surface. Haulage drifts will be kept as level as practicable, not exceeding ten percent grades.

* The roof and sidewalls in the drifts, both mining and development, will be supported with rock bolts and wire mesh. A rock-bolting machine that can drill holes both vertically and horizontally will place the rock bolts on approximately four-foot centers as the drifts advance. There will be overlap of bolting and wire mesh between each round to ensure proper ground control coverage. 

* Boreholes to construct loading chutes or to aid in ventilation will be drilled using raised boring methods. 

* Waste rock, whenever possible, will be placed in mined out workings to minimize haulage of hauling the mined waste to the surface. When it is not possible, the waste will be taken to the surface where it will be stockpiled for final reclamation.

* Ground Support will, in addition to bolting and meshing, include:
 
In areas that do not have mineralized zones directly above them temporary support will be placed such as timbers or concrete cylinders, and the pillars will be removed allowing the roof to ultimately fail.
In areas with mineralized pods directly overhead, the adjoining rooms will be backfilled using a cemented backfill. The backfill will be a combination of waste rock mixed with three and one-half percent cement and three and one-half percent fly ash. This backfill will exceed the strength of the native rock and prevent the roof from failing and diluting the mineralized pods above them.

The planned location of the new decline in relation to the existing workings is shown on Figure 16.6. This figure is also an index map for the annual underground mine sequence maps that follow. Figures 16.17 through Figure 16.27 show the annual development and mining sequence for through eleven years of planned mining. Table 16-2 summarizes the underground mine fleet.

<br> Page 116 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x065.jpg)

**Figure 16-16. Sheep Underground Overview Map**

<br> Page 117 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x066.jpg)

**Figure 16-17. Sheep Underground - Year 01**

<br> Page 118 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x067.jpg)

**Figure 16-18. Sheep Underground - Year 02**

<br> Page 119 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x068.jpg)

**Figure 16-19. Sheep Underground - Year 03**

<br> Page 120 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x069.jpg)

**Figure 16-20. Sheep Underground - Year 04**

<br> Page 121 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x070.jpg)

**Figure 16-21. Sheep Underground - Year 05**

<br> Page 122 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x071.jpg)

**Figure 16-22. Sheep Underground - Year 06**

<br> Page 123 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x072.jpg)

**Figure 16-23. Sheep Underground - Year 07**

<br> Page 124 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x073.jpg)

**Figure 16-24. Sheep Underground - Year 08**

<br> Page 125 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x074.jpg)

**Figure 16-25. Sheep Underground - Year 09**

<br> Page 126 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x075.jpg)

**Figure 16-26. Sheep Underground - Year 10**

<br> Page 127 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x076.jpg)

**Figure 16-27. Sheep Underground - Year 11**

**Table 16-2 Underground Mining Equipment List**

<br> Page 128 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Major Equipment** | **Number** | **Capacity/ Load Factor** |
| Model Boomer S1L Face Drill | 4 | 74 HP-1xBOOM |
| Model Boomer 104 Face Drill | 1 | 74 HP-1xBOOM |
| Model Boomer S1D-DH Face Drill | 1 | 74 HP-1xBOOM |
| Model Boltec SL Bolter | 7 | 40 HP-1xBOOM |
| Model Boltec 235 Bolter | 2 | 97 HP-1xBOOM |
| Model ST7LP Scooptram | 4 | 4 CY |
| Model ST7 Scooptram | 2 | 4 CY |
| **Mine Support vehicles** |  |  |
| Powder Buggies | 2 | 129 HP |
| Bobcat Skidsteer | 3 | 3,200 lb. Lift |
| Utility Truck - Flatbed | 1 | N/A |
| Scissor Truck | 8 | N/A |
| Man trips | 6 | N/A |
| Pickup trucks, 4WD, ¾-ton | 8 | N/A |
| Fuel/lube truck | 1 | N/A |
| Mechanical service truck | 1 | N/A |
| Forklift | 1 | N/A |

---

<br> Page 129 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**17.0 RECOVERY METHODS**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.1 Introduction**

The uranium recovery method at the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is conventional heap leaching, a process identical to that applied globally for the last five decades to the oxidized ores of copper and gold. This process embodies an oxidant to mobilize uranium minerals from the mined material stacked on the heap pad and dilute sulfuric acid to dissolve the uranium. The uranium-enriched solution is pumped to a recovery plant (mill) for purification and concentration of the uranium to a saleable product, using solvent extraction and precipitation systems. Over a 12 year mine life, the heaps will recover an average of 1.4 million pounds of U3O8 annually.

Uranium recovery at Sheep Mountain will include the following processes:

* stacking of mined material on the heap leach pad.

* application of leach solution.

* collection of pregnant leach solution ("PLS").

* filtering of sand and fines from PLS.

* solvent extraction to concentrate and purify the extracted uranium.

* precipitation of uranium oxide, or yellowcake.

* washing, drying, packaging, storage and loading of yellowcake product.

* management of process solid and liquid waste and bleed streams; and

* in-place reclamation of all "byproduct material," within the meaning of Section11e. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended hereinafter referred to as (11e. (2)), in a double lined disposal cell, which will include the existing lined heap leach pad and the Raffinate and Collection Ponds.

The uranium recovery or "milling" process equipment will be housed in several buildings within the proposed mill boundary. All solvent extraction processing and equipment will be located within the SX Plant to isolate potential fire hazards associated with the organic solutions. Yellowcake processing, including precipitation, washing, drying, packaging, storage, and loading will be located outside the Process Plant In separate buildings to minimize contamination. Reagent storage and distribution systems will be located within or near the process buildings. Ancillary buildings will be provided for gender-separate change rooms, for radiometric scanning of incoming and departing personnel, and for operations such as yellowcake drying and packaging that have an elevated potential, for exposure of personnel to radionuclides.

Processing, or "milling," begins as crushed uranium-bearing material that is stacked on the double-lined heap leach pad using covered belt conveyors and a covered radial arm stacking ("RAS") belt conveyor as depicted on Figure 17-1. The material is stacked to a height of 20 feet, forming a "lift." A protective layer of gravel is placed on top of the lift to mitigate fugitive dust and transport of radionuclide particulates from the heap. A drip irrigation system using conventional plastic piping is then installed on top of the completed lift, and the heap is ready for the application of an acidic leaching solution.

Figure 17.2 depicts the general flow of solutions and uranium within the heap and recovery plant. The process begins with pumping the leach solution from the Raffinate Pond to the top of the heap where it is applied using drip emitters. The leach solution consists of water, an oxidizing agent, such as sodium chlorate, to convert the uranium to a soluble U+6 valence state; and a complexing agent, sulfuric acid, to complex and solubilize the uranium. The heap leaching process yields a PLS containing a mixture of uranyl trisulfate ("UTS") and uranyl disulfate ("UDS"). PLS percolates through the stacked material via gravity drainage, is intercepted by the pad's liner system, and flows into a network of perforated pipes which drain by gravity into the collection pond. The PLS is then pumped from the collection pond into a clarifier tank where suspended particulates settle and are collected into a sludge that is pumped to a disposal pond. The clarified PLS is then filtered to remove the remaining very fine particulate matter and pumped to the solvent extraction ("SX") plant, where the uranium is recovered using organic ion exchange. The resulting uranium-depleted aqueous solution, called barren leach solution or "raffinate," flows by gravity from the SX Plant to the raffinate pond. This raffinate is fortified with acid, oxidant, and make-up water and is pumped back to the heap in a continuous cycle. From the SX Plant, uranium-rich strip

<br> Page 130 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x077.jpg)

**Figure 17-1. Typical Heap Leach Schematic**

solution is sent to the Process Plant for precipitation of yellowcake. The precipitated yellowcake is then washed, dried, and packaged into sealed 55-gallon drums for shipment. Yellowcake is shipped via truck to an enrichment facility in regular shipments approximately once every two weeks.

To prevent buildup of undesirable ionic species in the circulating leach solution, a bleed stream representing a small, calculated fraction of the total leach solution flow is removed from the circuit. The bleed stream is sent to the holding pond for interim storage and transfer to the disposal pond. The bleed stream and other liquid wastes are concentrated by evaporation to a sludge that either remains in the holding pond or is spread on spent portions of the heap leach pad.

The application, collection, stripping, and re-application of the leach solution is a continuous process. The mined material remains on the heap leach pad throughout primary leaching, resting of the mined material between leach solution applications, secondary leaching, potential rinsing, and final drain down prior to closure. Only after the mined material is drained does it become a waste product under current regulatory definitions.

<br> Page 131 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x078.jpg)

**Figure 17-2. Heap Leach Process Block Flow Diagram**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**17.2 Site Layout and Construction**

The general site layout and construction requirements for the heap leach and processing facility are shown on Figure 17-3. The construction costs related to the heap leach and processing facility are included in the capital cost estimate summarized in Section 21.

The initial heap leach pad area is approximately 40 acres, which is subdivided into cells that can be loaded with up to three lifts of approximately 20 feet in height or a total of 60 feet. Each lift will be separated with an interim liner and drainage system (Figure 17-3 and Figure 17.4). The stacking rate for individual lifts will depend on the variable mine production rates. The initial 40-acre heap leach pad has adequate space to accommodate approximately 1/2 of the total mined material. In year 6, an additional 40-acre pad will need to be constructed. This can be operated in the same manner as the initial heap pad or used to offload spent heap material from the initial heap pad to allow its continued use. The additional 40-acre expansion is proximate to the initial heap pad as shown on Figure 17.4.

Reclamation and decommissioning of the Sheep Mountain Project uranium recovery facility generally will consist of decommissioning the Process Plant, the SX Plant, ancillary facilities, and the holding pond, and placing the associated 11e. (2) byproduct material within the on-site disposal cell. The lined portions of the collection pond, raffinate pond, and heap leach pad will become the disposal cell for long-term isolation and stabilization of all liquid and solid 11e. (2) byproduct material associated with the planned operations. The proposed Source Materials License Area and other areas potentially affected by licensed operations will be assessed and remediated to meet appropriate release criteria, and the disposal cell will be capped with an approved cover to ensure compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 40.

<br> Page 132 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

After the heap leach pad area has been completely filled and leaching, potential rinsing and potential treatment and subsequent drainage have been completed, spent heap materials (now tailings) will be graded to their final configuration. Any 11e. (2) byproduct material, including material from plant decommissioning, liner from the Holding Pond, and any other 11e. (2) byproduct materials requiring disposal will be appropriately sized and placed within the lined disposal cell prior to completing the reclamation cover. The final cover will consist of a clay-based radon barrier, a gravel/cobble capillary break, bio intrusion and freeze/thaw protection layer, and a rip rap erosion protection layer. This final reclamation cover is designed to be a zero-water balance cover using vegetation as a planned component of the cover water balance. The final reclamation plans are shown on Figure 17.5 in plan view and in Figure 17.6 in cross sectional view.

Costs for decommissioning and reclamation of the heap and mineral processing facilities are incorporated into the operating costs estimate, Section 21.

Detailed estimates of capital and operating expenses were completed (Lyntek, 2012) and have been updated to.2021 costs The following is a summary of the operating requirements for energy, water, and consumable materials for the entire mineral processing facility. Process water and electrical power are currently available on site and are adequate to serve the planned operations.

* Electrical Power - Operation of the heap leach, conveyor system, solution processing plant, yellowcake drying and packaging facility, and all related appurtenances is estimated to consume approximately 600 kilowatts per hour (kW/hr.) or approximately 5 million kW per year.

* Water demand - At full capacity, the mineral processing facility will require an average flow rate of 360 gallons per minute (gpm). However, the majority of the flow is recirculated, resulting in an estimated net water demand of 135 gpm. Process water will be provided from dewatering of the underground mine.

* The largest single consumable for mineral processing is sulfuric acid. Consumption of sulfuric acid is estimated at 30 pounds per ton. At the peak production of 660,000 tons per year this equates to approximately 10,000 tons of sulfuric acid per year. Sulfuric acid is available from an acid plant located in Riverton, Wyoming approximately 60 road miles from the site.

* Personnel requirements are discussed in Sections 5.5 and 21.8.

<br> Page 133 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x079.jpg)

**Figure 17-3. Heap Leach Initial Site Layout**

<br> Page 134 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x080.jpg)

**Figure 17-4. Heap Leach Year 08 Expansion**

<br> Page 135 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x081.jpg)

**Figure 17-5. Heap Leach Reclamation Cover**

<br> Page 136 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x082.jpg)

**Figure 17-6. Heap Leach Reclamation Cover Cross-Section (A-A')**

<br> Page 137 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**18.0 INFRASTRUCTURE**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.1 Introduction**

All necessary utilities and general infrastructure for the planned project are either currently available on site or can readily be established. Existing infrastructure is depicted on Figure 18-1.

All planned mining, mineral processing, and related activities are located within the existing Mine Permit 381C which is held by EFR. These lands are adequate for all planned mining operations including the disposal of mine mineral processing wastes and/or tailings.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.2 Rights of Way** 

Right of Way applications for an overhead power line and mine dewatering pipeline utility corridor from the heap facility area (located on private land) to the Sheep I and Sheep II shafts have been approved, and the right of ways have been granted under BLM Grants WYW168211 and WYW168212. The main water supply pipeline for the plant will be located on private lands from either the McIntosh Pit or Sheep underground to the plant site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.3 Power and Utilities**

Telephone, electric and natural gas service are available at the site and were upgraded in 2011 to provide the required service for the planned project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.4 Process Water**

With respect to mine and mineral processing operations, the mineral processing facility will operate at an average flow rate of 360 gpm. However, the majority of the flow is recirculated resulting in an estimate net water demand of 135 gpm. The largest consumptive use of water on the project will be for dust control for the open pit, hauls roads, stockpile areas, and the conveyor system. This use is estimated to average 150 gpm over a 9-month period or 100 gpm on an annual basis. Thus, the total water use is estimated at 235 gpm. Dewatering at the Sheep Underground mine produces approximately 200 gpm, based on past production records. In addition, dewatering of the Congo Open pit requires an estimated 150 gpm beginning in year seven and extending to the end of mining. Thus, approximately 350 gpm of water will be produced by the mines, which is adequate for the planned operations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.5 Site Access** 

Primary access to the site is provided via an existing county road. This road is designated as an industrial access corridor by the BLM in their current Resource Management Plan ("RMP"). The county road provides access to within one mile of the site from which there is an existing private gravel road to the site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.6 Mine Support Facilities** 

Mine support facilities will consist of an office, mine shop and warehouse, and a dry facility. In consideration of the remoteness of the site and the potential for hazardous winter driving conditions, emergency stores of non-perishable food and water will be kept on-site along with portable cots should it be necessary for personnel to remain on-site during such conditions.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**18.7 Public Safety and Facility Maintenance** 

Access to the site will be controlled by fencing where appropriate at the Mine Permit 381C boundary and internally at the Radiation Control boundary. Initial public access to the mine and heap leach facility will be controlled through a single entrance with a guard shack manned during operating hours and gated at all other times. The mine facility will be regulated by MSHA and the State Mine Inspectors Office. Any persons wishing to enter the facility will be required to complete safety training as required by regulations and be equipped with appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) depending on which areas they wish to enter.

<br> Page 138 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

The heap leach processing facility is internal to the mine permit and will be enclosed by additional fencing. As with the main entrance to the project, the entrance to the radiation control area will be protected by a guard shack manned during operating hours and gated at all other times. In addition to confirming safety training, all visitors accessing the radiation control area will be subject to radiometric scanning prior to entering the area and prior to leaving the area. All visitors and personnel will have to pass the scan out procedure prior to leaving the facility.

Fire and emergency services are available from Fremont County and Jeffery City. The site is registered with emergency services and emergency contact numbers are posted at the mine office.

<br> Page 139 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

![](exhibit99-2x083.jpg)

**Figure 18-1 Existing Infrastructure Map**

<br> Page 140 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**19.0 MARKET STUDIES**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**19.1 Uranium Market and Price**

Uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed since buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC, and Trade Tech, LLC. As a result, an accepted mining industry practice is to use "Consensus Prices" obtained by collating publicly available commodity price forecasts from credible sources. EFR has not begun any negotiations of any contracts to develop the property, including those associated with uranium sales, which is appropriate for a project at this level of development.

Figure 19-1 and Figure 19-2 provides a Long Term Uranium Price Forecast through 2039 from TradeTech LLC ("TradeTech") from 2021. The Forward Availability Model (FAM 1 and 2) forecast differ in assumptions as to how future uranium supply enters the market. "FAM 1 represents a good progression of planned uranium projects incorporating some delays to schedules, while FAM 2 assumes restricted project development because of an unsupportive economic environment." Currently most US producers are in a mode of care and maintenance and numerous facilities globally are also slowing or shutting in production at least on a temporary basis. At this time in the US, no new projects are being constructed, and very few are moving forward with permitting and/or licensing. This condition aligns more with the FAM 2 projections.

![](exhibit99-2x084.jpg)

<br> Page 141 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Figure 19-1 TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM1 (Nominal US$)**

![](exhibit99-2x085.jpg)

**Figure 19-2 TradeTech Uranium Market Price Projections- FAM1 (Nominal US$)**

Term forecasts beginning 2025 or later and extending into the future are considered the most reasonable for purposes of this report, as they consider the effects of prices on future existing and new production. In addition, larger projects are typically supported by long-term contracts with investment-grade nuclear utilities. Therefore, term prices are most appropriate for purposes of this report.

Based on the foregoing, the planned production from the project is projected to occur when the price projections under the assumption of FAM 2 are generally in excess of $65 per pound uranium oxide. EFR recommends the use of a long-term uranium price of $65.00 per pound uranium oxide as a base case for the project with the inclusion of an economic analysis including a sensitivity analysis of commodity price in the range of $50 to $70 per pound as presented in Section 22.0. The breakeven price of uranium oxide for the project based on the foregoing assumptions and preliminary mine limits is $51.51 per pound.

By their nature, all commodity price assumptions are forward-looking. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

<br> Page 142 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

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

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.1 Introduction**

Uranium mining at Sheep Mountain occurred from the mid-1950s through 1982, with only short periods of intermittent mining occurring since 1982. Both random room-and-pillar underground and open-pit surface mining methods were employed. In 1973, the State of Wyoming passed the Environmental Quality Act, which required mining operations to reclaim the land after the conclusion of mining. A substantial amount of reclamation has since been performed at the property by mining companies and by the WDEQ's Abandoned Mine Land Division ("AML"). WDEQ/AML is responsible for reclaiming mining activities that predate the implementation of the 1973 Act. Because of the intensive mining that has occurred over the years, most of the property has experienced surface disturbance and mining related impacts.

The Sheep Mountain Project is situated on a mixture of private fee land with federal mineral rights, federal land and minerals administered by the BLM, and State Trust lands with state-owned minerals administered by the WDEQ/LQD. The Sheep Mountain Project is permitted under an existing Mine Permit 381C, which is held by EFR and administered by the WDEQ/LQD. The original mine permit for the project was issued by the WDEQ/LQD in 1975 to Western Nuclear, Inc. The permit has been amended six times and remains active and in good standing. Initial environmental baseline studies for this Mine Permit were completed in the 1970s and early 1980s. Because of this mixture of land and mineral ownership, a number of state and federal agencies are involved in the permitting and licensing of this project. The WDEQ/LQD is the lead agency for the State, though other State agency approvals are necessary. The primary federal agencies involved include the BLM and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). In addition, County approvals for construction are also required.

BLM and Wyoming have established a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that allows WDEQ/LQD to issue the Mine Permit for both State and BLM lands while the BLM administers the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") for activities and impacts to the federal lands based on a PoO prepared by the permittee. The BLM also comments on the mining, milling and reclamation activities proposed in the Mine Permit and Source and Byproduct Materials License applications.

This proposed mineral processing facility will consist of a heap leach operation and uranium processing facility that will produce a final product of yellow cake for shipment. The mineral processing facility will require a combined Source Materials and Byproduct Materials License through the State of Wyoming, which became an NRC Agreement State in September 2018.

This section provides a summary of the environmental studies conducted at the site, the proposed operating plans, state and federal permitting requirements for the project, potential social or community relations requirements, and the proposed mine closure and reclamation plans. With the exception of the combined Source and Byproduct Materials License through the State of Wyoming, all major permits have been obtained for the project and the risk in obtaining the remaining License for the heap leach facility is relatively low as the project has strong local support and there are no identified environmental issues that would materially affect project permitting.

No potential social or community related requirements, negotiations, and/or agreements are known to exist with local communities and/or agencies other than those discussed herein.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.1 Environmental Studies**

Initial environmental baseline studies for this Mine Permit were completed in the 1970s and early 1980s. EFR has conducted additional baseline studies from 2010 through the present time. Baseline studies include land use characterization, culture resource surveys, meteorology and air monitoring, geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and radiology. These studies, which are summarized below, are being performed to the level of detail and quality typically required by state and federal agencies.

<br> Page 143 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.2 Land Use**

The Sheep Mountain Project is situated in steep terrain, ranging in elevation from 6,600 feet to 8,000 feet. Wildlife density and diversity is limited due to the sparse vegetation and lack of tree overstory over most of the property. The project is remote with only one residence located within 1.5 miles of the project boundary. Land use within the Mine Permit boundary is limited to the permitted mining and exploration activities, livestock grazing under BLM grazing leases and seasonal hunting. Livestock grazing and hunting access will be restricted within the Mine Permit boundary during the proposed project lifecycle. However, the area removed from hunting and grazing represents a minute fraction of the available hunting and grazing area within the region and is not anticipated to have a significant impact on either land use. No land use impacts outside the Mine Permit Boundary are anticipated.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.3 Cultural Resource Surveys**

Cultural resource surveys were conducted on the land within the mine permit boundary. The scope for each of these studies was developed in consultation with BLM archaeologists. No enrolled or eligible National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") cultural properties were found within the permit boundary. The closest NRHP eligible sites to the project are the Crooks Gap Stage Station and the Rawlins-to-Fort Washakie Road located outside the Mine Permit area. BLM has determined that the visual setting is not a contributing factor to these NRHP sites. Therefore, the project is not expected to materially impact either of these NRHP sites.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.4 Meteorology and Air Monitoring**

The Sheep Mountain Project falls within the intermountain semi-desert weather province. EFR installed a 10-meter-tall meteorological station directly down-wind of the proposed mineral processing facility in August of 2010 and has operated this station continuously since that time in accordance with EPA and NRC/WDEQ guidance.

EFR has also installed nine air monitoring stations around the project area. These monitoring stations include high volume air samplers that collect radio-particulates, Track Etch cups that detect radon, and Thermoluminescent Dosimeters ("TLDs") that record direct gamma radiation. The meteorological and air quality data have been used to support air quality permitting and will be used to support licensing of the proposed mineral processing facility with the State of Wyoming.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.5 Geology**

The project sits within a southeast plunging synclinal fold with the Battle Springs Formation comprising the uppermost geologic unit. It is underlain sequentially by the Fort Union Formation and Cody Shale, which extend several thousand feet below the site. The Mineral Reserves and Resources are hosted by the Battle Springs Formation. The geologic conditions have been sufficiently characterized to support the proposed permitting activities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.6 Hydrology**

Surface water within the Mine Permit area is comprised of ephemeral drainages that flow only in response to snow melt and seasonal, high-intensity rainfall events. These ephemeral drainages drain to the west from Sheep Mountain into Crooks Creek, a locally perennial creek that flows south to north and is located approximately ½ mile west of the mine permit boundary. In addition, non-flowing surface water is present on the site in the McIntosh Pit, and seasonally in permitted storm water retention structures. Both flowing and non-flowing surface water quality and quantity have been characterized through multiple years of regular sampling and flow gauging.

<br> Page 144 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Groundwater within the Mine Permit boundary exists within the synclinal fold of the Battle Spring Formation and Fort Union Formation and is bounded by the Cody Shale, which acts as a local aquiclude to vertical groundwater migration. Groundwater in the uppermost aquifer, hosted predominantly by the Battle Spring Formation, has been well characterized over more than 20 years spanning active mining, a long post-mining period and current annual monitoring. New monitoring wells have been installed in the areas proposed for mining and mineral processing. Collected groundwater quality data is representative of a full cycle of active mining and mine reclamation. No substantial changes to groundwater quality are anticipated from subsequent cycles of mining and reclamation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.7 Soils and Vegetation**

Detailed soil and vegetation surveys were performed in 2010-2011 to update the 1980 data presented in the original Mine Permit. No Threatened and Endangered ("T&E") plant species were encountered on the study area during the 1980 field investigations or in the 2010-2011 surveys. One BLM-sensitive plant species, Pinus flexilus ("Limber Pine") is present within the affected area as well as the control area. Any mitigation measures associated with this species are expected to be minimal. Two wetlands were located and mapped during the 2010-2011 surveys within the project area. However, they are located in the southeast corner of the project area near an unnamed pond where no surface disturbance is proposed. These wetlands are isolated and are likely non-jurisdictional.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.8 Wildlife**

Wildlife surveys were performed in 2010 and 2011 to update the earlier studies presented in the existing Mine Permit. These studies include raptor surveys, Sage Grouse surveys, small and large mammal surveys, and fish surveys in local ponds. The proposed disturbances are outside the Sage Grouse Core Area designated by the State of Wyoming as well as crucial winter range for large game species. No T&E wildlife species were observed or are expected to occur within the permit area and no BLM sensitive species that warrant special attention were identified in site surveys. In summary, no wildlife management issues, or conflicts have been identified that would preclude the proposed mining and milling activities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.9 Radiology**

Radiological surveys of the project area, as required by NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, have been performed at the project site. These include gamma radiation surveys, soil radium-226 concentration mapping, ambient gamma dose rate and radon monitoring, air radio-particulate monitoring, radon flux measurements, as well as soil and sediment, groundwater, surface water, vegetation, and animal tissue sampling (cattle and fish) for radionuclides. The radiological survey results reflect the elevated baseline conditions present at the site due to natural mineralization and previous mining disturbances. The radiological surveys have been conducted in accordance with the precision, accuracy and quality assurance guidelines recommended by the NRC.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.10 Operating Plans**

The operating plans for the Congo Open Pit, Sheep Underground, and the heap leach and processing plant are described in detail in other sections of this report. Monitoring and reporting of air, ground water, surface water, reclamation and other mitigation measures will continue throughout the life of the project.

Health and safety at the mines will be primarily regulated through the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration or MSHA.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.11 Permitting Requirements**

Permitting and licensing of the proposed mining and milling activities will involve county, state and federal agencies. Summaries of these permits and licenses follow.

<br> Page 145 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**20.11.1 Fremont County**

Construction permits for buildings and septic systems will be required by Fremont County. These permits applications will be developed and submitted prior to construction and once most substantive technical questions have been resolved with the State of Wyoming on the Source and Byproduct Materials License. The County permits are not anticipated to present technical or time critical issues in the development of this project.

**20.11.2 Wyoming Land Quality Division**

A major revision to Mine Permit 381C was approved by the WDEQ/LQD on July 8, 2015.

**20.11.3 Wyoming Air Quality Division**

The Wyoming AQD administers the provisions of the Clean Air Act as delegated to the state by EPA Region VIII. An Air Quality Construction Permit for the project was initially issued by AQD on July 6, 2015. The Air Quality Permit was re-issued on October 17, 2019. On September 9, 2021, authorization to construct was extended for an additional one-year period.

**20.11.4 Wyoming Water Quality Division**

Discharges to surface water, if needed as part of the mine dewatering and mine water management program, are permitted by the Wyoming WQD through the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("WYPDES") program under authority delegated by EPA Region VIII. A Water Discharge Permit for the project was approved by WQD on October 5, 2015. The WYPDES permit was re-issued on September 21, 2020.

**20.11.5 Wyoming State Engineers Office**

The Wyoming State Engineers Office ("SEO") is responsible for permitting of wells and impoundments, and issuance and modification to water rights. Applications to relocate the point(s) of withdrawal for EFR's existing water rights have been approved by the Wyoming SEO for mine dewatering. In addition, future monitoring wells and impoundments will be permitted with the SEO once the combined Source and Byproduct Materials License application has passed completeness review and most substantive technical questions have been resolved. Approvals of the SEO permits are not anticipated to be time-critical approvals.

**20.11.6 U.S. Bureau of Land Management**

On January 6, 2017, the BLM approved the PoO for the project through issuance of a RoD and supporting FEIS. The permitted capacity of the heap leach facility is 4 million tons of mineralized material which is 53% of the estimated Mineral Reserves. An expansion to the heap leach facility (including permitting) will be required in the future to process the remaining 47% of the estimated Mineral Reserves.

**20.11.7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Wyoming Agreement State)**

Development of an application to the NRC for a license to construct and operate the uranium recovery facility has been taken to an advanced stage of preparation. This license would allow Energy Fuels to process the mineralized material into 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 should be provided. During September 2018, the State of Wyoming became an NRC Agreement State for licensing of uranium milling activities, including heap leach facilities. Previous data, designs, and related applications prepared for NRC will now be referred to and reviewed by the State of Wyoming WDEQ as an Agreement State with the NRC with respect to Source Materials licensing. The review and approval process for the license by the State of Wyoming is anticipated to take approximately three to four years from the date submitted. Submittal of the license application to the State of Wyoming is on hold pending EFR's evaluation of off-site processing options for this project, and whether or not to proceed with an on-site uranium recovery facility, pending improvements in uranium market conditions.

<br> Page 146 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**20.11.8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency**

The EPA oversees compliance with 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart B (underground mine venting of radon) and Subpart W (radon emissions from tailings). Prior to initiation of underground mine operations, EFR will submit construction plans to the EPA in which underground mine ventilation radon emissions will be modeled to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Part 61, Subpart B. During underground operations, routine monitoring and annual modeling will be performed to verify regulatory compliance.

The project design currently includes control measures to minimize radon flux from the heap leach facility and to be consistent with the requirements of Part 61, Subpart W.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.12 Social and Community Relations**

The surrounding communities have a long history of working with and for the region's mining and mineral resource industry; and their support for this project has been strong.

The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies, 2020, ranks Wyoming as 2nd out of 77 jurisdictions using a Policy Perception Index, which indicates a very favorable perception by the mining industry towards Wyoming mining policies.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.13 Closure and Reclamation Plans**

The land encompassing the project area is currently used for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation (primarily hunting). The reclamation plan will return the areas disturbed by the project to the same pre-mining uses, except for the approximately 100-acre, byproduct-material disposal cell that will be transferred to the DOE for long-term stewardship. Reclamation bonds will be in place prior to start up for both the mining and processing areas of the project in accordance with state and federal requirements. The amount of the reclamation bond for both the mine and mineral processing area is estimated at US$17 million. By current regulations the WDEQ requires the bond be posted based on reclamation of lands disturbed in the first year and then updated annually as part of the annual reporting process. Wyoming has become an agreement state with the NRC with jurisdiction for the mineral processing area and will require a bond for the full estimated closure and reclamation costs. The estimated closure and reclamation costs for the mine and mineral processing areas is approximately US$46 million projected to be spent over the life of mine under a concurrent reclamation scenario followed by an additional reclamation period of 4 years upon cessation of operations.

**20.13.1 Congo Pit and Sheep Underground**

Mine overburden and waste rock from the Congo Pit will be used to backfill the pit in a phased manner over the life of the open pit. Initially, the waste will be removed from the pit and stockpiled in areas adjacent to the pit limits. As the pit deepens to the south, concurrent backfilling will be performed with waste placed in the mined-out portions of the pit. Backfilling will be performed in a selective manner so that the more mineralized and radioactive material is covered with less mineralized subsoils and topsoil. The proposed plan is to backfill the pit to approximate original contours, returning the ground surface to essentially the pre-mining topographic contours.

Selective backfilling will remove and isolate much of the naturally occurring radioactive materials left in the mine area from historical activities. The reclaimed Paydirt Pit will also be partially backfilled to create a flow-through drainage system, as opposed to the current closed drainage.

<br> Page 147 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

Underground operations will result in some additional waste rock being added to the open-pit overburden piles, as a result of the construction of vent shafts, declines, and the installation of additional mine buildings. At the conclusion of underground operations, the mine openings will be sealed, mine buildings demolished, and waste piles used as backfill or reclaimed.

**20.13.2 Heap Leach and Processing Plant**

Solid and liquid wastes from the processing of uranium ores will be managed on site. Upon closure, liquid wastes will either be: a) stabilized and placed in the spent heap leach pad, or b) evaporated on the heap leach pad surface prior to closure. Process buildings and equipment that cannot be released from the site, will be decommissioned, sized and placed in the spent heap according to WDEQ requirements. The heap leach pad and associated ponds will then be encapsulated within an engineered cover that is designed to minimize radon emissions and water infiltration. The disposal cell will then be monitored until the site meets DOE's requirements for long-term stewardship. Refer to Figure 17.5, McIntosh Heap Reclamation Cover for overall reclamation grading plan.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**20.14 Opinion of Author**

In the opinion of the Author, the current plans related to environmental compliance, permitting and social governance is reasonable.

<br> Page 148 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.1 Introduction**

Estimated capital expenditures ("CAPEX") and costs for operation and maintenance & repair ("OPEX") of facilities are for a conventional combination open pit and underground mining operation with on-site treatment of mined material by heap leaching. All cost estimates in this report have been updated or escalated to 2021, based on either the 2021 Mining Cost Service (Cost Indexes) or recent internal cost files. It is the opinion of the authors that escalation of costs from March 2021 to the present is a function of short-term supply- chain issues currently being experienced in all sectors of the economy and are not reflective of longer term economic conditions, which the metal price and project development is based on. These cost estimates reflect complete costs going forward, including the costs of preproduction, permitting, mining, and mineral processing from heap leaching through production of yellowcake, to eventual reclamation and closure. CAPEX estimates, however, do not include sunk costs or property acquisition costs.

Mining and mineral processing methods are described in Sections 16 and 17, respectively. The project consists of two distinct and independent mining areas, the Congo open pit and the Sheep underground mine, with common processing of mined material in a heap leaching facility. The currently planned operating life of the two mines is 12 years, with an additional 4 years allotted for closure and reclamation. The heap leaching facility is designed to accommodate material excavated from both mining operations over their entire aggregated life. Although other alternatives were considered, the base case for this PFS is concurrent operation of the open pit and underground mines over approximately 12-years.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.2 Cost Assumptions**

In all cases, the estimates are based on proven approaches and technologies and conservative assumptions were employed. A summary of key assumptions follows.

<u>**Capital Cost Estimates**</u>

* Open pit equipment: 15% has been added to vendor quotations for all major equipment.

* Underground equipment: 15-30% has been added, depending on the nature of current information.

* Heap leaching and mineral processing equipment: 10-30% has been added, depending on whether the item is material, labor, or fees.

These adjustments in vendor quotations are specifically to account for ancillary costs of delivery and setup of the equipment at the Project and for initial specialty items tools, wear parts etc. typically not included in the vendor quotes. We have not applied contingencies to the capital cost estimates. There is a risk due to uncertainties in future availability of the specified equipment, purchase prices and changes in equipment size or design duty may affect the final equipment selection and corresponding capital cost.

<u>**Operating Cost Estimates**</u>

* Open Pit: all new equipment, 85% availability, 90% utilization, and an overall 8% contingency applied to all costs.

* Underground mine: 90% utilization and an overall 8% contingency applied to all costs.

* Heap leaching and mineral processing equipment: a 10% contingency has been applied to estimates for utilities and consumable chemicals.

<u>**Heap Leach**</u>

<br> Page 149 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

* Column leaching tests produced residues assaying 0.002% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> or less.

* We have conservatively assumed a heap leach residue assay of 0.01% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (McNulty, 2012).

* The 0.01% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> loss (residue assay) used in this study reflects a conservative 0.008% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> loss in the solid residue and an entrained liquid loss equivalent to 0.002% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, and this represents a life-of-mine average 91.9% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> uranium leaching recovery.

* A loss of 0.01% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> was achieved in the earliest pilot-scale heap leaching program in the Gas Hills (Woolery, 1978), but lower losses (higher extractions) were obtained from subsequent commercial-scale heaps.

* Sulfuric acid consumption in the current project is assumed to be 30 lb/ton of mineralized material (Lyntek, 2012), whereas current metallurgical testing has consistently required less than 15 pounds per ton.

<u>**Open Pit**</u>

Open Pit Mine reclamation costs account for backfill to original contours. Wyoming regulations do not require complete backfill but return to "equal or better use." Regulations can be met with less complete backfill; however, the total backfill plan is conservative and can be readily permitted.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.3 Production Profile**

Table 21.1 provides the planned production profile for the Project. Annual production varies from a low of 270,000 tons processed to a high of 780,000 tons processed with an average annual production of approximately 680,000 tons, yielding 1.4 million pounds annually of U3O8 in yellowcake.

<br> Page 150 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 21-1 Underground and Open pit Production Profile**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Production Year** |
|  | **Total** | **0** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **4** | **5** | **6** | **7** | **8** | **9** | **10** | **11** | **12** |
| *Congo Pit* |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Tons of Resource Mined (000s) | 3955 |  | 269 | 467 | 217 | 400 | 333 | 516 | 198 | 382 | 413 | 334 | 286 | 140 |
| Pounds Contained (000s) | 9118 |  | 665 | 828 | 587 | 951 | 657 | 1198 | 539 | 719 | 894 | 677 | 767 | 637 |
| Mine Grade (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.115 |  | 0.124 | 0.089 | 0.135 | 0.119 | 0.099 | 0.116 | 0.136 | 0.094 | 0.108 | 0.101 | 0.134 | 0.228 |
| Cu. Yd. Stripped | 78096 |  | 7062 | 6660 | 6460 | 6493 | 7576 | 6275 | 6500 | 6500 | 6754 | 6618 | 6349 | 4847 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-Tons Overburden (000s) | 131981 |  | 11934 | 11255 | 10918 | 10974 | 12803 | 10606 | 10985 | 10985 | 11414 | 11185 | 10730 | 8192 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-Strip Ratio (tons: tons) | 33 |  | 44 | 24 | 49 | 27 | 38 | 20 | 55 | 29 | 27 | 33 | 37 | 57 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-Strip Ratio (cu. yd.:lb) | 9 |  | 11 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Reclamation (cu. yd.) | 25530 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| *Sheep UG* |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Tons of Resource Mined (000s) | 3498 |  | ----- | 100 | 223 | 431 | 386 | 367 | 351 | 386 | 315 | 299 | 416 | 224 |
| Pounds Contained (000s) | 9248 |  | ----- | 300 | 600 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 348 |
| Mine Grade (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.132 |  | ----- | 0.151 | 0.134 | 0.116 | 0.130 | 0.136 | 0.142 | 0.130 | 0.159 | 0.167 | 0.120 | 0.077 |
| Development Tons | 2176 |  | 200 | 90 | 162 | 144 | 189 | 208 | 224 | 189 | 260 | 276 | 159 | 75 |
| ***Totals*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Tons of Resource Mined (000s) | 7453 |  | 269 | 567 | 441 | 831 | 719 | 883 | 549 | 767 | 728 | 633 | 703 | 364 |
| Pounds Contained (000s) | 18365 |  | 665 | 1128 | 1187 | 1951 | 1657 | 2198 | 1539 | 1719 | 1894 | 1677 | 1767 | 984 |
| Mine Grade (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.123 |  | 0.122 | 0.099 | 0.134 | 0.117 | 0.115 | 0.124 | 0.139 | 0.112 | 0.129 | 0.132 | 0.125 | 0.134 |
| Tons Processed (000s) | 7453 |  | 270 | 540 | 480 | 780 | 780 | 780 | 630 | 750 | 720 | 660 | 630 | 433 |
| Pounds Contained (000s) | 18365 |  | 667 | 1074 | 1274 | 1828 | 1799 | 1946 | 1743 | 1679 | 1868 | 1747 | 1584 | 1157 |
| Plant Feed (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.123 |  | 0.122 | 0.099 | 0.131 | 0.117 | 0.115 | 0.124 | 0.137 | 0.111 | 0.129 | 0.132 | 0.125 | 0.132 |
| Recovery Fraction (U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 0.919 |  | 0.919 | 0.899 | 0.925 | 0.915 | 0.913 | 0.920 | 0.928 | 0.911 | 0.923 | 0.924 | 0.920 | 0.925 |
| Pounds Recovered (000s) | 16875 |  | 613 | 966 | 1178 | 1672 | 1643 | 1790 | 1617 | 1529 | 1724 | 1615 | 1458 | 1070 |

---

<br> Page 151 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.4 Capital Costs**

Capital cost summaries follow for the Project. The additional capital in years two through twelve include major repair and/or replacement of mine equipment and cost related to interim liners for the heap leach and the permitting and construction of an addition heap pad area of approximately 20 acres in year eight. Capital costs for the Project are estimated at an AACE Class 3 accuracy range of -20% to +30% (AACE International 2005).

**Table 21-2 Sheep Mountain Capital Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Capital Expenditures: \*** | **Contingency** | **Initial Capital\*** | **Years 4-12** | **Life of Mine** |
| Permitting (WDEQ) | ----- | $3000 | $1000 | $4000 |
| Pre-Development Mine Design | ----- | $1200 | ----- | $1200 |
| OP Mine Equipment | 15% | $21141 | $3200 | $24341 |
| UG Mine Equipment | 15-30% | $51504 | $13000 | $64504 |
| Office, Shop, Dry, and support | 15% | $3234 | ----- | $3234 |
| Mineral Processing | 25% | $32086 | $6461 | $38546 |
| **TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES** |  | **$112165** | **$23661** | **$135826** |
| **COST PER POUND RECOVERED** |  |  |  | **$8.05** |

---

All costs in 2021 US dollars x 1,000

\*Initial Capital includes year 0 to year 3. Does not include working capital and initial warehouse inventory.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.5 Operating Costs**

Operating cost estimates are based on a conventional open pit and underground mine operation with on-site processing via a heap leach facility. Operating costs reflect a full and complete operation including all mine and mineral processing costs through the production of yellowcake and through final reclamation. In all cases the estimates are based on proven approaches and technologies.

Operating cost estimates were based on vendor quotations, published mine costing data, and contractor quotations. Such estimates were generally provided for budgetary purposes and were considered valid at the time the quotations were provided. In all cases, appropriate suppliers, manufacturers, tax authorities, smelters, and transportation companies should be consulted before substantial investments or commitments are made.

<u>Open pit mine operating costs account for:</u>

* All earth moving costs related to excavation and placement including:
 
Primary stripping
Mining
Interburden
Preparation of heap base

Surface support equipment
Overall mine supervision including health and safety
Surface mine and heap leach reclamation costs

<u>Underground mine operating costs account for:</u>

* All costs related to underground mine excavation

* Conveyance of mined material to the surface for loading on the heap

* Underground mine supervision, support and miner training

* Underground development between mining levels and areas

* Ventilation

<br> Page 152 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

* Dewatering

* Mine safety and ground control

<u>Mineral processing operating costs account for:</u>

* All costs related to the operation of the heap leach
 
Overland conveyor transport from the mine
Heap stacking and loading
Heap leaching and liquid handling
Power and water use and handling

* All costs related to processing of uranium bearing liquids from the heap leach
 
Solvent extraction
Ammonia stripping and precipitation
Yellowcake drying and packaging
Power use

Mineral processing supervision and support

* Radiation Safety and compliance

* On site laboratory facilities

* General supervision

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.6 Reclamation and Closure Costs**

Reclamation and closure costs relate primarily to the open pit and heap leach/plant.

The current cost model is based on complete backfill of the open pit including sub-grade disposal of the heap leach material and appurtenances including liners, piping, and other materials deemed to be regulated material with respect to the combined Source and Byproduct Materials license.

Bonding costs are included as a line item based on an annual rate of 2% and an estimated bond for the mine and processing facility of an estimated US$17 million.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.7 Additional Costs**

Additional costs include a gross products tax payable to Fremont County; mineral severance tax payable to the State of Wyoming; and various claim and state lease royalties.

Wyoming Severance Tax is currently assessed at a rate of 4% of the gross value after applying an industry factor which for uranium is currently 0.42 which thereby reduces the effect severance tax rate.

Wyoming state lease royalties apply only to the Congo Pit area located on State section 16. The royalty under the current lease is 5% of gross value.

Individual mining claim royalties vary slightly but do not exceed 4% of gross value.

Note that all state and local sales taxes are included in the capital cost estimate. Use taxes, such as taxes on supplies and consumables, are included in the operating cost estimate.

Table 21-3 summarizes operating cost for the Project, which includes an 8% contingency.

<br> Page 153 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 21-3 Sheep Mountain Operating Costs\*\***

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Operating Costs - OPEN PIT AND <br>UNDERGROUND MINING** | **Open Pit and <br>UG (US$000s)** | **Cost Per <br>Ton Mined <br>(US$)** | **Cost Per lb <br>Mined (US$)** | **Cost Per lb <br>Recovered <br>(US$)** |
| *Open Pit* |  |  |  |  |
| Strip | $80331 | $20.31 | $8.81 |  |
| Mining | $18625 | $4.71 | $2.04 |  |
| Support | $15834 | $4.00 | $1.74 |  |
| Staff | $23485 | $5.94 | $2.58 |  |
| Contingency | $11062 | $2.80 | $1.21 |  |
| **Total Surface Mine** <br>**(3,955,000 tons, 9,117,000 lbs)** | $**149336** | $**37.76** | $**16.38** |  |
| *Underground Mine* |  |  |  |  |
| Production | $169217 | $48.38 | $18.30 |  |
| Development | $53166 | $15.20 | $5.75 |  |
| Support | $44913 | $12.84 | $4.86 |  |
| Staff | $18825 | $5.38 | $2.04 |  |
| Contingency | $22890 | $6.54 | $2.48 |  |
| **Total Underground Mine**<br>**(3,498,000 tons, 9,248,000 lbs)** | $**309011** | $**88.35** | $**33.42** |  |
| **Blended Mining Costs\*** <br>**(7,435,000 tons, 18,365,000 lbs)** | $**458347** | $**61.50** | $**24.96** | $**27.16** |
| *Reclamation and Closure* |  |  |  |  |
| Wyoming Agreement State Annual Inspection Fees | $1800 | $0.24 | $0.10 |  |
| Final Grading and Revegetation | $2180 | $0.29 | $0.12 |  |
| Plant Decommissioning and Reclamation | $11166 | $1.50 | $0.61 |  |
| **Total Reclamation and Closure** | $**15146** | $**2.03** | $**0.83** | $**0.91** |
| *Heap Leach* |  |  |  |  |
| Cost per ton | $143585 | $19.27 | $7.82 |  |
| **Total Heap Leach** | $**143585** | $**19.27** | $**7.82** | $**8.51** |
| **Reclamation Bond Mine and Heap** | $**6120** | $**0.82** | $**0.33** | $**0.36** |
| *Taxes & Royalties* |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gross Products tax per/lb | $39702 | $5.33 | $2.16 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Severance Tax per/lb | $21965 | $2.95 | $1.20 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;State lease (pit) | $26966 | $3.62 | $1.47 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Claim royalties (UG) | $21640 | $2.90 | $1.18 |  |
| **Total Taxes and Royalties** | $**110273** | $**14.80** | $**6.00** | $**6.53** |
| **TOTAL DIRECT COSTS** | $**733471** | $**98.42** | $**39.94** | $**43.47** |

---

\*Blended mine cost represents the weighted average of open pit and underground mines and include open pit backfill.

Open pit and underground mine costs, itemized separately above, are not additive but are included in the blended mine costs.

\*\*All costs 2021 US dollars x 1,000

<br> Page 154 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**21.8 Personnel**

At full production, the Sheep Mountain Project will require approximately 176 employees. Roughly, 56 employees will be required for operation of the open pit, heap leach, and mineral processing plant with the remainder required for the underground mine. Personnel for the open pit mine operation can be readily recruited locally as can the majority of the personnel needed for the heap leach and mineral processing plant. Some skilled positions and staff positions will need to be recruited regionally. Recruitment of underground mine personnel may pose a greater challenge. As a result, cost allowances for recruiting and training of underground miners were included in the cost estimate. Figure 21-1 illustrates general project organization chart, based on a total headcount of 176 employees.

<br>![](exhibit99-2x086.jpg)

**Figure 21-1. Project Organizational Chart**

<br> Page 155 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS**

Financial evaluations for the project assume constant 2021 U.S. dollars and an average sales price of $65.00 per pound of uranium oxide. Section 21.0 discusses operating and capital costs in detail. Operating costs includes all direct taxes and royalties, as discussed in Section 21.0, but do not include U.S. Federal Income Tax. As previously stated, all costs are forward-looking and do not include any previous project expenditures or sunk costs. The NPV is calculated at a range of discount rates as shown both before and after U.S. Federal Income Tax in Table 22-1, which summarizes the estimated Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV) for the Project. Subsequent sensitivity analysis is provided as pre-tax but is applicable, in principle, to post-tax. A detailed Cash Flow analysis is provided at the end of this section in Table 22-4.

**Table 22-1 Sheep Mountain Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Before Federal <br>Income Tax** | **After Federal <br>Income Tax** |
| IRR | 28% | 26% |
| NPV 5% | $141749 | $120725 |
| NPV 7% | $116412 | $98492 |
| NPV 10% | $85627 | $71381 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\*2021 US dollars x 1000

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.1 Sensitivity to Price**

The Sheep Mountain Project, like all similar projects, is quite sensitive to uranium price as shown in Table 22-2 and Table 22-3. A summary of sensitivity of the projected IRR and NPV with respect to key parameters other than price also follows. The project is roughly twice as sensitive to variances in mine recovery and/or dilution as it is to variance in operating and capital costs.

Higher heap recovery may be realized based on current metallurgical test work and historical production experience. An improvement in uranium loss from 0.10 to of 0.006% U3O8 loss would result in a 3% improvement in IRR and an improvement in NPV at 7% discount of $19 million. The sensitivity analysis shows that the project is not highly sensitive to changes in operating and/or capital costs. With respect to mine dilution affecting mined grade, the sensitivity is similar to that of uranium price in that much of the same costs are incurred, and any variance in mine recovery or dilution affects gross revenues either positively or negatively. The project is roughly twice as sensitive to variances in mine dilution as it is to variance in operating and capital costs. Mine dilution is highly dependent upon grade control and mining selectivity. The mine plan, equipment selection, and personnel allocations included in the cost estimate, for both the open pit and underground, provide for selective mining and tight grade control in recognition of this factor.

**Table 22-2 Pre-tax Sensitivity Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Selling Price (USD/pound)** | **Selling Price (USD/pound)** | **Selling Price (USD/pound)** |
| Discount Rate | $55 | $65 | $75 |
| NPV 5% (Million $) | $37 | $142 | $246 |
| NPV 7% (Million $) | $25 | $116 | $208 |
| NPV 10% (Million $) | $10 | $87 | $161 |
| IRR | 13% | 28% | 42% |

---

<br> Page 156 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.2 Sensitivity to Other Factors**

Sensitivity of the projected IRR and NPV with respect to key parameters other than price, previously shown, is summarized in Table 22-3. The sensitivity analysis was performed with respect to the base case including $65 per pound uranium price, 8% operating cost contingency, and 0.01% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> loss. As with the sensitivity analysis for price, the analysis in pre-tax, however, post-tax would be proportionate.

Higher heap recovery may be realized based on current metallurgical test work and historical production experience. An improvement in uranium loss from 0.10 to of 0.006% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> loss would result in a 4% improvement in IRR and an improvement in NPV at 7% discount of $22 million. The sensitivity analysis shows that the project is not highly sensitive to changes in operating and/or capital costs. With respect to Mine dilution affecting mined grade, the sensitivity is similar to that of uranium price in that much of the same costs are incurred, and any variance in mine recovery or dilution affects gross revenues either positively or negatively. The project is roughly twice as sensitive to variances in mine dilution as it is to variance in operating and/or capital costs. Mine dilution is highly dependent upon grade control and mining selectivity. The mine plan, equipment selection, and personnel allocations included in the cost estimate, for both the open pit and underground, provide for selective mining and tight grade control in recognition of this factor.

**Table 22-3 Pre-tax Sensitivity Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **Change from Base <br>Case** | **Change in <br>IRR** | **Change in NPV at 7% <br>discount** |
| Grade | 10% | 11% | $49 million |
| Heap recovery | 0.006% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>loss | 6% | $40 million |
| CAPEX | 10% | 3% | $7 million |
| OPEX | 10% | 5% | $16 million |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.3 Payback Period**

The project shows positive cumulative cash flow in year five. Refer to the cash flow summaries that follow.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.4 Breakeven Price**

The breakeven price of uranium oxide for the project based on the foregoing assumptions and preliminary mine limits is approximately $51 per pound.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**22.5 Cash Flow**

Table 22-4 shows the pre and after tax for both underground and surface mines at Sheep Mountain.

<br> Page 157 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 22-4 Cash Flow**

![](exhibit99-2x001.jpg)

<br> Page 158 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**Table 22-4 Cash Flow (Continued)**

![](exhibit99-2x002.jpg)

<br> Page 159 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES**

The Sheep Mountain Project is within the Crooks Gap/Green Mountain Uranium District. Past production occurred at both Sheep Mountain by WNC and others, in addition to production at Green Mountain by Pathfinder Mines at their Big Eagle Mine. Rio Tinto Ltd., through its wholly owned subsidiary Kennecott Corp, USA, currently controls most of the known Mineral Resources in the Green Mountain area including the Big Eagle mine and the Sweetwater Mill 22 miles to the south, which is currently in reclamation. EFR has no interest in any adjacent properties to the Sheep Mountain Project.

The QPs have not been able to verify the information on the adjacent properties and the information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Project.

<br> Page 160 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**24.1 Ground Water Conditions**

The Crooks Gap area regional hydrology, as determined by the Platte River Basin Water Plan, includes two separate formations or groups of formations that qualify as potentially productive for groundwater. The Quaternary aquifer system has both an alluvial and non-alluvial division. This is considered to be a discontinuous but major aquifer in the State of Wyoming. It is undetermined at this time whether this surface aquifer exists in the project area.

The second aquifer in the Crooks Gap area is the Tertiary Aquifer System. The System in the Crooks Gap region is comprised of the Fort Union and Battle Spring Formations. The Platte River Basin Water Plan describes the aquifer as comprised of complex inter-tonguing fluvial and lacustrine sediments. This is also classified as a major aquifer for the State of Wyoming.

Mining will occur in the Battle Spring Formation. Historic data indicates that sustained dewatering of the Sheep underground mines required approximately 200 gpm, but that the cone of depression is limited in area and will not impact surface water sources in the area. In addition, dewatering of the Congo Open pit requires an estimated 150 gpm beginning in year seven and extending to the end of mining. Thus, approximately 350 gpm of water will be produced by the mines.

With respect to mine and mineral processing operations, the mineral processing facility will operate at an average flow rate of 360 gpm. However, the majority of the flow is recirculated resulting in an estimate net water demand of 135 gpm. The largest consumptive use of water on the project will be for dust control for the open pit, hauls roads, stockpile areas, and the conveyor system. This use is estimated to average 150 gpm over a nine-month period or 100 gpm on an annual basis. Thus, the total water use is estimated at 235 gpm. This is significant in that the water produced by the mine operations is adequate for the consumptive needs of the project and that no additional water sources will be required.

<br> Page 161 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**

The planned development of the Sheep Mountain Project is an open pit and underground conventional mine operation with on-site mineral processing featuring an acid heap leach and solvent extraction recovery facility. The open pit and underground mine operations would be concurrent with a mine life of approximately 12 years.

The Sheep Mountain Project if implemented would be profitable under the base case and US$65 per pound selling price the project is estimated to generate an IRR of 28% before taxes and has an NPV of approximately US$115 million at a 7% discount rate. An economic analysis including a sensitivity analysis of commodity price in the range of $50 to $70 per pound is presented in Section 22.0. The breakeven price of $51.00 per pound of uranium oxide for the project is based on the foregoing assumptions and preliminary mine limits. By their nature all commodity price assumptions are forward-looking. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially. The technical risks related to the project are low as the mining and recovery methods are proven. The mining methods recommended have been employed successfully at the project in the past. Successful uranium recovery from the mineralized material at Sheep Mountain and similar project such as the Gas Hills has been demonstrated via both conventional milling and heap leach recovery.

Risks related to permitting and licensing the project are also low as the WDEQ Mine Permit and BLM Plan of Operations have been approved. The major remaining permit needed to start operations is the combined Source and Byproduct Materials License which would be issued through the WDEQ as Wyoming is an agreement state with the NRC.

EFR is not aware of any other specific risks or uncertainties that might significantly affect the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates or the resulting economic analysis. Estimation of costs and uranium price for the purposes of the economic analysis over the life of mine is by its nature forward-looking and subject to various risks and uncertainties. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

<br> Page 162 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS**

As the Sheep Mountain Project (the Project) is sensitive to mining factors including resource recovery, dilution, and grade, and mineral processing factors related to the performance of the heap leach, it is recommended that a bulk sampling program and pilot scale heap leach testing be completed. Mineralization is shallow (less than 40 feet) in the northern portions of the Congo pit. A small test mine could be developed under the existing WDEQ Mine Permit and BLM Plan of Operations. This would allow access to examine and test the mineralization with respect to mining parameters and to collect a bulk sample for pilot scale heap leach testing. It is recommended that a bulk sample of approximately 2,000 tons be collected and transported to Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill. At the Mill and under the Mill's Source Materials License, the mineralized material could be stacked at various heights in the range of 15 to 30 feet. The test plots would be lined and could be cribbed on two sides with an open face stacked at the angle of repose. Using 20 x 20-foot pads, four pilot tests could be completed. The testing would determine the geotechnical behavior of the material with respect to consolidation, slope stability, and the leaching characteristics with respect to acid consumption and mineral recovery. Flow and/or percolation rates retained moisture and other characteristics at various stacking heights could also be determined.

Table 26-1 summarizes the recommended work program to further develop the Project.

**Table 26-1 Recommended Work Program**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Scope of Work** | **Est. Cost US$** |
| Test mine approximately ½ acre, 40,000 cy excavation at $150/cy | $60000 |
| Testing the mineralization and collection of a bulk sample | $40000 |
| Transportation of 2,000 tons, 500 miles at $0.17/ton mile | $170000 |
| Heap pilot testing | $200000 |
| Reclamation of test pit | $60000 |
| Revise Preliminary Feasibility Study | $100000 |
| **Total** | **$630000** |

---

<br> Page 163 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**27.0 REFERENCES**

<u>**Previous Reports:**</u>

Beahm, D. L., Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, Amended and Restated, February 28, 2020.

Beahm, D. L., Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 technical Report, April 13, 2012.

Beahm, D. L., David H. Scriven, D. H., McNulty, T.P., *Sheep Mountain Project 43-101 Mineral Resource and Reserve Report,* April 8, 2010.

Bendix, *National Uranium Resource Evaluation: Casper Quadrangle, Wyoming*, September 1982.

BRS Inc. (BRS), Beahm, *Sheep Mountain Project 43-101 Mineral Resource Update Report,* March 1, 2011.

Harris & Thompson*, Title Report on Sheep Mountain/Crooks Gap Properties, Fremont County, Wyoming,* 1/20/2005 and as updated 12/02/2011.

Irwin, R., *Evaluation of the ISL Potential of a Part of the Northern Crooks Gap District Freemont County* WY: Internal Report 1998

Lyntek, *Titan Uranium - Sheep Mtn. Heap Leach Project, Pre-Feasibility Study Report, Central Wyoming, USA*, February 2012.

Pathfinder Mines Corporation (PMC), Sheep Mountain Evaluation, Internal Report, September 1987.

R and D Enterprises, Inc. (RDE), *Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, WY, USA, Column Leach Studies*, February 21, 2011.

Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA), Wallis, S. and D. Rennie, *Technical Report on the Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Wyoming*, Prepared for Uranium Power Corporation (UPC), October 10, 2006.

Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA), Wallis, S., *Technical Report on the Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Wyoming*, Prepared for Uranium Power Corporation (UPC), January 10, 2005.

US Energy Corp., Healey, C., Wilson, J., *2006 Resource Study Sheep Mountain Project*, June 2, 2006.

U.S. Energy Corp and Crested Corp. (USE/CC), February 1990, Exhibit 4.

U.S. Energy Corp and Crested Corp. (USE/CC), Annual Reports Mine Permit 381C, 1990 through 2006.

Western Nuclear Inc., Douglas, S., *Ore Reserve Estimates, 1981.*

Western Nuclear Inc., *Proposed Congo Pit and all Anticipated Extensions, 1981.*

Watts Griffis & McQuat (WGM), *Valuation of US Uranium Limited*: Internal Report 1999

Western Nuclear Inc., *Wyoming DEQ Permit to Mine # 381C, 1980.*

Western Nuclear Inc., Oliver, D., *Ore Reserve Estimates, 1985.*

Wilson, J.C., *2005 Drilling Report Sheep Mountain Project Fremont County, Wyoming* 2005

<br> Page 164 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

<u>**Publications Cited:**</u>

AACE International, 2005, Cost Estimate Classification System – as Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries, TCM Framework: 7.3 – Cost Estimating and Budgeting, AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97.

Boberg, W. W., Applied Exploration and Uranium Resources of Great Divide Basin, Wyoming, AAPG Bulletin, volume 63, 1979.

Dunne, R. C., Kawatra, K., and Young, C. A., Eds. 2019, Schnell, H., "Uranium". In SME Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Handbook, Vol. Two, Chapter 12.41.

Gomiero, L. A., Lima, H. A., and Morais, C. A. 2010, "Evaluation of a new milling process for the Caetite". In *Uranium 2010: Proceedings of the 3*<sup>*rd*</sup> *International Conference in Uranium.* Montreal, QC: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

Jones, N.R., Gregory, R.W., and McLaughlin, J.F., 2011, Geologic map of the Bairoil 30' x 60' quadrangle, Carbon, Fremont, Sweetwater, and Natrona counties, Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey Map Series 86, scale 1:100,000.

Mining Cost Service, Cost Indexes and Metal Prices (October 2021). Pub. by InfoMine USA, Inc.

National Uranium Resources Evaluation (NURE), Casper Quadrangle, Wyoming, September 1982.

Rackley, Ruffin I., AAPG Bulletin 56, *Environment of Wyoming Tertiary Uranium Deposits*, 1972.

Stedman, Ashley, and Kenneth P. Green (2018). Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2018. Fraser Institute.

Stephens, James G., *Geology and Uranium Deposits at Crooks Gap, Fremont County Wyoming,* Contributions to the Geology of Uranium, Geological Survey Bulletin 1147-F, 1964.

TradeTech, Uranium Market Study, 2019: Issue 4.

Woolery, R. G, et al, 1978, *Heap Leaching of Uranium A Case Study*, SME Mining Engineering Magazine, June 1978.

Wyoming Water Development Commission*, Platte River Basin Water Plan*, May 2006.

<br> Page 165 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

**28.0 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORS**

Section 28 is added to this report for compliance to Canadian NI 43-101 standards.

I, Daniel D. Kapostasy, P.G., do hereby certify that:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. I am currently employed as the Director of Technical Services with Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., 225 Union Blvd. Suite 600, Lakewood, Colorado, 80228.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Sciences degree in Geology in May 2003 from the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. I graduated with a Master of Science Degree in December 2005 from The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. I am a Registered Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming (PG-3778), a Registered Professional Geologist in the State of Utah (10110615-2250), and a Registered Member of SME (RM#04172231). I have worked as a geologist for a total of 16 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of this Technical Report is:

* Senior Geologist, Chief Geologist, Manager of Technical Resources and Director of Technical Resources with Energy Fuels (USA) Inc. since 2013 working on all aspects of developing their uranium assets including: resource evaluation and estimation, drill hole planning, underground mine geologist, permitting, and economic evaluation.

* Geologist and Senior Geologist with Strathmore Resources between 2008 - 2013 working on drill programs, resource evaluation and permitting the Roca Honda uranium project and Pena Ranch uranium mill.

* Geologist with Apogen Resources between 2006 - 2013 working as a consultant geologist on the Roca Honda uranium project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. As I am currently employed by Energy Fuels (USA) Inc. I do not meet the definition of being independent of the issuer as described in section 1.5

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. I visited the Sheep Mountain Project on April 8, 2014.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. I am responsible for Sections 4 - 12 and 18 - 20 and relevant portions of Sections 1 and 2 of this Technical Report

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 30<sup>th</sup> day of January 2023

*"Original signed and sealed"*

<u>/s/Daniel D. Kapostasy</u>

Daniel D. Kapostasy, SME Registered Member

<br> Page 166 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

I, Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., do hereby certify that:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. I am the Principal Engineer and President of BRS, Inc., 1130 Major Avenue, Riverton, Wyoming 82501.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. I am a co-author of the report " Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA" Dated December 31, 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geological Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in 1974. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Oregon; a licensed Professional Geologist in Wyoming; a Registered Member of the SME.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. I have worked as an engineer and a geologist for over 48 years. My work experience includes uranium exploration, mine production, and mine/mill decommissioning and reclamation. Specifically, I have worked with numerous uranium projects hosted in sandstone environments in Wyoming.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. I was last present at the site on the 16<sup>th</sup> of September 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. I am responsible for Sections 3, 14, 15, 16, and 22 - 27 and relevant portions of Section 1, 2, and 21 of the report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. I am independent of the issuer in accordance with the application of Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. I have no financial interest in the property and am fully independent of Energy Fuels Inc.. I hold no stock, options or have any other form of financial connection to EFR. EFR is but one of many clients for whom I consult.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. I do have prior working experience on the property as stated in the report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration, and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with same.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. As of the date of this report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the parts of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

January 30, 2023

*"Original signed and sealed"* 

<u>*/s/* Douglas L. Beahm</u>

Douglas L. Beahm, SME Registered Member

<br> Page 167 <br> December 31, 2022

------

---

| |
|:---|
| **SHEEP MOUNTAIN PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY** |
| NI 43-101 COMPLIANT, December 31, 2021 |

---

I, Terence P. ("Terry") McNulty, D. Sc., P. E., do hereby certify that:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. I am president of T. P. McNulty and Associates, Inc., located at 4321 N. Camino de Carrillo, Tucson, AZ 85750-6375.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. I am the author of Sections 13 and 17 of the report entitled " Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA", dated December 31, 2021.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. I graduated in 1960 from Stanford University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering. In 1963, I earned a Master of Science degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the Montana School of Mines, and in 1966, I was awarded a Doctor of Science degree in Metallurgy from the Colorado School of Mines. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Colorado with License No. 24789 and am a Registered Member of SME, No. 2152450R.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. I have worked as a metallurgist in the minerals industry for over 55 years and have had extensive experience in uranium processing, as well as in cost estimation, process engineering, plant design, and plant operations in the recovery of many metals and minerals from their ores. I have contributed to approximately forty-five NI 43-101 compliant studies for projects intended to recover uranium, gold, silver, and copper.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. I was last present on the site in August 2010.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. I am responsible for Sections 13, 17, and portions of 21 of the Technical Report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. I am independent of Energy Fuels Inc.. and have no financial interest in the property to which this Technical Report applies.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. I participated in a report on this property for another client in 2010.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Owing to my education, relevant industrial experience, and professional registration, I believe that I am a "qualified person" for the purposes of this Technical Report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with same.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. As of the date of this report, and to the best of my knowledge based on information that has been provided to me, this Technical Report contains all information that must be disclosed to prevent the Technical Report from being in any way incomplete or misleading.

January 30, 2023

*"Original signed and sealed"* 

<u>*/s/* Terence P. McNulty</u> 

Terence P. McNulty, D. Sc., P. E

P.E Seal: Colorado # 24789

<br> Page 168 <br> December 31, 2022

------

## Exhibit 99.3

------

**![](exhibit99-3x023.jpg)Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility <br>Study on the Pinyon Plain Project,**<br>**Coconino County, Arizona, USA**

**Energy Fuels Inc.**

SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006

Effective Date:

December 31, 2022

Signature Date:

February 23, 2023

Prepared by:

**SLR International Corporation**

**Qualified Persons:**

Mark Mathisen, CPG

R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng.

Jeffrey Woods, MMSA, QP

Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA QP

Grant Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng.

![](exhibit99-3x024.jpg)

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA**

**SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006**

Prepared by

SLR International Corporation

1658 Cole Blvd, Suite 100

Lakewood, CO 80401

USA

for

Energy Fuels Inc.

225 Union Blvd., Suite 600

Lakewood, CO 80228

USA

Effective Date - December 31, 2022

Signature Date - February 23, 2023

Prepared by: Mark Mathisen, CPG R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng. Jeffrey Woods, MMSA QP Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA QP Grant Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng. Peer Reviewed by: Deborah McCombe, P.Geo. Approved by: Project Manager Grant Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng. Project Director Richard Lambert, M.B.A., P.E., P.Eng.

**FINAL**

Distribution: 1 copy - Energy Fuels Inc.

1 copy - SLR International Corporation

![](exhibit99-3x026.jpg)

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**CONTENTS**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **1.0 SUMMARY** | **1-1** |
| 1.1 Executive Summary | 1-1 |
| 1.2 Economic Analysis | 1-4 |
| 1.3 Technical Summary | 1-12 |
| **2.0 INTRODUCTION** | **2-1** |
| 2.1 Sources of Information | 2-1 |
| 2.2 List of Abbreviations | 2-3 |
| **3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS** | **3-1** |
| 3.1 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant | 3-1 |
| **4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION** | **4-1** |
| 4.1 Location | 4-1 |
| 4.2 Land Tenure | 4-3 |
| 4.3 Required Permits, Authorizations and Status | 4-5 |
| 4.4 Royalties | 4-5 |
| 4.5 Other Significant Risks | 4-5 |
| **5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY** | **5-1** |
| 5.1 Accessibility | 5-1 |
| 5.2 Vegetation | 5-1 |
| 5.3 Climate | 5-1 |
| 5.4 Local Resources | 5-1 |
| 5.5 Infrastructure | 5-1 |
| 5.6 Physiography | 5-2 |
| **6.0 HISTORY** | **6-1** |
| 6.1 Prior Ownership | 6-1 |
| 6.2 Exploration and Development History | 6-2 |
| 6.3 Past Production | 6-3 |
| **7.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION** | **7-1** |
| 7.1 Regional Geology | 7-1 |
| 7.2 Local Geology | 7-4 |
| 7.3 Mineralization | 7-7 |
| **8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES** | **8-1** |
| **9.0 EXPLORATION** | **9-1** |
| 9.1 Geotechnical | 9-1 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | i |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **10.0 DRILLING** | **10-1** |
| 10.1 Drilling | 10-1 |
| **11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY** | **11-1** |
| 11.1 Sample Preparation and Analysis | 11-1 |
| 11.2 Sample Security | 11-4 |
| 11.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control | 11-4 |
| 11.4 Density Analyses | 11-15 |
| 11.5 Conclusions | 11-15 |
| **12.0 DATA VERIFICATION** | **12-1** |
| 12.1 SLR Data Verification (2021) | 12-1 |
| 12.2 Audit of Drill hole Database | 12-1 |
| 12.3 Verification of Assay Table | 12-1 |
| 12.4 Limitations | 12-1 |
| 12.5 Conclusion | 12-1 |
| **13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING** | **13-1** |
| 13.1 Metallurgical Testing | 13-1 |
| 13.2 Opinion of Adequacy | 13-8 |
| **14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE** | **14-1** |
| 14.1 Summary | 14-1 |
| 14.2 Resource Database | 14-3 |
| 14.3 Geological Interpretation | 14-4 |
| 14.4 Resource Assays | 14-8 |
| 14.5 Treatment of High Grade Assays | 14-8 |
| 14.6 Compositing | 14-11 |
| 14.7 Trend Analysis | 14-12 |
| 14.8 Search Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters | 14-14 |
| 14.9 Bulk Density | 14-15 |
| 14.10 Block Models | 14-16 |
| 14.11 Cut-off Grade | 14-17 |
| 14.12 Classification | 14-18 |
| 14.13 Block Model Validation | 14-21 |
| 14.14 Grade Tonnage Sensitivity | 14-24 |
| 14.15 Mineral Resource Reporting | 14-27 |
| **15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE** | **15-1** |
| 15.1 Summary | 15-1 |
| 15.2 Dilution | 15-2 |
| 15.3 Extraction | 15-2 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | ii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| 15.4 Cut-off Grade | 15-2 |
| 15.5 Classification | 15-3 |
| 15.6 Reconciliation | 15-3 |
| **16.0 MINING METHODS** | **16-1** |
| 16.1 Mine Design | 16-1 |
| 16.2 Mining Method | 16-4 |
| 16.3 Geotechnical | 16-5 |
| 16.4 Hydrological | 16-5 |
| 16.5 Preproduction Schedule | 16-7 |
| 16.6 Life of Mine Plan | 16-7 |
| 16.7 Mine Infrastructure | 16-10 |
| 16.8 Mine Equipment | 16-14 |
| 16.9 Personnel Requirements | 16-15 |
| **17.0 RECOVERY METHODS** | **17-1** |
| **18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE** | **18-1** |
| **19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS** | **19-1** |
| 19.1 Markets | 19-1 |
| 19.2 Contracts | 19-3 |
| **20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS** | **20-1** |
| 20.1 Environmental Studies | 20-1 |
| 20.2 Social and Community Requirements | 20-1 |
| 20.3 Water Management | 20-1 |
| 20.4 Permitting | 20-4 |
| 20.5 Mineral Examination | 20-5 |
| 20.6 Negotiations and Agreements with Local Groups | 20-5 |
| 20.7 Mine Closure Remediation and Reclamation Plans | 20-6 |
| 20.8 Opinion of Adequacy | 20-6 |
| **21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS** | **21-1** |
| 21.1 Capital Costs | 21-1 |
| 21.2 Operating Costs | 21-3 |
| **22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS** | **22-1** |
| 22.1 Economic Criteria | 22-1 |
| 22.2 Cash Flow Analysis | 22-2 |
| 22.3 Sensitivity Analysis | 22-5 |
| **23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES** | **23-1** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | iii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| 23.1 Other Breccia Pipes | 23-1 |
| **24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION** | **24-1** |
| **25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS** | **25-1** |
| 25.1 Geology and Mineral Resources | 25-1 |
| 25.2 Mining and Mineral Reserves | 25-1 |
| 25.3 Mineral Processing | 25-2 |
| 25.4 Infrastructure | 25-2 |
| 25.5 Environment | 25-2 |
| **26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS** | **26-1** |
| 26.1 Geology and Mineral Resources | 26-1 |
| 26.2 Mining and Mineral Reserves | 26-1 |
| 26.3 Mineral Processing | 26-1 |
| 26.4 Infrastructure | 26-1 |
| 26.5 Environment | 26-1 |
| **27.0 REFERENCES** | **27-1** |
| **28.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE** | **28-1** |
| **29.0 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON** | **29-1** |
| 29.1 Grant A. Malensek | 29-1 |
| 29.2 Mark B. Mathisen | 29-3 |
| 29.3 R. Dennis Bergen | 29-5 |
| 29.4 Jeffery L. Woods | 29-7 |
| 29.5 Lee (Pat) Gochnour | 29-8 |
| **30.0 APPENDIX 1** | **30-1** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | iv |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**TABLES**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 1-1:2023 Proposed Underground Drilling Budget for Main-Lower and Juniper Zones | 1-3 |
| Table 1-2:After-Tax Cash Flow Summary | 1-8 |
| Table 1-3:After-tax Sensitivity Analysis | 1-9 |
| Table 1-4:Summary of Attributable Uranium Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022 | 1-15 |
| Table 1-5:Summary of Attributable Copper Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022 | 1-15 |
| Table 1-6:Summary of Estimated Mineral Reserves - December 31, 2022 | 1-17 |
| Table 1-7:Capital Cost Estimate | 1-18 |
| Table 1-8:Operating Cost Summary | 1-19 |
| Table 2-1:Summary of QP Responsibilities | 2-2 |
| Table 4-1:Claims Held by EFR for the Pinyon Plain Project | 4-3 |
| Table 6-1:Drilling at Pinyon Plain Project by Previous Operators | 6-2 |
| Table 10-1:Underground Drill hole Database Summary | 10-1 |
| Table 10-2:Selected Copper and Uranium Assay Intercepts | 10-3 |
| Table 10-3:Declustered Cu Assay Statistics | 10-5 |
| Table 11-1:QA/QC Samples for the Pinyon Plain Project Drilling | 11-5 |
| Table 11-2:Summary of QA/QC Submittals | 11-6 |
| Table 11-3:Expected Values and Ranges of Copper CRM | 11-8 |
| Table 11-4:Summary of CRM Performance | 11-8 |
| Table 11-5:Basic Comparative Statistics of 2017 Duplicate Assays | 11-12 |
| Table 11-6:Check Assays List | 11-13 |
| Table 13-1:Conventional Acid Leach Test Results | 13-2 |
| Table 13-2:Roasted Acid Test Results | 13-3 |
| Table 13-3:Summary of Uranium and Copper Recoveries (Hazen) | 13-8 |
| Table 14-1:Summary of Attributable Uranium Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022 | 14-2 |
| Table 14-2:Summary of Attributable Copper Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022 | 14-3 |
| Table 14-3:Summary of Available Drill hole Data | 14-4 |
| Table 14-4:Summary Statistics of Uncapped U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Assays | 14-8 |
| Table 14-5:Summary Statistics of Uncapped vs. Capped Assays | 14-9 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | v |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 14-6:Summary of Uranium Composite Data by Zone | 14-11 |
| Table 14-7:Estimation Steps of Block Model Variables | 14-14 |
| Table 14-8:Uranium Interpolation Plan | 14-15 |
| Table 14-9:Summary of Block Model Variables | 14-16 |
| Table 14-10:Pinyon Plain Project Cut-off Grade Calculation for Mineral Resources | 14-17 |
| Table 14-11:Comparison of Block and Composite Uranium Grades | 14-24 |
| Table 14-12:Block Model Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade and Uranium Price in the Main-Lower and Juniper Zones (Indicated) | 14-25 |
| Table 14-13:Block Model Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade and Uranium Price in the Main-Lower and Juniper Zones (Inferred) | 14-26 |
| Table 14-14:Summary of Attributable Uranium Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022 | 14-27 |
| Table 14-15:Summary of Attributable Copper Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022 | 14-28 |
| Table 15-1:Summary of Mineral Reserve Estimate - December 31, 2022 | 15-1 |
| Table 15-2:Cut Off Grade Calculation for Mineral Reserves | 15-2 |
| Table 16-1:Life of Mine Development and Production Plan | 16-8 |
| Table 16-2:Life of Mine Production Plan | 16-9 |
| Table 16-3:Required Underground Mining Equipment Purchases and Rebuilds | 16-14 |
| Table 16-4:Personnel Requirements | 16-15 |
| Table 19-1:TradeTech Uranium Market Price Forecast (Real & Nominal US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 19-2 |
| Table 20-1:Environmental Permits for Operation | 20-5 |
| Table 21-1:Life of Mine Capital Equipment | 21-1 |
| Table 21-3:Reclamation Cost | 21-2 |
| Table 21-2:Operating Costs Summary | 21-3 |
| Table 21-4:Processing Operating Costs | 21-3 |
| Table 22-1:After-Tax Cash Flow Summary | 22-4 |
| Table 22-2:After-tax Sensitivity Analysis | 22-5 |
| Table 26-1:2023 Proposed Underground Drilling Budget for Main-Lower and Juniper Zones | 26-1 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | vi |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**FIGURES**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 1-1:Annual Mine Production | 1-6 |
| Figure 1-2:After-Tax Metrics Summary | 1-7 |
| Figure 1-3:After-tax NPV 5% Cash flow Sensitivity | 1-11 |
| Figure 1-4:After-tax IRR Cash flow Sensitivity | 1-12 |
| Figure 4-1:Location Map | 4-2 |
| Figure 4-2:Land Tenure Map | 4-4 |
| Figure 7-1:Regional Geologic Map | 7-2 |
| Figure 7-2:Regional Stratigraphic Column | 7-3 |
| Figure 7-3:Cross Section of Local Geology | 7-5 |
| Figure 7-4:Pinyon Plain Horizontal Slice Main Zone - Slice 5,200' Level | 7-6 |
| Figure 10-1:Surface Drill hole Collar Locations | 10-2 |
| Figure 10-2:Histogram of Declustered Cu Assays | 10-5 |
| Figure 11-1:Results of Blank Samples | 11-7 |
| Figure 11-2:Control Charts of Copper CRM | 11-9 |
| Figure 11-3:Average Copper Grade of CRM Over Time | 11-10 |
| Figure 11-4:Scatter Plot of Independent vs Primary Laboratory Check Assay Results for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | 11-13 |
| Figure 11-5:Scatter Plot of Independent vs. Primary Laboratory Check Assay Results for Copper | 11-14 |
| Figure 11-6:Scatter Pot of the Weighted Average of Probe and Assay U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Results Over Drill hole Intercepts within the Main Zone | 11-15 |
| Figure 13-1:Laboratory Comparison - Conventional Leaching | 13-5 |
| Figure 13-2:Laboratory Comparison - Roasting Pre-Treatment and Leaching | 13-5 |
| Figure 14-1:Uranium and Copper Mineralized Zones | 14-7 |
| Figure 14-2:Histogram of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Resource Assay in M_01 and J_1_01 Domains | 14-10 |
| Figure 14-3:Log Normal Probability Plot with Capping Grades | 14-10 |
| Figure 14-4:Length Histogram | 14-12 |
| Figure 14-5:U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Variogram Models | 14-13 |
| Figure 14-6:Block Classification within the Main Zone | 14-20 |
| Figure 14-7:Cross Section Comparing Block and Composite U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Grades in the Main Zone | 14-22 |
| Figure 14-8:Plan View Comparing Block and Composite U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Grades in the Main Zone | 14-23 |
| Figure 14-9:Indicated Grade Tonnage Curve Main-Lower and Juniper Zones | 14-25 |
| Figure 14-10:Inferred Grade Tonnage Curve Main-Lower and Juniper Zones | 14-26 |
| Figure 16-1:Pinyon Plain Overall Mine Design and Naming Conventions | 16-3 |
| Figure 16-2:Pinyon Plan Mine Shaft Plan View | 16-11 |
| Figure 16-3:Pinyon Plain Ventilation Design | 16-13 |
| Figure 18-1:Pinyon Plain Mine Facility Layout | 18-2 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | vii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 19-1:TradeTech Uranium Market Price Forecast (Real & Nominal US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | 19-3 |
| Figure 20-1:Process Flow Diagram for Pinyon Plain Mine | 20-3 |
| Figure 22-1:Annual Mine Production | 22-2 |
| Figure 22-2:After-Tax Metrics Summary | 22-3 |
| Figure 22-3:After-tax NPV 5% Cash flow Sensitivity | 22-7 |
| Figure 22-4:After-tax IRR Cash flow Sensitivity | 22-8 |

---

**APPENDIX TABLES AND FIGURES**

Table 30-1:SLR Base Case Cash Flow Summary 30-2

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | viii |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**1.0** **SUMMARY**

**1.1** **Executive Summary**

SLR International Corporation (SLR) was retained by Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels), the parent company of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFR), to prepare a Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) with respect to the Pinyon Plain Project (Pinyon Plain or the Project), located in Coconino County, Arizona, USA. EFR owns 100% of the Project.

EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels Inc., is incorporated in Ontario, Canada. EFR is a US-based uranium and vanadium exploration and mine development company with projects located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico. EFR is listed on the NYSE American Stock Exchange (symbol: UUUU) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: EFR).

This Technical Report satisfies the requirements of Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary. The purpose of this Technical Report is to disclose the results of a PFS for the Project.

The Project is a uranium and copper breccia pipe deposit in northern Arizona. The Project is permitted and has a 1,470 ft deep shaft, headframe, hoist, compressor, and surface facilities including line power. The Project is currently being developed in preparation for production. Environmental compliance activities continue with all infrastructure for mine development in place. EFR envisages this as a mechanized mining underground operation in which the mineralized material will be hoisted to surface and then trucked to a mill for processing based on a toll milling agreement.

Energy Fuels plans to operate the mine at a rate of up to 292 short tons per day (stpd) of ore, averaging 143 stpd of ore. The mine life extends for a total of 28 months. The life of mine plan includes mining 134,500 tons of ore grading 0.58% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, yielding 1.57 million pounds (Mlb) of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Process recovery is estimated to be 96% to produce 1.51 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. There are additional Mineral Resources at depth below the Mineral Reserves in the current mine plan.

**1.1.1 Conclusions**

SLR offers the following interpretations and conclusions on the Project:

**1.1.1.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300, which are consistent with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• In the SLR QP's opinion, the assumptions, parameters, and methodology used for the Pinyon Plain Mineral Resource estimate is appropriate for the style of mineralization and mining methods.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The SLR QP is of the opinion the block models are adequate for public disclosure and to support mining activities. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2022.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Resource estimates exclude previously reported uranium mineralization from the Cap and Upper zones as a condition of current Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Aquifer Protection Permit which limits mining between the elevations of 5,340 ft and 4,508 ft.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Indicated uranium Mineral Resources total 37,000 tons at an average grade of 0.95% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for a total of 703,000 lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Inferred Mineral Resources total 5,000 tons at an average grade of 0.50% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for a total of 48,000 lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Sampling and assaying procedures have been adequately completed and carried out using industry standard quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) practices. These practices include, but are not limited to, sampling, assaying, chain of custody of the samples, sample storage, use of third-party laboratories, standards, blanks, and duplicates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The SLR QP considers the estimation procedures employed at Pinyon Plain, including compositing, top-cutting, variography, block model construction, and interpolation to be reasonable and in line with industry standard practice.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The SLR QP finds the classification criteria to be reasonable.

**1.1.1.2** **Mining and Mineral Reserves**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Reserve estimates, as prepared by EFR and reviewed and accepted by SLR, have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Reserves in S-K 1300 which are consistent with CIM (2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve estimate is 134,500 tons grading 0.58% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 1.57 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and is comprised of 7,800 tons grading 0.33% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> of Proven Mineral Reserves containing 0.05 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> plus 136,700 tons grading 0.60% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> of Probable Mineral Reserves containing 1.52 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The Mineral Reserves are based upon a cut-off grade of 0.32% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Reserves were estimated based on stope designs utilizing a mine planning software within a 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> wireframe.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The Mineral Reserves include 35% dilution at zero grade.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Measured Mineral Resources were converted to Proven Mineral Reserves and Probable Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• No Inferred Mineral Resources were converted into Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The existing shaft will be used for the mine access and rock hoisting.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The ore will be mined using longhole stoping for the majority of the ore and breasting of roofs and/or ribs for narrow mineralized zones.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Ore will be mucked and hauled by load-haul-dump (LHD) loaders to a grizzly over the loading pocket feed.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• A ventilation raise will be bored in the centre of the orebody to provide an exhaust airway and emergency egress.

The SLR QP is not aware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, permitting, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate.

**1.1.1.3** **Mineral Processing**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• There is sufficient metallurgical testing to support a uranium process recovery of 96% at the White Mesa Mill.

**1.1.1.4** **Infrastructure**

* There is suitable existing or planned infrastructure to support the planned operations.

**1.1.1.5** **Environment**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• EFR has secured all of the permits required to construct, operate, and close the Pinyon Plain Project.

o Some permits require regular update/renewal.

o These permits involved significant public participation opportunity.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Financial assurance is in place to guarantee all reclamation will occur. This amount will be reviewed on a regular basis (at least every five years) to cover any changes at site and/or for any inflationary issue(s).

**1.1.2 Recommendations**

SLR offers the following recommendations regarding the advancement of the Project.

**1.1.2.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Convert Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources within the Main-Lower and Juniper zones by completing underground delineation drilling program per the estimated budget shown in Table 1-1.

**Table 1-1:** **2023 Proposed Underground Drilling Budget for Main-Lower and Juniper Zones**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Number of Drill <br>Holes/Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Feet <br>Drilled** | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Number of Drill <br>Holes/Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Feet <br>Drilled** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Cost**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(US$/ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Budget**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(US$)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Underground Delineation Drilling | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 349000 |

---

**1.1.2.2** **Mining and Mineral Reserves**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Continue preproduction development and preparations for production.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Develop grade control and production reconciliation procedures.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Develop a program of monitoring the geotechnical conditions in the stopes and development headings.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Monitor the water inflow rate of the ventilation raise pilot hole.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Prepare contingency plans for mine dewatering in the event that the ventilation raise encounters a water bearing strata.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Prepare contingency plans for additional dewatering due to water inflow to the ventilation raise.

Select the ventilation raise contractor and confirm the schedule for the work.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Secure contractor proposals for the ventilation raise development and prepare for development.

**1.1.2.3** **Mineral Processing**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Investigate processing the copper.

**1.1.2.4** **Infrastructure**

None

**1.1.2.5** **Environment**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Consider development of an environmental management system that lists environmental roles and responsibilities of site personnel, permit conditions, and monitoring requirements for use should someone else unfamiliar with environmental matters have to perform them.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Establish a reclamation revegetation test plot program to ensure species selected will work at the site.

**1.2** **Economic Analysis**

An after-tax Cash Flow Projection has been generated from the Life of Mine production schedule and capital and operating cost estimates, as summarized in Table 1-2. A summary of the key criteria is provided below.

**1.2.1 Economic Criteria**

**1.2.1.1** **Revenue** 

* Total mill feed processed: 134 thousand tons

* Average processing rate: 216 stpd (steady state)

* U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> head grade: 0.58%

* Average mill recovery: 96%

* Recovered U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>: 1.51 Mlb

* Metal price: $60/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

* Yellowcake product trucking cost from the toll mill to customer: $0.175/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

**1.2.1.2** **Capital and Operating Costs**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Pre-production period: Four months

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mine life: 24 months

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• LOM capital costs, excluding reclamation, of $8.7 million on Q4 2022 US dollar basis

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• LOM operating cost (excluding royalties but including severance taxes) of $50.5 million or $372/ton milled on Q4 2022 US dollar basis

**1.2.1.3** **Royalties and Severance Taxes**

A 3.5% private royalty is payable for the Project based on sliding scale of the value of production expressed in lb/t along with allowances for mining and ore hauling. The royalty payments over the mine life are approximately $1.88/t ore.

Arizona has a severance tax that is 2.5% of the net severance base, which is 50% of the difference between the gross value of production (revenue) and the production costs. Thus, a rate of 1.25% is used to reflect this 50% base reduction. The Arizona severance tax payable to the Project is estimated at $3.70/t ore during LOM.

**1.2.1.4** **Income Taxes**

EFR states it is not liable for corporate income tax (CIT) expenditures as a corporation, including the period that the Project is expected to operate. In addition, the short mine life of 24 months makes an estimate of income tax payable using a standard tax methodology difficult. Therefore, a proforma CIT estimate was added with the assumption that the Project was a stand-alone entity for tax purposes and does not reflect the company's actual filing position with following assumptions:

* A Federal income tax rate of 10.5% is used in this analysis. This rate takes into account the percentage depletion deduction which allows profitable mining companies to reduce their taxable income by 50% and then the remaining amount is taxed at the current Federal tax rate of 21% so that the net rate is 10.5%.

* The Arizona state income tax rate is 4.9% so the combined Federal and state rate is 15.4%%

* The tax amounts may be negative some months as the pre-tax cash flow dips below zero. However, as taxable income is computed on an annual basis and as the annual amounts for the first 24 months are all positive, the sum of the monthly tax amounts will be positive. In the remaining 24 months after the mine ceases operation, there are negative cash flows which can be carried back to profitable years to receive a tax refund. Thus, the project total income tax is the pre-tax cash flow x 15.4%.

* CIT payable for LOM totals $6.0 million.

**1.2.2 Cash Flow Analysis**

The Project production schedule is presented in Figure 1-1 and the resulting after-tax free cash flow profile is shown in Figure 1-2.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x001.jpg)

**Figure 1-1:** **Annual Mine Production**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x002.jpg)

**Figure 1-2:** **After-Tax Metrics Summary**

Table 1-2 presents a summary of the Project economics at an average U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $60.00/lb. The full annual cash flow model is presented in Appendix 1.

On a pre-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $28.9 million over the mine life. The pre-tax Net Present Value (NPV) at a 5% discount rate is $26.5 million and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is 14%.

On an after-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $22.8 million over the mine life. The after-tax NPV at 5% discount rate is $20.9 million and the IRR is 12%.

LOM Project cost metrics are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Cash Operating Costs: $33.91/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• All-in Sustaining Costs: $34.84/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• All-in Costs: $40.81/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 1-2:** **After-Tax Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; $60.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales | &nbsp;&nbsp; klb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1505 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Gross Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **90300** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (263) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (253) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Net Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **89783** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (13581) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ore Trucking Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (9681) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (25817) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (941) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Severance Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (497) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(50518)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Margin** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **39266**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (6046) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Working Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cash Flow** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **33220**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Development Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (8748) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Closure/Reclamation Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1145) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(10155)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29110 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **26682** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax NPV @ 8% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25318 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax NPV @ 12% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23602 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax IRR** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **14%** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23064 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **21072**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax NPV @ 8% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19954 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax NPV @ 12% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18545 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax IRR** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **12%** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Cash Operating Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/l U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33.91 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; All-in Sustaining Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/l U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 34.84 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; All-in Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/l U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40.66 |

---

**1.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis**

Project risks can be identified in both economic and non-economic terms. Key economic risks were examined by running cash flow sensitivities calculated over a range of variations based on realistic fluctuations within the listed factors:

* U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price: 10% increments between $51/lb and $76/lb

* Head grade: -/+ 20%

* Recovery: -20%/+4% (96% is base case already)

* Operating cost per ton milled: -10% to 25% (AACE Class 3 range)

* Capital cost: -10% to 25% (AACE Class 3 range)

The after-tax cash flow sensitivities for the base case are shown in Table 1-3, Figure 1-3, and Figure 1-4. The Project is most sensitive to head grade, uranium price, and recovery, and only slightly less sensitive to operating cost and capital cost at a Class 3 accuracy level. The sensitivities to metallurgical recovery, head grade, and metal price are nearly identical.

**Table 1-3:** **After-tax Sensitivity Analysis**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Price**<br>**(US$/lb)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $6996 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $14034 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $28111 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $72 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $35149 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Head Grade**<br>**(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.47% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7066 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.52% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $14072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.64% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $28074 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.70% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $35073 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 77% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7037 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 86% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $14055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $22827 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $23879 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Costs**<br>**(US$/ton milled)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $45019 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $24988 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $47520 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $23030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $50021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $56273 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $16178 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $62526 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $11284 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Costs**<br>**(US$ M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $9481 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21928 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $9930 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10378 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $11500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $20002 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $12621 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $18932 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x003.jpg)

**Figure 1-3:** **After-tax NPV 5% Cash flow Sensitivity**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x004.jpg)

**Figure 1-4:** **After-tax IRR Cash flow Sensitivity**

**1.3** **Technical Summary**

**1.3.1 Property Description and Location**

The Project is a fully permitted underground uranium and copper deposit in northern Arizona, located on a 17-acre site within the Kaibab National Forest. It is situated 153 mi north of Phoenix, 86 mi northwest of Flagstaff, and seven miles southeast of Tusayan, in Sections 19 and 20, Township 29 North, Range 03 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM), Coconino County, Arizona. The Project is located on the Coconino Plateau within the Colorado Plateau, at an elevation of approximately 6,500 feet above sea level (ft ASL).

**1.3.2 Land Tenure**

EFR's property position at the Project consists of nine unpatented mining claims (Canyon 64-66, 74-76, and 84-86), located on USFS land, encompassing approximately 186 acres. EFR acquired the Project in June 2012 and has a 100% interest in the claims. The Project is located at latitude 35°52'58.65" N and longitude 112° 5'47.05" W. All claims are in good standing until September 1, 2023.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**1.3.3 Existing Infrastructure**

Existing infrastructure includes a shaft, headframe, hoist, compressor, surface maintenance shops, employee offices, a water well, evaporation pond, water treatment plant, rock stockpile pads, water tanks and a fuel tank. An existing power line terminates at the site.

**1.3.4 History**

Uranium exploration and mining of breccia pipe deposits started in the region in 1951.

The Project is located on mining claims held by EFR, a wholly owned subsidiary of EFR Arizona Strip LLC. These mining claims were originally staked by Gulf Mineral Resources (Gulf) in April 1978, who have maintained a royalty on the property through various changes in ownership. The exploration and development carried out by the previous owners included surface and underground drilling, developing a deep water well, and constructing a 1,470 ft deep mine shaft and conveyances for underground exploration which are currently operational.

No past production has occurred at the Project.

**1.3.5 Geology and Mineralization**

Parts of two distant physiographic provinces are found in Arizona: the Basin and Range Province located in the southern portion of the state; and the Colorado Plateau Province located across the northern and central portions of the state. Pinyon Plain lies within the Colorado Plateau Province.

The region has experienced volcanic activity since the Pliocene epoch. A number of lava-capped buttes rise above the general landscape, and lava flows cover large areas in the southern part of the district. Faulting has exerted significant control on the geologic development and geomorphic history of the region. Major structural features include the Grand Wash, Hurricane, and Toroweap fault systems, all trending generally north-south with an eastern up-thrown side. These faults are topographically prominent and show impressive scarps though other less prominent fault systems exist.

The surface expression of the Pinyon Plain breccia pipe is a broad shallow depression in the Permian Kaibab Formation. The pipe is essentially vertical with an average diameter of less than 200 ft but is considerably narrower through the Coconino and Hermit horizons (80 ft in diameter). The cross-sectional area is in the order of 20,000 ft2 to 25,000 ft2. The pipe extends for at least 2,300 ft vertically from the Toroweap limestone to the upper Redwall horizons. The ultimate depth of the pipe is unknown. Uranium mineralization is concentrated in an annular ring within the breccia pipe.

Mineralization extends vertically both inside and outside the pipe over approximately 1,700 vertical ft, but potentially economic grade mineralization has been found mainly in the collapsed portions of the Coconino, Hermit, and Esplanade horizons and at the margins of the pipe in fracture zones. Sulfide zones are found scattered throughout the pipe but are especially concentrated in a sulfide cap near the Toroweap-Coconino contact, where the cap averages 20 ft in thickness and consists of pyrite and bravoite, an iron-nickel sulfide. The mineralization assemblage consists of uranium-pyrite-hematite with massive copper sulfide mineralization common in and near the uranium zone. The strongest mineralization appears to occur in the lower Hermit-upper Esplanade horizons in an annular fracture zone.

In the mineralized zone, the uranium mineralization occurs largely as blebs, streaks, small veins, and fine disseminations of uraninite/pitchblende (UO2). Mineralization is mainly confined to matrix material, but may extend into clasts and larger breccia fragments, particularly where these fragments are Coconino sandstone. In addition to uranium, copper mineralization is also found within the breccia pipe. Typically replacing the matrix material, copper occurs as chalcocite, bornite, tennantite, and covellite. Arsenic is present where tennantite mineralization occurs. Additionally, lower quantities of silver, zinc, lead, molybdenum, copper, nickel, and vanadium are present and scattered throughout the pipe.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**1.3.6 Exploration Status**

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 EFNI in 1983 identified a major deposit. No drilling activity was completed on the Project between EFNI's final drill program in 1994 and EFR's underground drilling program in 2016 to 2017.

**1.3.7 Mineral Resources**

Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300, which are consistent with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI 43-101.

The Project resource database, dated June 17, 2017, includes drilling results from 1978 to 2017 and includes surveyed drill hole collar locations (including dip and azimuth), assay, radiometric probe, and lithology data from 130 diamond drill holes totalling 79,775 ft of drilling.

A geologic and resource model of the breccia pipe host was constructed based on drill logs. Mineralization wireframes for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> were based on assays at a nominal cut-off grade of 0.15%. Low and high grade copper wireframes were based on nominal cut-off grades of 1% and 8%, respectively.

The previously reported Mineral Resources estimate with an effective date of December 31, 2021 (SLR, 2022) disclosed both uranium and copper Mineral Resources in the Main and Main-Lower zones. Copper processing adds significantly higher milling costs and thus a higher equivalent uranium cut-off grade was used to report resources at the Main-Lower and Juniper zones. EFR has not included copper in the Mineral Reserve estimate but could add a copper circuit to the mill in the future. As a result, uranium and copper mineralization are now reported separately in this updated Mineral Resource. In addition, the following are important changes in the reporting of Mineral Resources:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• All previously reported uranium Mineral Resources in the Main Zone have been converted into Mineral Reserves (Section 15).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• In 2022, EFR moved from a General Aquifer Protection Permit to an Individual Aquifer Protection Permit with ADEQ. In an effort to protect the perched aquifer in the Coconino sandstone, ADEQ requested and EFR agreed to limit mining between the elevations of 5,340 feet above sea level (ft ASL) and 4,508 ft ASL. As a result, this updated Mineral Resource report excludes previously reported uranium mineralization from the Cap and Upper zones.

Table 1-4 summarizes uranium Mineral Resources based on a $65/lb uranium price at an equivalent uranium cut-off grade 0.30% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for the Main-Lower and Juniper zones with an effective date of December 31, 2022. The resources stated in this report supersede any previous Mineral Resources reported for the Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 1-4:** **Summary of Attributable Uranium Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off <br>Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained <br>Metal**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery** <br>**U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper I | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 703000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Indicated** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **37000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.95** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **703000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main-Lower | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper I | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper II | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Inferred** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.50** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **48000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral Resources are estimated at 0.30% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> with an estimated metallurgical recovery of 96% for uranium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> (12.2 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 2.63 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR and are in situ.

Table 1-5 lists copper Mineral Resource associated with the Main and Main-Lower zones at Pinyon Plain. Further study is required to determine if the copper associated with uranium mineralization in the zones may eventually be processed and add value to the project.

**Table 1-5:** **Summary of Attributable Copper Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off <br>Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery Cu** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Eq)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(% Cu)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb Cu)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1155000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10553000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Measured + Indicated |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11708000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main-Lower | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 470000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. For the Main and Main-Lower zones of the Pinyon Plain Project, a 0.40% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. The %U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq grade term is not the same as the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>% grade term which indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound and a copper price of $4.00 per lb.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. A copper to U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades (U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. For the Pinyon Plain Project, Mineral Resource tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower zones.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> (12.2 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 2.63 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR and are in situ.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Section 1 and Section 26, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that there are no other known environmental, permitting, legal, social, or other factors that would affect the development of the Mineral Resources.

While the estimate of uranium and copper Mineral Resources is based on the SLR QP's judgment that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction, no assurance can be given that Mineral Resources will eventually convert to Mineral Reserves.

**1.3.8 Mineral Reserves**

Mineral Reserve estimates for Pinyon Plain are based on the Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2022, and a mine design including modifying factors such as stope shapes and sizes, external dilution, and mining extraction factors. Table 1-6 summarizes the estimated Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resource to Mineral Reserve conversion was 100% within the Main zone based on the stopes within the mine design, with the remaining zones (Main-Lower and Juniper) not considered for inclusion as Mineral Reserves.

The proposed mining methods at Pinyon Plain, similar to other past producing breccia pipe deposits in northern Arizona, includes a combination of longhole stoping, shrinkage stoping, and drifting. Development rock, temporarily stockpiled on surface, will be used to fill the stope voids and shafts after mining is complete. Metallurgical test results provided by White Mesa Mill laboratory personnel indicated that metallurgical recoveries using optimum roasting and leach conditions will be approximately 96% for uranium.

An underground mine design completed by EFR for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> mineralization only was based on assays at a nominal cut-off grade envelope grading 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The breakeven cut-off grade is 0.32% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Production is based on underground mining methods and processing via a toll milling agreement.

Copper mineralization at the site has been excluded from the Mineral Reserve estimates.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 1-6:** **Summary of Estimated Mineral Reserves - December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off <br>Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained <br>Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Proven | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7800 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50800 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 126700 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1517000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Proven + Probable** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **134500** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1567800** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. CIM (2014) definitions were followed for Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$60.00 per pound.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Underground Mineral Reserves were estimated by creating stope shapes. The stope shapes were created using a grade envelope of 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, with a minimum mining width of 5 ft (including hanging wall and footwall dilution), on 10 ft vertical stope heights.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. The breakeven cut-off grade is 0.32% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. A mining extraction factor of 95% was applied to the underground stopes, while underground development assumed a 100% mining extraction factor.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Mining Reserves are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. The density varies according to the block model.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The SLR QP is not aware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, permitting, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate.

**1.3.9 Mining Method**

Mineralization is found in fractures which range from single high grade structures to intersections forming large zones; several mining methods will be employed based on the size and geometry of the mineralization. The majority and largest ore zones at Pinyon Plain will be mined by longhole stoping. Narrower mineralized zones will be mined as a single drift using jackleg drills with breasting of the roof and ribs to the ore extents. In some cases, the sill may be blasted and mucked out (termed a "floor pull"). All broken material will be hauled by diesel powered load-haul-dump (LHD) low profile loaders to a muck raise located on the mining level and dropped to the lowest mining level (the 5130 level) or the muck raise located off the spiral ramp. From either location, a LHD will rehandle the muck and tram it to the dump pocket located at the 1-5 shaft station.

All mining levels are accessed through a spiral ramp located on the south side of the orebody. The spiral ramp will connect the mine shaft from the 1-4 to the 1-5 shaft stations. All mine development in ore and waste will be through 10 ft square drifts and accessed from the production shaft at the 1-4 and 1-5 shaft stations. Five mining levels will be developed in the orebody, spaced 30 ft to 35 ft apart vertically from the 5130 level to the 5283 levels.

The mine will operate on a single 12 hour day shift, 7 days per week, 355 days per year. Daily rock production averages 143 stpd of ore and 41 stpd of waste over the life of mine. The maximum daily production from the mine is 343 tons of ore plus waste.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-17 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**1.3.10 Mineral Processing**

Ore will be transported to the White Mesa Mill for processing based on a toll milling agreement.

**1.3.11 Project Infrastructure**

The Pinyon Plain Mine is a developed site with gravel road access and facilities, including line power. Infrastructure at the Project has been designed to accommodate all mining and transportation requirements. In addition to the mine shaft, existing mine infrastructure includes offices, mine dry, warehousing, development rock storage, standby generators, fuelling station, fresh water well, monitor wells and water tanks, a containment pond, electrical power, rapid response services, explosive magazines, equipment utilities, and a workshop. The haulage distance from the Project to the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, is 320 miles.

**1.3.12 Market Studies**

EFR has signed uranium sales contracts with major nuclear utilities for a portion of the production from the Project. These contracts provide for sales prices that are expected to be consistent with the prices forecast by TradeTech through the period of planned production from the property. In that event, realized uranium prices may be $2 to $4 higher that the $60/lb that SLR has used for the cash flow analysis if the Project operates within this timeframe.

**1.3.13 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations**

EFR has secured all permits necessary to construct, operate, and close the Project. Permitting involved public participation and involvement. EFR maintains regular interactions with the regulatory community.

**1.3.14 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates**

The base case capital cost estimate summarized in Table 1-7 covers the three year life of the Project and are based on Q4 2022 US dollars. Based on the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) International classifications, Class 3 estimates have an accuracy range between -10% to -20% (low-end) to +10% to +30% (high-end) (AACE International, 2012). The base case capital and operating cost estimates are within the Class 3 ranges and would meet the S-K 1300 standard of ± 25% accuracy and ≤15% contingency.

**Table 1-7:** **Capital Cost Estimate**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pinyon Plain Underground Mine Capital Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cost** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mine Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3799 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Loading Pocket & Installation | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 129 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Underground Equipment | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 590 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ventilation Fans and heater | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1726 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ventilation Raise | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1219 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface Works | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 140 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal UG Capital Before Contingency** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **7603** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-18 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pinyon Plain Underground Mine Capital Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cost** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Contingency | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1368 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total UG Capital Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **8748** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Reclamation | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1407 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **10155** |

---

Operating costs are based on EFR's operating experience. Table 1-8 shows the operating costs used in the economic evaluation of the Project in Q4 2022 dollars with no contingency applied.

**Table 1-8:** **Operating Cost Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp; $101.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Haulage | &nbsp;&nbsp; $72.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; $192.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **TOTAL OPEX** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$372.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/ore ton mined** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 1-19 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**2.0** **INTRODUCTION**

SLR International Corporation (SLR) was retained by Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels), the parent company of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFR), to prepare a Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) with respect to the Pinyon Plain Project (Pinyon Plain or the Project), located in Coconino County, Arizona, USA. EFR owns 100% of the Project.

EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels Inc., is incorporated in Ontario, Canada. EFR is a US-based uranium and vanadium exploration and mine development company with projects located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico. EFR is listed on the NYSE American Stock Exchange (symbol: UUUU) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: EFR).

This Technical Report satisfies the requirements of Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary. The purpose of this Technical Report is to disclose the results of a PFS for the Project.

The Project is a uranium and copper breccia pipe deposit in northern Arizona. The Project is permitted and has a 1,470 ft deep shaft, headframe, hoist, compressor, and surface facilities including line power. The Project is currently being developed in preparation for production. Environmental compliance activities continue with all infrastructure for mine development in place. EFR envisages this as a mechanized mining underground operation in which the mineralized material will be hoisted to surface and then trucked to a mill for processing based on a toll milling agreement.

Energy Fuels plans to operate the mine at a rate of up to 292 short tons per day (stpd) of ore, averaging 143 stpd of ore. The mine life extends for a total of 28 months. The life of mine plan includes mining 134,500 tons of ore grading 0.58% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, yielding 1.57 million pounds (Mlb) of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Process recovery is estimated to be 96% to produce 1.51 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. There are additional Mineral Resources at depth below the Mineral Reserves in the current mine plan.

**2.1** **Sources of Information**

Sources of information and data contained in this Technical Report or used in its preparation are from publicly available sources in addition to private information owned by EFR, including that of past property owners.

Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Principal Geologist, SLR, who is an independent qualified person visited the Project under care and maintenance on November 16, 2021. Mr. Mathisen toured the operational areas, project offices, and water treatment facility (WTF) and conducted discussions with EFR Project geologists on current and future plans of operations.

The QPs, Messrs. Malensek and Gochnour, visited Pinyon Plain on October 27, 2022. Messrs. Malensek and Gochnour toured the surface and underground operational areas, project offices, and water treatment facility (WTF) and conducted discussions with EFR site personnel on current and future plans of operations.

Table 2-1 presents a summary of the QP responsibilities for this Technical Report.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 2-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 2-1:** **Summary of QP Responsibilities**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project** 

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Qualified Person** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Title/Position** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Section** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng. | &nbsp;&nbsp; SLR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Senior Principal Mining Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.2, 1.3.12, 1.3.14, 19, 21, 22, 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G. | &nbsp;&nbsp; SLR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Principal Geologist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.1, 1.1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.4-1.3.7, 2-12, 14, 23, 24, 25.1, 26.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng. | &nbsp;&nbsp; SLR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Associate Principal Mining Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.2, 1.1.2.2, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 15, 16, 25.2, 26.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP | &nbsp;&nbsp; Woods Process Services | &nbsp;&nbsp; Principal Consulting Metallurgist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.3, 1.1.1.4, 1.1.2.3, 1.3.3, 1.3.10, 1.3.11, 13, 17, 18, 25.3, 25.4, 26.3, 26.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA (QP) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Gochnour & Associate, Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp; Associate Principal Environmental Specialist | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.1.1.5, 1.1.2.5, 1.3.13, 20, 25.5, 26.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; All | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 27 |

---

During the preparation of this Technical Report, discussions were held with personnel from EFR:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Dan Kapostasy, P.G., Director of Technical Services

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Gordon Sobering, PE, QP, Chief Engineer

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Scott Bakken, P.G., Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

This Technical Report supersedes the previous Technical Report completed by SLR, dated February 22, 2022.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 2-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

The documentation reviewed, and other sources of information, are listed at the end of this Technical Report in Section 27 References.

**2.2** **List of Abbreviations**

The U.S. System for weights and units has been used throughout this report. Tons are reported in short tons (ton) of 2,000 lb unless otherwise noted. All currency in this Technical Report is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations and acronyms used in this Technical Report are listed below.

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Abbreviation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Definition** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Abbreviation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Definition** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; μ | &nbsp;&nbsp; micron | &nbsp;&nbsp; L | &nbsp;&nbsp; liter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; a | &nbsp;&nbsp; annum | &nbsp;&nbsp; lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; pound |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; A | &nbsp;&nbsp; ampere | &nbsp;&nbsp; m | &nbsp;&nbsp; meter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; bbl | &nbsp;&nbsp; barrels | &nbsp;&nbsp; m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; meter cubed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Btu | &nbsp;&nbsp; British thermal units | &nbsp;&nbsp; M | &nbsp;&nbsp; mega (million); molar |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; °C | &nbsp;&nbsp; degree Celsius | &nbsp;&nbsp; Ma | &nbsp;&nbsp; one million years |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; cm | &nbsp;&nbsp; centimeter | &nbsp;&nbsp; MBtu | &nbsp;&nbsp; thousand British thermal units |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; cm<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; centimeter cubed | &nbsp;&nbsp; MCF | &nbsp;&nbsp; million cubic feet |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; d | &nbsp;&nbsp; day | &nbsp;&nbsp; MCF/h | &nbsp;&nbsp; million cubic feet per hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; °F | &nbsp;&nbsp; degree Fahrenheit | &nbsp;&nbsp; mi | &nbsp;&nbsp; mile |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft ASL | &nbsp;&nbsp; feet above sea level | &nbsp;&nbsp; min | &nbsp;&nbsp; minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft | &nbsp;&nbsp; foot | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mpa | &nbsp;&nbsp; megapascal |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; square foot | &nbsp;&nbsp; mph | &nbsp;&nbsp; miles per hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; cubic foot | &nbsp;&nbsp; MVA | &nbsp;&nbsp; megavolt-amperes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ft/s | &nbsp;&nbsp; foot per second | &nbsp;&nbsp; MW | &nbsp;&nbsp; megawatt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; g | &nbsp;&nbsp; gram | &nbsp;&nbsp; MWh | &nbsp;&nbsp; megawatt-hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G | &nbsp;&nbsp; giga (billion) | &nbsp;&nbsp; ppb | &nbsp;&nbsp; part per billion |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ga | &nbsp;&nbsp; one billion years | &nbsp;&nbsp; ppm | &nbsp;&nbsp; part per million |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; gal | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallon | &nbsp;&nbsp; psia | &nbsp;&nbsp; pound per square inch absolute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; gal/d | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallon per day | &nbsp;&nbsp; psig | &nbsp;&nbsp; pound per square inch gauge |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; g/L | &nbsp;&nbsp; gram per liter | &nbsp;&nbsp; rpm | &nbsp;&nbsp; revolutions per minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; g/y | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallon per year | &nbsp;&nbsp; RL | &nbsp;&nbsp; relative elevation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; gpm | &nbsp;&nbsp; gallons per minute | &nbsp;&nbsp; s | &nbsp;&nbsp; second |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; hp | &nbsp;&nbsp; horsepower | &nbsp;&nbsp; ton | &nbsp;&nbsp; short ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; h | &nbsp;&nbsp; hour | &nbsp;&nbsp; stpa | &nbsp;&nbsp; short ton per year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hz | &nbsp;&nbsp; hertz | &nbsp;&nbsp; stpd | &nbsp;&nbsp; short ton per day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; in. | &nbsp;&nbsp; inch | &nbsp;&nbsp; t | &nbsp;&nbsp; metric tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; in<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; square inch | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$ | &nbsp;&nbsp; United States dollar |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; J | &nbsp;&nbsp; joule | &nbsp;&nbsp; V | &nbsp;&nbsp; volt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; k | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilo (thousand) | &nbsp;&nbsp; W | &nbsp;&nbsp; watt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kg/m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilogram per cubic meter | &nbsp;&nbsp; wt% | &nbsp;&nbsp; weight percent |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kVA | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilovolt-amperes | &nbsp;&nbsp; WLT | &nbsp;&nbsp; wet long ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kW | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilowatt | &nbsp;&nbsp; y | &nbsp;&nbsp; year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; kWh | &nbsp;&nbsp; kilowatt-hour | &nbsp;&nbsp; yd<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; cubic yard |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 2-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**3.0** **RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS**

This Technical Report has been prepared by the SLR QP for EFR's parent company, Energy Fuels. The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on:

* Information available to the SLR QP at the time of preparation of this Technical Report,

* Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this Technical Report, and

* Data, reports, and other information supplied by Energy Fuels and other third party sources.

**3.1** **Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant**

For the purpose of this Technical Report, the SLR QP has relied on information provided by Energy Fuels for the following:

Ownership information for the Project as described in Section 4 Property Description and Location and the Summary of this Technical Report relied upon a legal opinion by Parsons Behle & Latimer dated January 19, 2022, entitled Mining Claim Status Report - Pinyon Mine, Coconino County, Arizona. The SLR QP has not researched property title or mineral rights for the Project as we consider it reasonable to rely on Energy Fuels' legal counsel who is responsible for maintaining this information. The SLR QP has taken all appropriate steps, in their professional opinion, to ensure that the above information from Energy Fuels is sound.

Royalties and other encumbrances for the Project, as described in Section 4 Property Description and Location and the relevant sections of the Summary, was confirmed by Gordon Sobering, Chief Engineer for EFR in an email dated January 23, 2023.

Environmental and permitting information for the Property, as described in Section 4 Property Description and Location, Section 20 Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Social or Community Impact, and the relevant sections of the Summary was provided by Scott Bakken, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs for EFR and reviewed by the SLR QP. The permit register was also provided by Mr. Bakken in an email dated January 30, 2022. SLR is unaware of any changes in the register since the date of confirmation.

SLR has relied on EFR for guidance on applicable taxes and other government levies or interests, applicable to revenue or income, to evaluate the viability of the Mineral Reserves stated in Section 22 Economic Analysis, and the relevant sections of the Summary of this Technical Report. This information was confirmed by Kara Beck, Tax Manager for EFR in an email dated January 24, 2023. SLR is unaware of any changes to the US tax code since the date of confirmation.

Except as provided by applicable laws, any use of this Technical Report by any third party is at that party's sole risk.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 3-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**4.0** **PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION**

The Project is a fully permitted underground uranium and copper deposit in northern Arizona. The mineral rights are held by EFR, a wholly-owned subsidiary of EFR Arizona Strip LLC.

**4.1** **Location**

The Project is located in northern Arizona within the Kaibab National Forest, on a fully permitted 17-acre site. It is situated 153 mi north of Phoenix, 86 mi northwest of Flagstaff, 47 mi north of Williams, and seven miles southeast of Tusayan, in Sections 19 and 20, Township 29 North, Range 03 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM), Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 4-1).

The geographic coordinates for the approximate center of the Project are located at latitude 35°52'58.65" N and longitude 112°5'47.05" W. All surface data coordinates are State Plane 1983 Arizona Central FIPS 0202 (US feet) system.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 4-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x005.jpg)

**Figure 4-1:** **Location Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 4-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**4.2** **Land Tenure**

EFR's property position at the Project consists of nine unpatented mining claims (Canyon 64-66, 74-76, and 84-86), located on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land, encompassing approximately 186 acres (Figure 4-2). Gulf Mineral Resources (Gulf) originally staked the claims in 1978 and various companies have maintained the claims since the original staking. EFR acquired the Project in June 2012 and has a 100% interest in the claims.

All claims, which are renewed annually in September of each year, are in good standing until September 1, 2023 (at which time they will be renewed for the following year as a matter of course). All unpatented mining claims are subject to an annual federal mining claim maintenance fee of $165 per claim plus approximately $10 per claim for county filing fees to the BLM. Table 4-1 lists the mineral claims covering the Project.

**Table 4-1:** **Claims Held by EFR for the Pinyon Plain Project**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Section** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Quadrant** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Serial <br>Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Claimant** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Loc. <br>Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Next Pmt <br>Due Date** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 & 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE(19),NW(20) | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101406928 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #64 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/5/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 & 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,SE(19),NW,SW(20) | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101408027 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #65 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/5/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 & 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE(19),SW(20) | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101422944 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/5/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101424281 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #74 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/5/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NW,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101511848 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/5/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ102522768 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/5/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101515633 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #84 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/4/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; NE,NW,SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101403513 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/4/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; SE,SW | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZ101408062 | &nbsp;&nbsp; LODE CLAIM | &nbsp;&nbsp; CANYON #86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EF ENERGY FUELS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4/4/1978 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9/1/2023 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 4-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x006.jpg)

**Figure 4-2:** **Land Tenure Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 4-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**4.3** **Required Permits, Authorizations and Status**

The Project is located on public lands managed by the USFS and has an approved Plan of Operations (PoO) with the USFS. The Pinyon Plain Property has also received permit authorizations through the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), which include Aquifer Protection Permits for the Non-Stormwater Impoundment, Ore Stockpile and Development Rock Stockpile, an Air Quality Control Permit, and Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit coverage. In 2015, the Property also received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Construct/Modify an Underground Uranium Mine pursuant to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

The SLR QP is not aware of any factors or risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform the proposed work program on the Property.

**4.4** **Royalties**

In late 2022 EFR contracted a legal firm, Parsons Behle & Latimer (the Firm), to examine evidence of title and ownership of the existing royalties on the unpatented land claims associated with the Pinyon Plain mine.

The Firm examined records of the Coconino County Recorder related to existing royalties and found a mining deed and lease dated December 1, 1982, between the Gulf Oil Corporation (Gulf) and Energy Fuels Exploration Company (EFEC) reserving a 3.5% royalty based on a sliding pricing guaranteed by the US Government based on ore grade plus allowances for mining and haulage as outlined in the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Circular 5. Additionally, a 7% net smelter return (NSR) royalty on minerals other than uranium was also agreed upon with Gulf, which is not applicable at this time since uranium is the only metal planned to be milled from the Project as outlined in the economic analysis section (Section 22) of this Technical Report.

Based on the AEC guidance, current Pinyon Plain Mineral Reserves, and EFR's uranium contracted price for Pinyon Plain ores, the calculated Pinyon Plain royalty to Gulf is $1.88 per ore ton mined.

**4.5** **Other Significant Risks**

The SLR QP is not aware of any environmental liabilities on the Project. Energy Fuels has all required permits to conduct the proposed work on the Project. The SLR QP is not aware of any other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform the proposed work program on the Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 4-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**5.0** **ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY**

**5.1** **Accessibility**

Access to the Project site is via State Highway 64 and Federal Highway 180 to within five miles of the mine site, then over unsurfaced public USFS roads (Figure 4-1). The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railway line passes east-west 50 mi south of the site at Williams, and a spur of the railway, which passes 10 mi west of the Project site, services the Grand Canyon National Park. Airports at Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tusayan provide air access to the area.

Although the Coconino Plateau is sparsely populated, tourist traffic to Grand Canyon National Park results in large numbers of people passing through the region daily.

**5.2** **Vegetation**

Vegetation on the plateaus is primarily ponderosa pine forest with some open pinyon-juniper woodland and shrubs. The local climate allows for a year-round mining operation.

**5.3** **Climate**

The climate in northern Arizona is semi-arid, with cold winters and hot summers. January temperatures range from approximately 7°F to 57°F and July temperatures range from 52°F to 97°F. Annual precipitation, mostly in the form of rain but with some snow, is about 12 in.

**5.4** **Local Resources**

Personnel and supplies for future mining operations are expected to be sourced from the nearby towns of Williams and Flagstaff, Arizona (50 miles and 70 miles, respectively), as well as other underground mining districts in the western United States. Although the Coconino Plateau is sparsely populated, tourist traffic to Grand Canyon National Park results in large numbers of people passing through the region daily.

**5.5** **Infrastructure**

In addition to the mine shaft, existing surface mine infrastructure includes surface maintenance shops, employee offices and change rooms, a water well, an evaporation pond, water treatment plant, explosive magazines, water tanks, fuel tank, and rock stockpile pads (ore and development rock). Electrical power is available through an existing power line that terminates at the site.

In 1982, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (EFNI), which is not part of Energy Fuels Inc., acquired the Project. From 1982 to 1987, EFNI conducted exploration drilling, permitted the mine, constructed certain surface facilities including a headframe, hoist, and compressor, and sunk the shaft to a depth of 50 ft. From 1987 to 2013, the Project was put on standby due to low uranium prices. In 2012, EFR acquired the Project through its acquisition of Denison Mines Corporation's US assets (Denison). Beginning in 2013, EFR refurbished the surface facilities and extended the shaft an additional 228 ft to a depth of 278 ft. In late 2013, the Project was again placed on standby due to low uranium prices. In October 2015, EFR re-started the Project and committed to completing the shaft and underground delineation drilling program. From October 2015 to March 2018, the shaft was sunk to a final depth of 1,470 ft, and three development levels were started at the 1,000 ft (5,506 ft ASL), 1,220 ft (5,286 ft ASL); and 1,400 ft (5,106 ft ASL) depths, all of which have functioned as drill stations.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 5-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

During 2019, a 1,000,000-gallon water tank was installed, in addition to the existing 400,000-gallon tank installed in 2017. These above-ground storage tanks are used for operational flexibility and extra water storage capacity during winter months. Three floating, downcasting, enhanced evaporators were installed in the Non-Stormwater Impoundment to aid in evaporation. The tanks and evaporators are part of Energy Fuels' water balance management practices at the site.

During 2020, a fourth floating, down-casting, enhanced evaporator was installed at the site to increase the operational flexibility of the water balance management practices. Additionally, a water capture and pumping system was installed in the shaft to segregate unimpacted water and store it for beneficial use.

During 2021, a water treatment plant was installed to process water for offsite transport. The water treatment plant was commissioned in April 2021. Water use agreements have been entered into with local farmers and ranchers through which they may utilize excess water from the Pinyon Plain Project for their own beneficial uses within the Coconino Plateau groundwater basin.

In addition to the mine shaft, existing surface mine infrastructure includes surface maintenance shops, employee offices and change rooms, a water well, an evaporation pond, explosive magazines, water tanks, fuel tank, and rock stockpile pads (ore and development rock). Electrical power is available through an existing power line that terminates at the site.

**5.6** **Physiography**

Northern Arizona is part of the Colorado Plateau, a region of the western United States characterized by semi-arid, high-altitude, gently sloping plateaus dissected by steep walled canyons, volcanic mountain peaks, and extensive erosional escarpments. The Project is located on the Coconino Plateau within the Colorado Plateau, at an elevation of approximately 6,500 feet above sea level (ft ASL).

Overall, the land is flat lying across several square miles surrounding the Project. Elevation at the site is 6,500 ft ASL with a southern downward slope averaging 100 ft per mile. Two major regional topographical features include the Red Butte, a lava capped mesa 4.5 mi south at an elevation of 7,234 ft ASL, and the Colorado River, 15 mi to the north at an elevation of 2,500 ft ASL.

Major landforms in the general area of the Project include nearly level drainage bottoms of recent alluvium, gently sloping plateau ridgetops, and moderately sloping canyon sideslopes. Soils have developed from residual or colluvial parent materials, and outcrops of bedrock are typically exposed along shoulder slopes and ridgetops. The Coconino Rim, a north-facing escarpment east and north of the deposit, is the major landform obstructing access between Pinyon Plain and highways to the east.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 5-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**6.0** **HISTORY**

Uranium exploration and mining of breccia pipe deposits started in the region in 1951 when a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey noted uranium ore on the dump of an old copper prospect on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon in Northern Arizona. The prospect was inside Grand Canyon National Park, but on fee land that predated the Park. The Golden Crown Mining Company, which later merged with Western Gold and Uranium Inc., mined a significant high grade uranium deposit, the Orphan Mine, from 1956 to 1969. By the time mining ended, 4.26 million pounds (Mlb) of uranium, along with some minor amounts of copper, vanadium, and silver had been produced (Bennett, n.d.).

After the discovery of this first uranium deposit in the 1950s, an extensive search for other uranium deposits was made by the government and mining industry, but only a few low-grade prospects were found. Exploration started again in the early-1970s.

In the mid-1970s, Western Nuclear leased the Hack Canyon prospect located approximately 25 mi 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 a mile away along a fault.

In the late-1970s, EFNI formed a uranium exploration venture with several Swiss utilities and acquired significant uranium reserves in southeast Utah. EFNI permitted and built the 2,000 stpd White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah, to process Colorado Plateau ore, which was expected to average 0.13% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. When the uranium market fell in 1980, the higher-grade Hack Canyon property was leased by EFNI from Western Nuclear in December 1980 as a likely low-cost source of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> mill feed. Development started promptly, and the Hack Canyon deposits were in production by the end of 1981. They proved to be much better than the initial estimates suggested in terms of both grade and tonnage.

As part of their exploration program, EFNI identified and investigated more than 4,000 circular features, which potentially indicate mineralized breccia pipes, in northern Arizona. Approximately 110 of the most prospective features were further explored by deep drilling, and nearly 50% of those drilled were shown to contain uranium mineralization. Ultimately, nine pipes were developed. Total mine production from the EFNI breccia pipes from 1980 through 1991 was approximately 19.1 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> at an average grade of just over 0.60% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

The Project is a uranium and copper breccia pipe deposit in northern Arizona. The Project was originally included as part of the Arizona Strip Uranium Project. The Arizona Strip Uranium Project was located in the Arizona Strip District, a mining district located in northwestern Arizona, and contained three deposits: the Pinenut Mine, the Arizona 1 Mine, and the Project. The Pinenut and Arizona 1 breccia pipes are located between the town of Fredonia, Arizona, and the Grand Canyon National Park. The Pinenut Mine was mined-out in 2015 and is currently being reclaimed. The Arizona 1 Mine is currently on standby. The Project has been considered separate from the Arizona Strip Uranium Project since 2017.

**6.1** **Prior Ownership**

The Project is located on mining claims that EFNI acquired from Gulf in 1982. Gulf originally staked the claims in April 1978. EFNI was acquired by the Concord group in the early-1990s. The Concord group declared bankruptcy in 1995, and most of the EFNI assets, including the Project, were acquired by International Uranium Corporation (IUC) in 1997. IUC merged with Denison Mines Inc. on December 1, 2006, and the new company changed its name to Denison Mines Corporation. In June 2012, Energy Fuels Inc. acquired all of Denison's mining assets and operations in the United States. Currently the Project claims are held by EFR, a wholly-owned subsidiary of EFR Arizona Strip LLC.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 6-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**6.2** **Exploration and Development History**

Since 1994, exploration activities undertaken on the Project have only included drilling. Prior to that, exploration activities carried out by EFR's predecessors from 1983 to 1987 include:

* Ground control source audio magneto tellurium (CSAMT) surveys

* Ground magnetics

* Ground very low frequency (VLF) surveys

* Time domain electro-magnetic surveys (TDEM)

* Surface gravity surveys

* Airborne electromagnetic (EM) surveys.

At the time of the acquisition by EFR the Project was permitted and contained a headframe, hoist, and compressor, and a shaft to a depth of 50 ft. EFR refurbished the surface facilities and extended the shaft an additional 228 ft to a depth of 278 ft. In late 2013, the Project was placed on standby due to low uranium prices. In October 2015, EFR re-started the Project and committed to completing the shaft and underground delineation drilling program. From October 2015 to March 2017, the shaft was sunk to a depth of 1,470 ft, and three development levels were started at the 1,003 ft, 1,220 ft, and 1,400 ft depths, all of which have functioned as drill stations.

The Project was previously referred to as the Canyon Mine, however, in November of 2020 EFR changed the project name to Pinyon Plain.

**6.2.1 Drilling**

The basic tool for exploring breccia pipes in northern Arizona is deep rotary drilling, supplemented by core drilling, up to a depth of 2,000 ft or more from surface. All drill holes are surveyed for deviation and logged using gamma logging equipment, as described in Section 11.1.1. Previous operators drilled 45 surface holes, including a deep water well, totalling 62,289 ft (Table 6-1). Gulf drilled eight exploration holes at the Project site from 1978 to May 1982 but found only low-grade uranium mineralization. Additional drilling by EFNI in 1983 identified economic uranium mineralization at the Pinyon Plain breccia pipe.

After EFNI identified mineralization, shallow drilling was conducted to locate the center of the collapse feature (holes S01-S13), as a guide to the throat of the underlying breccia pipe. EFNI followed this up with additional deep drilling to better define the mineralization.

**Table 6-1:** **Drilling at Pinyon Plain Project by Previous Operators**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **# Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Depth**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Type** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1978-1982 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Gulf | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13041 | &nbsp;&nbsp; COG Series | &nbsp;&nbsp; Rotary |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFNI | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10504 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CYN Series 01-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Rotary |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFNI | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1350 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CYN Series S01-S13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Rotary |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFNI | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18462 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CYN Series 06-14C & 16C | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core/Rotary |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1985 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFNI | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3534 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CYN 15C & CYN 15W1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 6-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **# Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Depth**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Type** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1986<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; EFNI | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3086 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 55-515772 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Water Well |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1994<br> &nbsp;&nbsp; EFNI | &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12312 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CYN Series 17-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Rotary |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **45** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **62289** |  |  |

---

**6.3** **Past Production**

A mine shaft and conveyances were developed for underground exploration, as described in Section 5.5, and are operational, however, no past production has occurred at the Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 6-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**7.0** **GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION**

**7.1** **Regional Geology**

The Project is located on the Colorado Plateau, south of the Grand Canyon, within the Kaibab National Forest. The Project's mineralization is controlled by a collapse structure known as a breccia pipe. This breccia pipe is one of thousands of collapse structures found on the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon. The Pinyon Plain pipe extends from the surface (Moenkopi Formation) through various geologic strata into the Redwall Limestone.

Parts of two distant physiographic provinces are found in Arizona: the Basin and Range Province located in the southern portion of the state; and the Colorado Plateau Province located across the northern and central portions of the state. Pinyon Plain lies within the Colorado Plateau Province.

Surface exposures near the Project reveal sedimentary and volcanic rocks ranging in age from upper Paleozoic to Quaternary. The area is largely underlain by Mississippian through Triassic Period sedimentary rocks, however, exposed within the Grand Canyon are older rocks reaching Precambrian in age.

The region has experienced volcanic activity since the Pliocene epoch. A number of lava-capped buttes rise above the general landscape, and lava flows cover large areas in the southern part of the district. Faulting has exerted significant control on the geologic development and geomorphic history of the region. Major structural features are the Grand Wash, Hurricane, and Toroweap fault systems, all generally trending north-south with an eastern up thrown side. These faults are topographically prominent and show impressive scarps though other less prominent fault systems exist.

The deep incision of the Grand Canyon and associated side canyons, such as Kanab Creek, have dewatered the sedimentary section. Regionally ground water is encountered in the Redwall limestone, which coincides with the deeper formations exposed in the Grand Canyon. Perched ground water, usually in very limited quantities, is often encountered at the base of the Coconino sandstone in contact with the low permeability Hermit shale sequence. Figure 7-1 is a map showing the regional geology of the Project. Figure 7-2 presents a regional stratigraphic column.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x007.jpg)

**Figure 7-1:** **Regional Geologic Map**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x008.jpg)

**Figure 7-2:** **Regional Stratigraphic Column**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**7.2** **Local Geology**

The surface expression of the Project is a broad shallow depression in the Permian Kaibab Formation. The pipe is essentially vertical with an average diameter of less than 200 ft, but it is considerably narrower through the Coconino and Hermit horizons (80 ft in diameter). The cross-sectional area is approximately 20,000 ft² to 25,000 ft². The pipe extends for at least 2,300 ft vertically from the Toroweap limestone to the upper Redwall horizons (Figure 7-3). The ultimate depth of the pipe is unknown. Uranium mineralization is concentrated in an annular ring within the breccia pipe.

**7.2.1 Structural Geology**

Regional joint systems rooted below the Redwall trend northwest-southeast and northeast-southwest. The regional joints and fractures lead to upward caving of the karstic voids in the Redwall Limestone vertically through the overlying Paleozoic sediments. As surface water and groundwater interact with the pipe, a circular brecciated column forms inside of the fracture controlled boundary.

Fractures related to the pipe can surround the brecciated zone and extend thin "ring fractures" up to 300 ft beyond the breccia pipe. Vertical joints and associated breccia pipes increase permeability and porosity, leading to the mineralization observed in the region. Figure 7-4 presents a horizontal section looking down at the breccia pipe and shows the distribution of mineralization with reference to the pipe structure.

**7.2.2 Alteration**

The Pinyon Plain breccia pipe is surrounded by bleached zones, particularly notable in the Hermit Formation where unaltered red sediments contrast sharply with gray-green bleached material. Bleaching is common within 100 ft of the pipe boundary. Sulfide mineralization, commonly in the form of pyrite, is found as streaks or blebs within the bleached zones.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x009.jpg)

**Figure 7-3:** **Cross Section of Local Geology**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x010.jpg)

**Figure 7-4:** **Pinyon Plain Horizontal Slice Main Zone - Slice 5,200' Level**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**7.3** **Mineralization**

Mineralization at the Project extends vertically approximately 1,700 ft, both inside and outside the pipe, but high grade uranium and copper mineralization is found primarily in the collapsed portions of the Coconino, Hermit, and Esplanade horizons and at the margins of the pipe in fracture zones. Sulfide zones are found scattered throughout the pipe but are especially concentrated (within a sulfide cap) near the Toroweap-Coconino contact, where the cap averages 20 ft thick and consists of pyrite and bravoite, an iron-nickel sulfide. The ore assemblage consists of uranium-pyrite-hematite with massive copper sulfide mineralization common in and near the high grade zone. The strongest mineralization appears to occur in the lower Hermit-upper Esplanade horizons in an annular fracture zone.

The metal of interest at the Project is uranium, though significant copper mineralization co-exists in the breccia pipe. As the rocks making up the breccia within the pipe are all sedimentary rocks, mineralization typically occurs within the matrix material (primarily sand) surrounding the larger breccia clasts.

**7.3.1 Uranium Mineralization**

Uranium mineralization at the Project is concentrated in three stratigraphic levels or zones (Upper/Cap, Main, and Juniper) within a collapse structure ranging from 80 ft to 230 ft wide with a vertical extension from a depth of 650 ft to over 2,100 ft, resulting in approximately 1,450 ft of mineralization. Mineralized intercepts range widely up to several tens of feet with grades in excess of 1.00% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. In previous reports and EFR news releases, the mineralization was subdivided into six distinct zones; those six have been combined into the three listed above for simplicity. The Upper/Cap Zone combines the previously reported Upper and Cap Zones. The Main Zone combines the previously reported Main and Main-Lower zones, and Juniper combines the previously reported Juniper I and Juniper II zones.

Age dating of mineralization (U-Pb) indicates a range from 101 million to 260 million years, which suggests that the earliest uranium mineralization had occurred in the Permian Period before the pipes completely formed in the Triassic Period.

Consistent with other breccia pipe deposits, in the mineralized zone, the uranium mineralization occurs largely as blebs, streaks, small veins, and fine disseminations of uraninite/pitchblende (UO<sub>2</sub>). Mineralization is mainly confined to matrix material, but may extend into clasts and larger breccia fragments, particularly where these fragments are of Coconino sandstone. Uranium mineralization occurs primarily as uraninite and various uranium phase minerals (unidentifiable minerals) with lesser amounts of brannerite and uranospinite.

**7.3.2 Copper Mineralization**

Currently, there is no reasonable prospect for the economic extraction of copper at the Project.

Significant copper mineralization occurs at the Project within the Main zone and to a lesser extent in the Main-Lower zone, both with uranium mineralization and outside of uranium mineralization.

Copper mineralization can be disseminated throughout the matrix material (commonly replacing calcite cement) with higher-grade mineralization typically occurring as vug fills, blebs, or streaks within the matrix and sometimes zoning the breccia clasts. The highest-grade copper mineralization completely replaces the matrix cement or replaces the matrix material all together.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

Copper mineralization occurs primarily as tennantite, chalcocite, and bornite with lesser amounts of covellite. Pyrite and sphalerite are also found throughout the pipe. Silver is commonly associated with the copper mineralization in the Main Zone. Assay values of silver greater than one ounce per short ton are common where copper grades are high. Arsenic is present where tennantite mineralization occurs. Additionally, lower quantities of silver, zinc, lead, molybdenum, copper, nickel, and vanadium are present and scattered throughout the pipe.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 7-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**8.0** **DEPOSIT TYPES**

Paleozoic Era sedimentary rocks of northern Arizona are host to thousands of breccia pipes. The pipes extend from the Mississippian Redwall Limestone up to the Triassic Chinle Formation, a total of approximately 4,000 ft of section. Due to erosion and other factors, however, no single pipe has been observed cutting through the entire section. No pipe occurs above the Chinle Formation or below the Redwall Limestone. Breccia pipes mineralized with uranium are called Solution-Collapse Breccia Pipe Uranium deposits, which are defined as U.S. Geological Survey Model 32e (Finch, 1992).

Breccia pipes within the Arizona Strip District are vertical or near vertical, circular to elliptical bodies of broken rock comprised of slabs, rotated angular blocks and fragments of surrounding and stratigraphically higher formations. The inclusion of breccia made of stratigraphically higher formations suggests that the pipes formed by solution collapse of underlying calcareous rocks, such as the Redwall Limestone. Surrounding the blocks and slabs making up the breccia is a matrix of fine material comprised of surrounding and overlying rock from various formations. For the most part, the matrix consists of siliceous or calcareous cement.

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, 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 can range up to approximately 600 ft, but normally range from 200 ft to 300 ft in diameter.

Mineralization in the breccia pipes takes place by water flowing along fractures and through porous materials that provide conduits for fluid flow and typically takes place in stages. Wenrich and Sutphin (1989) identified at least four separate mineralizing events that occur within the Arizona Strip District pipes, with uranium and copper mineralization occurring as part of the last two mineralizing events.

To date, mineralized breccia pipes appear to occur in clusters or trends. Spacing between 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 the Mississippian and Permian Periods is considered to have initiated formation of the numerous and widespread pipes in the region.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 8-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**9.0** **EXPLORATION**

EFR has completed no exploration work on the Project other than underground development drilling discussed in Section 10, since acquiring the properties in 2012.

**9.1** **Geotechnical**

In 1987, the geotechnical consulting firm of Dames and Moore (1987) completed an evaluation of mine stability and subsidence potential at the Project.

The scope of work was based on a review of geologic and geotechnical data from similar breccia pipe uranium mines on the Arizona Strip (the Orphan Mine, the Hack 2 Mine, Kanab North, and the Pigeon Mine), including the stability of existing underground stopes.

Numerical modeling of stopes was analyzed at depths of 800 ft, 1,200 ft, and 1,600 ft below surface with a surrounding rock strength of 3,000 psi. Stope dimensions at these mines varied from 60 ft high by 30 ft wide (Orphan Mine) to 350 ft high by 200 ft wide (Hack 2 Mine). Ground support was limited to rock bolts in the stope backs and no backfill.

The report concluded that stopes up to 350 ft high at a depth of 1,200 ft would not develop significant stability problems as long as prudent ground supports were employed, which EFR plans to install during mining. In addition, the report predicted mined out stopes would fill with rubblized rock as a result of subsidence reaching surface in several hundred years; the surface expression would be less than two feet over a broad area and would be difficult to observe in the field.

Since the geotechnical report was produced, EFR has decided to fill stopes with waste rock generated from accessing the orebody, which will significantly reduce any post-mining surface expression from ground subsidence.

EFR has not conducted any geotechnical work at the Project since its acquisition.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 9-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**10.0** **DRILLING**

EFR acquired the Project from Denison in 2012. Since that time, exploration work carried out by EFR at the Project has included the drilling of 80 core holes and 25 percussion holes from three subsurface levels accessed from the production shaft to delineate mineralization extents, results of which were used to update the geologic model and Mineral Resource estimates discussed in the following sections of this report.

Three mineralized zones have been identified on the Project; from top downward, they are the Upper/Cap Zone, the Main Zone, and the Juniper Zone. Mineral Resources (Section 14) are reported on the Main and Juniper Zones; the Upper/Cap Zone is currently an exploration target.

**10.1** **Drilling**

As of the effective date of this report, EFR and its predecessors have completed 150 holes (45 surface and 105 underground), totalling 92,724 ft, from 1978 to 2017 using core, rotary, and percussion methods. No drilling was conducted on the Project from 1994 to 2016.

Drill hole collar locations are recorded on the original drill logs and radiometric logs created at the time of drilling, including easting and northing coordinates in local grid or modified NAD 1983 Arizona Central FIBPS 0202 (US feet) and elevation of collar in feet above sea level. Drill hole orientation were surveyed with a Reflex EZ Shot or similar deviation tool in the drill string every time a length of drill pipe was added.

From 2016 to 2017, EFR completed 105 underground drill holes totalling 30,314 ft from drill stations developed from the Pinyon Plain mineshaft. No drilling has taken place on the Project since 2017. A summary of drilling completed by EFR is presented in Table 10-1, and Figure 10-1 shows the locations of all the drill collars from EFR and the previous operators.

**Table 10-1:** **Underground Drill hole Database Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **# Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Depth**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Type** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFR | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1-3 Level | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12435 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CMCH Series 001 - 015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFR | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1-4 Level | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4179 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CMLH Series 001 - 025 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Percussion |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2016-2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFR | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1-4 Level | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8420 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CMCH Series 016 - 058 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; EFR | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1-5 Level | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5401 | &nbsp;&nbsp; CMCH Series 059 - 081 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **105** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **30314** |  |  |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 10-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x011.jpg)

**Figure 10-1:** **Surface Drill hole Collar Locations**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 10-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

All core was removed by the drillers from the wireline core barrel and placed in core boxes, orienting the core to fit together where possible and limiting a core box to a single run. The driller labeled the core box with the drill hole ID, box number, and start/finish depths on both the bottom of the core box and the core box lid. The driller also placed blocks or core markers in the core box to indicate the "from" and "to" depths of the core run as well as the core run number. If core was not recovered during a core run, a wooden block was placed in the core box by the driller with the "from" and "to" depths of no recovery (if known). Core was transported from the drill station by the driller or the geologist to surface for logging.

Upon arrival at the core logging facility on surface, core was photographed and screened radiometrically using a Radiation Solutions RS-125 Super-SPEC device and elementally using a handheld x-ray fluorescent (XRF) analyzer. Drill core recovery percentage was noted. Core was then logged by the field geologist, noting the depth of each stratigraphic unit, and a description of lithology and structures. Details noted on the lithology log include colour, texture, grain size, cementation, and mineralogy of each lithologically distinct unit, as well as the type of fracture and any voids or vugs.

All drill holes on the Property were logged with a radiometric probe to measure the natural gamma radiation, from which an indirect estimate of uranium content was made and is discussed in Section 11.1.1.

In the opinion of the SLR QP, the drilling, logging, sampling, and conversion and recovery factors at the Project meet or exceed industry standards and are adequate for use in the estimation of Mineral Resources.

**10.1.1 Copper Mineralization**

During exploration drilling at the Project in 2016, copper mineralization was discovered within the breccia pipe. The core from the underground drilling program was analyzed for copper mineralization with an Olympus Vanta handheld XRF device. Sections of core that showed grades of approximately 0.5% Cu or above where uranium was not present were sampled for chemical assay. Sections of core that contained uranium (identified with a scintillometer) were also sampled for chemical assay to determine both the uranium and copper content. Table 10-2 lists a number of selected composited intercepts of copper mineralization. Figure 10-2 and Table 10-3 provide some detail of the statistics associated with the copper mineralization.

**Table 10-2:** **Selected Copper and Uranium Assay Intercepts**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Target**<br>**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **From**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **To**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Intercept**<br>**Length** <br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Azimuth**<br>**(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Dip**<br>**(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Depth**<br>**(ft below<br>surface)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 213 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 318 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 105.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.17% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.55% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 225 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1190 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 205 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 265 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.02% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.66% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 213 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1182 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 294 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 335 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.09% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.75% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 211 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1285 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 335 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 342 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.01% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.95% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 213 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1320 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 265 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 319 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.72% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.19% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 224 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1250 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 298 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 342 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 44.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.74% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.22% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 228 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1284 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper | &nbsp;&nbsp; 784 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 822 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 38.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.28% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.53% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 228 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1793 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 10-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Target**<br>**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **From**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **To**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Intercept**<br>**Length** <br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Azimuth**<br>**(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Dip**<br>**(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Depth**<br>**(ft below <br>surface)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 302 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 348 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 46.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.37% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13.52% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -74 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1287 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper | &nbsp;&nbsp; 644 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 656 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.26% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.81% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -74 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1626 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 316 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 374 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.75% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13.91% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 244 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -74 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1305 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 372 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 390 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.23% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.74% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -78 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1360 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 636 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 642 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16.99% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -78 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1618 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 302 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 314 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.78% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.81% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 224 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1294 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 332 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 340 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.84% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.20% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 224 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1318 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 348 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 360 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.83% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1334 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 296 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 300 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.35% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.64% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1281 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 334 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 354 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.93% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.30% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1319 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 436 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 444 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.02% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.87% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -79 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1420 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.51% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.57% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1221 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 132 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.41% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.28% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1329 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 36.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.65% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.12% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -51 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1242 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.22% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.49% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1238 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 107 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 143 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 36.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.14% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12.68% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1283 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14.25% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 175 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1254 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.08% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1221 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.56% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.17% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1221 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 134 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.88% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.31% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1323 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 44 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.29% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.54% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1216 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 192 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.99% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.08% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 220 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1348 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.11% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.25% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 222 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1240 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.66% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14.85% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 222 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1328 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 166 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 196 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.54% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.35% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1346 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 154 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 146.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.47% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.22% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 241 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1292 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 112 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.44% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1288 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 43 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 136 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.81% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.95% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 260 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1287 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.57% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.29% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 280 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1258 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 142 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.11% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.47% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 300 | &nbsp;&nbsp; +47 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1325 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 67 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 142 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 190 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.78% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.22% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 285 | &nbsp;&nbsp; +19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1346 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 144 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 208 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.08% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14.51% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 285 | &nbsp;&nbsp; +40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1287 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper | &nbsp;&nbsp; 290 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 298 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.03% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 290 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1538 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 81 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper | &nbsp;&nbsp; 275 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 286 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.26% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.64% | &nbsp;&nbsp; 263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -51 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1577 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 10-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 10-3:** **Declustered Cu Assay Statistics**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; No. Samples | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mean | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.37% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Standard Deviation | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Variance | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Coef. Of Variation | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Maximum | &nbsp;&nbsp; 55.66% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Upper Quartile | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.81% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Median | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.17% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Lower Quartile | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.04% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Minimum | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00% |

---

![](exhibit99-3x012.jpg)

**Figure 10-2:** **Histogram of Declustered Cu Assays**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 10-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**11.0** **SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY**

**11.1** **Sample Preparation and Analysis**

This section references the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Handbook for core handling, sampling, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols for core drilling at the Project, prepared by EFR in December 2016 (Energy Fuels, 2016).

Samples respect geological contacts and vary from 2 ft to 10 ft in length, depending on core recovery, length of the lithological unit, and mineralization. Most core samples were four feet long, except where broken along lithological or mineralization contacts. Core outside the breccia pipe was considered barren and was not sampled. Sample interval and number were marked on the core log, the core-sampling log, and the sample bags.

Sample core was cut in half, lengthwise, by technicians with a diamond saw, returning half of the split core to the core box and submitting the other half for sample preparation and analysis. The sample number, which references the drill hole name, depth, and sample length, was written on two aluminum tags. One sample tag was stapled to the sample bag and an additional sample tag was placed within the bag. The sample tag that was affixed to the outside of the sample bag also contained the sample date and the sampler's initials.

Once sampled, the remaining half core splits were returned to the core box and archived onsite.

**11.1.1 Gamma Logging**

All drill holes completed by EFR at the Project were logged with a Mount Sopris gamma logging unit employing a natural gamma probe. The probe measures natural gamma radiation using one 0.5-inch by 1.5-inch sodium iodide (NaI) crystal assembly. Normally, accurate concentrations can be measured in uranium grades ranging from less than 0.1% to as high as 5% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Data are logged at a speed of 15 ft to 20 ft per minute down hole and 15 ft to 20 ft per minute up hole, typically in open holes. Occasionally, unstable holes are logged through the drill pipe and the grades are adjusted for the material type and wall thickness of the pipe used.

The radiometric or gamma probe measures gamma radiation which is emitted during the natural Radioactive decay of uranium (U) and variations in the natural radioactivity originating from changes in concentrations of the trace element thorium (Th) as well as changes in concentration of the major rock forming element potassium (K).

Potassium decays into two stable isotopes (argon and calcium) which are no longer radioactive and emits gamma rays with energies of 1.46 mega electron-volts (MeV). Uranium and thorium, however, decay into daughter products which are unstable (i.e., radioactive). The decay of uranium forms a series of about a dozen radioactive elements in nature that finally decay to a stable isotope of lead. The decay of thorium forms a similar series of radioelements. As each radioelement in the series decays, it is accompanied by emissions of alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays. The gamma rays have specific energies associated with the decaying radionuclide. The most prominent of the gamma rays in the uranium series originate from decay of <sup>214</sup>Bi (bismuth 214), and in the thorium series from decay of <sup>208</sup>Tl (thallium 208).

The natural gamma measurement is made when a detector emits a pulse of light when struck by a gamma ray. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier tube, which outputs a current pulse that is accumulated and reported as counts per second (cps). The gamma probe is lowered to the bottom of a drill hole, and data are recorded as the tool travels to the bottom and then is pulled back up to the surface. The current pulse is carried up a conductive cable and processed by a logging system computer that stores the raw gamma cps data.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred to as "eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>" for "equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>") is the sensitivity of the detector used in the probe, which is the ratio of cps to known uranium grade and is referred to as the probe calibration factor. Each detector's sensitivity is measured when it is first manufactured and is also periodically checked throughout the operating life of each probe against a known set of standard "test pits," with various known grades of uranium mineralization, or through empirical calculations. Application of the calibration factor, along with other probe correction factors, allows for immediate grade estimation in the field as each drill hole is logged.

Downhole total gamma data are subjected to a complex set of mathematical equations, considering the specific parameters of the probe used, speed of logging, size of bore hole, drilling fluids, and presence or absence of any type of drill hole casing. The result is an indirect measurement of uranium content within the sphere of measurement of the gamma detector.

An EFR in-house computer program known as GAMLOG converts the measured cps of the gamma rays into 0.5 ft increments of equivalent percent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> (%eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>). GAMLOG is based on the Scott's Algorithm developed by James Scott of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1962 (Scott, 1962) and is widely used in the industry.

The conversion coefficients for conversion of probe cps to percent equivalent uranium grades are based on the calibration results obtained at the United States Department of Energy Uranium Calibration Pits in Grand Junction, Colorado, USA.

In those holes associated with copper mineralization or where EFR personnel reported that the probe underestimated U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades above 2% due to saturation of the probe's sodium iodide crystal, (a normal occurrence associated with gamma logging for uranium), EFR used chemical assay for both copper and uranium. Where there was lower grade uranium and areas of low-grade copper mineralization, radiometric data was used in lieu of chemical assays.

**11.1.1.1** **Calibration**

For the gamma probes to report accurate %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values the gamma probes must be calibrated regularly. The probes are calibrated by running the probes in test pits maintained historically by the AEC and currently by the DOE. There are test pits in Grand Junction, Colorado, Grants, New Mexico, and Casper, Wyoming. The test pits have known %U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values, which are measured by the probes. A dead time (DT) and K-factor can be calculated based on running the probes in the test pits. These values are necessary to convert CPS to %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The dead time accounts for the size of the hole and the decay that occurs in the space between the probe and the wall rock. DT is measured in microseconds (μsec). The K-factor is simply a calibration coefficient used to convert the DT-corrected CPS to %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

Quarterly or semi-annual calibration is usually sufficient. Calibration should be done more frequently if variations in data are observed or the probe is damaged.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**11.1.1.2** **Method**

Following the completion of a rotary hole, a geophysical logging truck will be positioned over the open hole and a probe will be lowered to the hole's total depth. Typically, these probes take multiple different readings. In uranium deposits, the holes are usually logged for gamma, resistivity, standard potential, and hole deviation. Only gamma is used in the grade calculation. Once the probe is at the bottom of the hole, the probe begins recording as the probe is raised. The quality of the data is impacted by the speed the probe is removed from the hole. Experience shows a speed of 20 feet per minute is adequate to obtain data for resource modeling. Data is recorded in CPS, which is a measurement of uranium decay of uranium daughter products, specifically Bismuth-24. That data is then processed using the calibration factors to calculate a eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade. Historically, eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades were calculated using the AEC half amplitude method, which gives a grade over a thickness. Currently, the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades tend to be calculated on 0.5-foot intervals by software. Depending on the manufacturer of the probe truck and instrumentation, different methods are used to calculate the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade, but all, including the AEC method, are based on the two equations given below.

The first equation converts CPS to CPS corrected for the dead time (DT) determined as part of the calibration process

![](exhibit99-3x013.jpg)

The second equation converts the Dead Time Corrected CPS (N) to %eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> utilizing the K-factor (K)

![](exhibit99-3x014.jpg)

Depending on the drilling and logging environment, additional multipliers can be added to correct for various environmental factors. Typically, these include a water factor for drill hole mud, a pipe factor if the logging is done in the drill steel, and a disequilibrium factor if the deposit is known to be in disequilibrium. Tables for water and pipe factors are readily available.

**11.1.2 Core Sampling**

**11.1.2.1** **Sample Preparation**

Samples were delivered by a staff geologist to the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, for uranium and copper assaying. The White Mesa Mill Laboratory holds no certifications and no accreditations.

Upon delivery of the samples to White Mesa Mill, samples were weighed, dried for 16 to 24 hrs, and weighed again to determine the moisture content. The samples were crushed using a Bico Jaw Crusher and Metso Minerals cone crusher and split using a riffle splitter before pulverization using a ring and puck pulverizer. The crushers, splitters, and pulverisers are cleaned between uses with abrasive sand.

**11.1.2.2** **Assaying and Analytical Procedure**

A split of the pulverized sample was digested in the laboratory in a combination of nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acid, diluted, and analyzed. Determination of uranium content in the sample was performed by a spectrophotometric analysis using the Thermo Scientific Biomate 3 Spectrophotometer. Other analyses were performed either on the Perkin Elmer Optima 5300V ICP-OES or the Perkin Elmer ELAN DRC II ICP-MS. Calibrations were performed daily on these instruments, and every four in 100 analyses were spiked with a standard solution after analysis to ensure consistency of results.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**11.1.3 Radiometric Equilibrium**

Disequilibrium in uranium deposits is the difference between equivalent (eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) grades and assayed U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades. Disequilibrium can be either positive, where the assayed grade is greater than the equivalent grades, or negative, where the assayed grade is less than the equivalent grade. A uranium deposit is in equilibrium when the daughter products of uranium decay accurately represent the uranium present. Equilibrium occurs after the uranium is deposited and has not been added to or removed by fluids after approximately one million years. Disequilibrium is determined during drilling when a piece of core is taken and measured by two different methods, a counting method (closed-can) and chemical assay. If a positive or negative disequilibrium is determined, a disequilibrium factor can be applied to eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades to account for this issue.

A comparison of chemical data vs probe data showed that no disequilibrium factor is needed for the Project.

**11.2** **Sample Security**

Bagged samples were placed in barrels, which were secured in the back of a truck for transport and delivered by EFR personnel to the laboratory at White Mesa Mill for analytical testing. White Mesa Mill personnel were responsible for shipping check samples to various third-party laboratories. A chain of custody form was maintained at all times.

Following analysis, dried, crushed samples were stored in sealed, plastic bottles for long-term storage. Pulverized samples were also stored in sealed, plastic bottles. All samples are stored out of the elements to ensure stored sample quality.

The laboratory at White Mesa Mill uses a combination of digital exports from the instrument's computer and hand entry from logbooks to maintain a master spreadsheet, which calculates grade based on the various inputs. Certificates of analysis were provided to EFR personnel in secured Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Excel format.

EFR believes the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures are acceptable for the purposes of a Mineral Resource estimate and meet industry standards.

**11.3** **Quality Assurance and Quality Control**

Quality assurance (QA) consists of evidence to demonstrate that the assay data has precision and accuracy within generally accepted limits for the sampling and analytical method(s) used in order to have confidence in the assay data used in a resource estimate. Quality control (QC) consists of procedures used to ensure that an adequate level of quality is maintained in the process of collecting, preparing, and assaying the exploration drilling samples. In general, QA/QC programs are designed to prevent or detect contamination and allow assaying (analytical), precision (repeatability), and accuracy to be quantified. In addition, a QA/QC program can disclose the overall sampling-assaying variability of the sampling method itself.

QA/QC samples, including duplicates, blanks, certified reference materials (CRMs or standards), and checks, were submitted by the onsite team at the Project, EFR's office located in Lakewood, Colorado, and the White Mesa Mill laboratory. The submission rate and responsible party of each sample type is listed in Table 11-1.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 11-1:** **QA/QC Samples for the Pinyon Plain Project Drilling**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sample Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sample Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Responsible Party** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Collection Method** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Rate of Insertion** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; Field | &nbsp;&nbsp; Field Geologist | &nbsp;&nbsp; ¼ core | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; Coarse | &nbsp;&nbsp; WMM<sup>2</sup> Lab personnel | &nbsp;&nbsp; Second split of crushed sample | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; Pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp; WMM Lab personnel | &nbsp;&nbsp; Second split of pulverized sample | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CRM<sup>1</sup> |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Lakewood Office | &nbsp;&nbsp; Shipped directly to lab | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Blank | &nbsp;&nbsp; Coarse | &nbsp;&nbsp; Lakewood Office | &nbsp;&nbsp; Shipped directly to lab | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Blank | &nbsp;&nbsp; Pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp; Lakewood Office | &nbsp;&nbsp; Shipped directly to lab | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Check Assay |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; WMM Lab personnel | &nbsp;&nbsp; Split of reject sample | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CRM<sup>1</sup> with Check Assay |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; WMM Lab personnel |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 in 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Bulk Density |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; WMM Lab personnel | &nbsp;&nbsp; Core samples | &nbsp;&nbsp; As Available |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. CRM = Certified Reference Material

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. WMM = White Mesa Mill

CRMs and fine blanks were shuffled (random sequence applied), numbered, and catalogued in the Lakewood, Colorado, office by EFR technical personnel prior to shipment to the White Mesa Mill laboratory manager. These samples (blind to the White Mesa Mill manager, laboratory manager, and laboratory personnel) were inserted into the sample stream by the laboratory manager. The coarse blanks were not blind to the White Mesa Mill laboratory manager.

Check assays were performed by three independent laboratories (Section 11.3.4) and were submitted by White Mesa Mill personnel. Drilling and assaying were performed in 2016 and 2017; however, all assay results were received by Project personnel in 2017. Table 11-2 outlines the number of submitted QA/QC samples and the portion of the total database they comprise.

Results of the QA/QC program were compiled in a series of Microsoft Excel tables and charts on a regular basis as the program progressed and were distributed to the project and laboratory personnel. QA/QC trends were discussed as the program progressed and action was taken to correct issues.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 11-2:** **Summary of QA/QC Submittals**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sample Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Percentage of Assay Samples** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Drill holes | &nbsp;&nbsp; 130 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Assay Samples | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3413 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Probe Samples | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97994 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Probe / Assay Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; 563 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Coarse Blanks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Fine Blanks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Copper CRMs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 125 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Field Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Coarse Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pulp Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Check Assays | &nbsp;&nbsp; 114 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total QA/QC Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **532** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **16%** |

---

**11.3.1 Blanks**

The regular submission of blank material is used to assess contamination during sample preparation and to identify sample numbering errors. EFR submitted blank samples at an insertion rate of one in 50 at both the coarse and fine preparation stages. The coarse blank sample is a granite matrix sourced from ASL and certified as barren for both copper and uranium, and the fine blank material was purchased from Ore Research and Exploration (reference material OREAS 24b). OREAS 24b has certified values of 0.0038% Cu and 0.000174% U. The SLR QP reviewed the results of the blank samples submitted alongside drill core and tabulated the number of failures for both coarse and fine blanks. A blank sample was considered to have failed if the assay returned a copper or uranium value more than ten times the detection limit for the assay method. No failures were reported for the coarse or fine blank samples, as presented in Figure 11-1.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x015.jpg)

**Figure 11-1:** **Results of Blank Samples**

**11.3.2 Certified Reference Material**

Results of the regular submission of CRMS (standards) are used to identify problems with specific sample batches and biases associated with the primary assay laboratory. Three different copper CRMs were submitted into the sample stream at White Mesa Mill, representing low, medium, and high grade copper material for an insertion rate of one in 25. The matrix of the material, expected value, and tolerance limits are listed in Table 11-3. The CRMs were assayed using a 4-acid digest or aqua regia technique with inductively coupled plasma (ICP) or atomic absorption (AA) finish.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 11-3:** **Expected Values and Ranges of Copper CRM**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **CRM** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cert. Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Matrix** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expected Value**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tolerance 2 S.D.**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CDN-CM-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Minto Mine: Hypogene Cu <br>Sulfide hosted in Granodiorite | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CDN-ME-1410 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp; High Sulfide VMS | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; OREAS 1131 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Tritton Cu Project: Chalcopyrite <br>Breccia Ore | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.8 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Certified tolerance is a 95% confidence interval from 13.3% to 13.8% Cu.

No U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> specific CRMs were sent to White Mesa Mill. As part of the mill's daily protocol for running samples, the equipment was calibrated daily using U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> CRM 129-A, sourced from the New Brunswick Laboratory at the U.S. Department of Energy. The SLR QP recommends sourcing three matrix-matched or matrix-similar CRMs for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, representing low, medium, and high grades at the Project, and incorporating them into the sample stream sent to White Mesa Mill at a rate of one in 25.

The SLR QP calculated failure rates of each copper CRM, prepared contact plots, and looked at temporal trends of the CRMs. Failure rates, defined as a copper value reporting more than three standard deviations (SD) from the expected value, or two consecutive copper values reporting more than two SD from the expected values were tabulated, and are presented in Table 11-4. All CRMs assayed at White Mesa Mill displayed a low bias relative to the expected copper value, as well as a positive temporal trend, and a high failure rate. Control plots of each CRM are presented in Figure 11-2 and a graph of the average copper value by date for each CRM is shown in Figure 11-3. Two of the CRMs, CDN-CM-41 and CDN-ME-1410, are made of a material unlike the material at the Project.

The SLR QP recommends that EFR continue to monitor for low-grade bias of copper and slight low-grade bias of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> at the White Mesa Mill laboratory and continue to monitor for temporal trends (change in average grade of CRM data over time) observed at White Mesa Mill laboratory. The SLR QP also recommends EFR procure CRM made from the Project resource material (matrix matched), to obtain an improved understanding of laboratory performance as applied to Project samples; source three matrix-matched or matrix-similar CRMs for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> that represent low, medium, and high grade ore at the Project; incorporate the CRMs in the sample stream sent to White Mesa Mill at a rate of one in 25 and ensure the certified values of these CRMs are blind to the laboratory. In addition, submit these CRMs to independent laboratories with check assays at a rate of one in 10 to obtain a meaningful sample size for analysis.

**Table 11-4:** **Summary of CRM Performance**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **CRM** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expected Value**<br>**(%Cu)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Submittals** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Failures** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Percentage of <br>Failures** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CDN-CM-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 79% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CDN-ME-1410 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; OREAS 113 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **125** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **76** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **61%** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x016.jpg)

**Figure 11-2:** **Control Charts of Copper CRM**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x017.jpg)

**Figure 11-3:** **Average Copper Grade of CRM Over Time**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**11.3.3 Duplicates**

Duplicate samples help to monitor preparation and assay precision and grade variability as a function of sample homogeneity and laboratory error. The field duplicate includes the natural variability of the original core sample, as well as levels of error at various stages, including core splitting, sample size reduction in the preparatory laboratory, sub-sampling of the pulverized sample, and the analytical error. Coarse reject and pulp duplicates provide a measure of the sample homogeneity at different stages of the preparation process (crushing and pulverizing).

Field duplicate samples were collected by the onsite geologist and submitted to the laboratory as separate samples, adjacent in the sample stream and clearly marked as such. A total of 1% of the drill hole samples have been duplicated by splitting the half core sample into two quarter core samples. The duplicate protocol and procedure for collecting, submitting, and analyzing coarse and pulp duplicate assays is carried out by the White Mesa Mill. A total of 2% of the drill hole samples were resubmitted at the coarse and pulp assay preparation stages for comparison.

Results for both coarse and pulp sample pairs show excellent correlation (Table 11-5) with very good repeatability for both copper and uranium. Of the field, coarse, and pulp duplicate sample sets, however, less than 20% of each of the submitted sample types report grades above the cut-off grade of 0.29% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and less than 10% are above the expected average grade of 1% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

Over half of the field duplicates reported U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> values with a relative difference greater than 20%, which may be related to the uranium occurring as blebs or vug fill. Only one of the four field sample pairs within the grade range of interest, however, had a relative difference greater than 20%. Over half of the field duplicates reported copper values with a relative difference greater than 20%. Only five of the 16 sample pairs with a grade higher than 1% Cu, however, had a relative difference greater than 20%. The SLR QP recommends collecting additional field samples, in the form of ½ core, in the grade range of interest, in order to draw deeper conclusions about the nature of the material at Pinyon Plain.

The SLR QP also recommends implementing a duplicate assay protocol for field, coarse, and pulp samples that is blind to the laboratory, and recommends that the rates of insertion for duplicate samples be approximately one in 50 for field duplicates and one in 25 for coarse and pulp duplicate samples.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**Table 11-5:** **Basic Comparative Statistics of 2017 Duplicate Assays**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Field** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Field** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Coarse** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Coarse** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pulp** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Duplicate** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Duplicate** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Duplicate** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Count | &nbsp;&nbsp; 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mean (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Max. Value (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Min. Value (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Median (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Variance | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Std. Dev. | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corr. Coefficient | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.961 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.961 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; % Diff. Btw Means | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Copper** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Count | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mean (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Max. Value (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Min. Value (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Median (%) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Variance | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 52.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49.60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Std. Dev. | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.04 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corr. Coefficient | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.983 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.983 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.997 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.997 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.997 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.997 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; % Diff. Btw Means | &nbsp;&nbsp; -5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; -5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.5 |

---

**11.3.4 Check Assays**

A total of 114 assays were sent for re-assay at one of three independent laboratories to ascertain if any bias is present within the primary laboratory, the White Mesa Mill laboratory:

* American West Analytical Laboratories, located in Salt Lake City, Utah - Accredited by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) in Utah and Texas; and state accredited in Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Missouri

* Energy Laboratories, located in Casper, Wyoming - NELAP accredited Certifications USEPA: WY00002; FL-DOH NELAC: E87641; Oregon: WY200001; Utah: WY00002; Washington: C1012

* Inter-Mountain Laboratory (now Pace Analytical), located in Sheridan, Wyoming - EPA, DOE, and several other accreditations (http://intermountainlabs.com/certifications.html)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

The number of check assay samples sent to each laboratory is presented in Table 11-6. Because Inter-Mountain Labs (IML) is the only laboratory with a significant number of samples, and the only laboratory to include CRMs, it was chosen for comparison with the primary laboratory at White Mesa Mill. Scatter plots of the primary and independent laboratory results for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and copper are shown in Figure 11-4 and Figure 11-5, respectively.

**Table 11-6:** **Check Assays List**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **No. Check Assay Samples Sent** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **No. Cu CRMs Sent** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; American West Analytical Labs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Energy Laboratories | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inter-Mountain Labs | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **114** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **11** |

---

The results indicate a slight low bias of both copper and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> results at White Mesa Mill. This finding is supported by the low bias observed in the copper CRM results from White Mesa Mill. Copper CRM results from IML are not conclusive due to the small number of samples submitted, however, the CRM results from IML were mostly slightly above the expected value, with no failures.

![](exhibit99-3x018.jpg)

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. EL = Energy Laboratories

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. IML = Inter-Mountain Labs

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. AWAL = American West Analytical Labs

**Figure 11-4:** **Scatter Plot of Independent vs Primary Laboratory Check Assay Results for U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x019.jpg)

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. EL = Energy Laboratories

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. IML = Inter-Mountain Labs

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. AWAL = American West Analytical Labs

**Figure 11-5:** **Scatter Plot of Independent vs. Primary Laboratory Check Assay Results for Copper**

**11.3.5 Comparison of Probe vs. Assay Results**

A total of 97,944 U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> 0.5 ft probe samples were included in the Mineral Resource database where chemical assay data were not available. To check for disequilibrium and ensure that no bias was present between assay and probe results, EFR assayed several drill holes for which probe data were available. Drill hole intervals in the Main Zone were flagged and weighted averages were calculated for the results of each method over the interval of interest. These weighted averages were then compared using basic statistics, including scatter and quantile-quantile plots. A total of 14 sample pairs were removed that returned results above 2% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, to account for probe saturation. A scatter plot of the 77 sample pair results is shown in Figure 11-6.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x020.jpg)

**Figure 11-6:** **Scatter Pot of the Weighted Average of Probe and Assay U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Results Over Drill hole Intercepts within the Main Zone**

The results indicate good correlation between the assay and probe data, with negligible bias.

**11.4** **Density Analyses**

Bulk densities were determined at White Mesa Mill for a majority of the samples submitted (2,630 of 3,347). A single piece of split core sample, at least four inches in length, was measured in all dimensions using calipers to calculate volume, and then weighed dry. Density was calculated using the measured volume and the mass. An additional 37, full core, six-inch samples, were submitted to White Mesa Mill to verify the caliper method. These 37 full core samples were measured with calipers to calculate volume and then weighed dry. Additionally, these samples were immersed in water to determine volume via water displacement. The densities calculated by both methods were compared. The densities calculated using the caliper method were approximately 1% greater than those calculated using water displacement on the same core samples, which is a negligible difference.

**11.5** **Conclusions**

The SLR QP is of the opinion that the sample security, analytical procedures, and QA/QC procedures used by EFR meet industry best practices and are adequate to estimate Mineral Resources.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 11-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**12.0** **DATA VERIFICATION**

Data verification is the process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, is transcribed accurately from its original source into the project database and is suitable for use as described in this Technical Report.

As part of the resource estimation procedure, drill data is spot checked by EFR personnel and audited by the SLR QP for completeness and validity.

**12.1** **SLR Data Verification (2021)**

The SLR QP visited the Project on November 16, 2021. Discussions were held with the EFR technical team and found them to have a strong understanding of the mineralization types and their processing characteristics, and how the analytical results are tied to the results. The SLR QP received the project data from EFR for independent review as a series of MS Excel spreadsheets and Vulcan digital files. The SLR QP used the information provided to validate the Mineral Resource interpolation, tons, grade, and classification.

**12.2** **Audit of Drill hole Database**

The SLR QP conducted a series of verification tests on the drill hole database provided by EFR. These tests included a search for missing information and tables, unique location of drill hole collars, and overlapping sample or lithology intervals. Empty tables were limited to lithology, alteration, and geotechnical results. No database issues were identified.

**12.3** **Verification of Assay Table**

The SLR QP compared 100% of the assay sample database for both copper and uranium to assay results in Excel format from White Mesa Mill. Several values in the database were recorded at 0% Cu or 0% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. The industry standard is to record assays which return a value below detection limit at a value equal to half the detection limit. This is not expected to materially impact the Mineral Resources. No other discrepancies were found.

**12.4** **Limitations**

There were no limitations in place restricting the ability to perform an independent verification of the Project drill hole database.

**12.5** **Conclusion**

The SLR QP is of the opinion that database verification procedures for the Project comply with industrystandards and are adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 12-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

**13.0** **MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING**

**13.1** **Metallurgical Testing**

Preliminary metallurgical bench tests have been completed on samples from the Project to determine both uranium and copper metallurgical performance. Copper mineralization presents an upside to the Project, but is not considered as part of this PFS.

Test work was completed at the White Mesa Mill's metallurgical laboratory while confirmatory testing was conducted at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO), an independent metallurgical laboratory in New South Wales, Australia, that operates a Quality Management System which complies with the requirements ISO 9001:2015 for conduct of strategic and applied nuclear research across three themes, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Environment, and Human Health Testing included conventional acid leaching, flotation of conventionally leached residue, and roasting pre-treatment followed by conventional acid leaching. The primary goal of the work was to determine if the existing White Mesa Mill process flow sheet would be suitable for processing the Project's mineralized material types, and if not, what process flow sheet would be appropriate while minimizing capital modifications to the White Mesa Mill circuit.

Several metallurgical testing programs have been completed on the Project's mineralized material types. The goal of these tests is to maximize uranium and copper recoveries, and to minimize changes to the White Mesa Mill circuit and any associated capital requirements, while also minimizing process operating costs and uranium deportment to the final copper product.

Two metallurgical composites were used for testing during 2016 and 2017.

The first metallurgical composite was created in October 2016 and was made from 37 core samples. White Mesa Mill laboratory testing showed the average grades for this composite were 0.81% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and 9.78% Cu. This composite was the most representative of the Main Zone of the deposit from the samples available at the time. Testing was done on this composite from October 2016 to January 2017. The preliminary conventional acid leaching test work was conducted to determine uranium and copper recoveries. Leaching conditions, including temperature, solids density, and free acid and chlorate dosages, were varied between a total of 17 tests.

Uranium recoveries were high for this test series ranging from 96.3% to 99.8%. Copper recoveries were significantly lower ranging from 18.7% to 55.5%. Sulfuric acid consumption was higher than normal for ores treated at White Mesa Mill ranging between 221 pounds per short ton (lb/ton) to 670 lb/ton. Sodium chlorate consumptions were 0 lb/ton to 164 lb/ton of feed, which is significantly higher than the normal ore range of 0 lb/ton to 30 lb/ton.

Owing to the poor copper metallurgical performance during conventional acid leaching, flotation testing of conventional leaching residue was examined. Due to the possibility of uranium deportment to the copper concentrate, it was decided to run flotation concentration tests on leached residue in order to potentially minimize uranium concentrations. Flotation of copper worked very well with rougher copper recovery at 72% with a copper concentrate grade of 33.3%. Unfortunately, uranium deportment to the concentrate exceeded normal treatment charge/refining charge (TC/RC) limits at 0.105% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, making flotation an unlikely processing option.

A second (and larger) composite was made in January of 2017 and was used for testing from that point on. This composite was the most representative of the Main Zone of the deposit from the samples available at the time. The metallurgical testing composite was generated from 60 core samples representing 240 ft of half drill core (approximately 360 lb) from the Pinyon Plain deposit. A split of this composite was also sent to ANSTO in Australia for independent testing. White Mesa Mill laboratory testing showed the average grades for this composite were 0.76% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and 9.93% Cu. The primary goal of this program was to determine the metallurgical response using the conventional acid leach process currently in use at White Mesa Mill. Summary results are presented in Table 13-1 below.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

As expected, uranium recoveries averaged 93.4%, ranging from a low of 68.3% to 99.8%. Copper recoveries were considerably lower, averaging 26.9% and ranging from 4% to 53.7%. Reagent consumptions using the conventional leaching averaged 900 lb/ton for sulfuric acid and 20 lb/ton for chlorate.

**Table 13-1:** **Conventional Acid Leach Test Results**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Temp**<br>**(⁰F)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **% Solids** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free <br>Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Chlorate** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 385 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 224.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 443 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 434.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 457 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 361.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 94.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 53.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 439 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 265.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 144.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 46.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 438 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 420.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 53.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 415 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 316.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 39.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 658 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 280.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ambient | &nbsp;&nbsp; 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 846 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 258.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 400 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 52.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 396 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 309.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 409 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 228.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 47.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 416 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 246.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ambient |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 47.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 401 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 228.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ambient |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 73.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 398 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 291.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 43.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 366 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 220.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 54.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 366 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 362.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 386 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 276.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 357 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 154.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 325 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 147.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 82.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 48.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 318 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 209.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 68.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 278 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Avg.** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **93.4** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **26.9** |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **270.5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **56.5** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Temp**<br>**(⁰F)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **% Solids** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free <br>Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Chlorate** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Max.** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **99.8** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **53.7** |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **434.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **144.0** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Min.** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **68.3** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4.0** |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **147.2** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.0** |

---

Due to low copper recoveries, a series of tests were run to determine the effect of a roasting pre-treatment. Roasting temperatures were varied between 450°C and 650°C. As shown in Table 13-2, roasting improved recoveries for both uranium and copper, averaging 86% and 87.6% respectively. Using the optimum roasting temperature of 650°C, recoveries averaged 91.6% for uranium and 94.9% for copper. Reagent consumptions on the roasted material averaged 250 lb/ton for sulfuric acid and 15 lb/ton chlorate using temperatures of 650°C for the roasting phase and 50°C for the leaching phase.

**Table 13-2:** **Roasted Acid Test Results**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Roasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Roasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Temp**<br>**(⁰F)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Time** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free<br>Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Temp**<br>**(⁰F)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **% Solids** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free<br>Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Chlorate** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 379.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 603.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 337.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4600 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 59.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 536.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4600 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 86.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 534.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4600 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 81.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 349.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4875 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 73.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 81.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 336.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4325 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 94.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 432.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4325 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 81.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 78.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 341.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 89.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 382.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 94.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 91.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 77.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 417.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1195 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 88.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 322.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 460 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 82.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 400.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 775 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 82.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 405.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 506 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 84.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 354.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1150 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 433.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1380 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 555.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Roasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Roasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Targets** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Actual** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption**<br>**(lb/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Test #** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Temp**<br>**(⁰F)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Time** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free <br>Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Temp**<br>**(⁰F)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **% Solids** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Free <br>Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EMF** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Acid** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Chlorate** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 30.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 412.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 318 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 79.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 83.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 396.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 580 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.4 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 458.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 479 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.4 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 426.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 350 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.7 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 445.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92.0 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 400.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 86.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 94.5 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 405.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.3 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 642.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 650 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.7 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 654.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 440 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 68.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26.2 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 325.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 350 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 606 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 84.6 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 395.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 350 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 770 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 89.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 88.2 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 631.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 350 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Avg.** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **86.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **87.6** |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1992.2** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6.5** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Max.** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **99.2** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **98.4** |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5500.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **20** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Min.** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **30.6** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **26.2** |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **317.5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x021.jpg)

**Figure 13-1:** **Laboratory Comparison - Conventional Leaching**

![](exhibit99-3x022.jpg)

**Figure 13-2:** **Laboratory Comparison - Roasting Pre-Treatment and Leaching**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

In 2018 Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen) in Golden, Colorado conducted bench- and pilot-scale programs to demonstrate copper extraction from ore at the Project. Hazen Research holds certifications from various state regulatory agencies and from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And ELI is NELAP accredited with certifications USEPA: WY00002; FL-DOH NELAC: E87641; Oregon: WY200001; Utah: WY00002; Washington: C1012.

Bench-scale experiments were conducted to determine the preferred operating conditions for the pilot-scale roasting and leaching programs. Four roasting experiments were performed to evaluate two variables: temperature and excess air. Four batch, bench-scale sulfuric acid (H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>) leach tests of the batch calcines were conducted, using the leach conditions set by EFR, to measure roasting success. Four additional bench-scale leach tests of pilot kiln calcine and pre-roasted calcine also were conducted. The results of this work showed that uranium and copper recoveries exceeding 95% and 90%, respectively, could be expected from the Project ore evaluated in this program. Results suggested that leaching efficiency was controlled, in large part, by the degree of sulfide oxidation and that oxygen availability was a key variable in roasting.

A continuous roasting program was performed to demonstrate oxidative roasting of the Project ore and to generate calcine for subsequent pilot acid leaching. Target parameters for the pilot roast were discussed and accepted by EFR. The target parameters included a 4% to 5% oxygen concentration in the off-gas, 1-hour residence time, and 650°C burden temperature. Approximately 360 kg of ore were processed in the pilot kiln system. Roasted product (calcine) was collected continuously and sampled on an hourly basis. The product samples were assayed for acid insoluble sulfur to determine the extent of sulfide oxidation. The average sulfide oxidation from the product samples was 95%. During operations, a runaway temperature excursion occurred causing material to stick to the kiln wall. As a result, the residence time through the kiln may have been affected, as suggested by incomplete sulfide oxidation. A single batch pilot acid leach using 60 kg of pilot calcine was performed to confirm the leaching results and generate pregnant leach solution (PLS) for subsequent uranium and copper solvent extraction (SX). The conditions prescribed by EFR for the leach evaluation were 350 lb/ton H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>, 10 lb/ton sodium chlorate (NaClO<sub>3</sub>), 33% solids, and 80°C. The leaching time was 24 hours in a 70 gal agitated tank; kinetic samples were obtained at two hours, four hours, and eight hours. The final slurry was filtered in a filtering centrifuge and washed thoroughly. The PLS and wash were collected; washed solids were dried and analyzed. Uranium extraction from calcine was 95% and copper extraction was 90% at 24 hours. Kinetic data suggested that leaching was essentially complete for both metals at eight hours.

Before uranium SX, deionized (DI) water was added to the PLS to simulate the dilution that would occur in countercurrent washing of leach solids. An eight-stage continuous SX circuit was assembled using glass mixers and settlers. Solvent (tertiary amine extractant [Alamine 336], isodecanol, aliphatic diluent) was mixed with the PLS and separated in four countercurrent stages, followed by solvent scrubbing, two sodium carbonate (Na<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub>) strip stages for uranium recovery and concentration, and a wash stage to prepare the solvent for recycling. The circuit was operated for 30 hours and demonstrated greater than 99% uranium extraction with only about 2.5 mg/L U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> reporting to the raffinate (tailings stream). The uranium SX was operated as a precursor to copper SX and was not in itself a research and development effort.

The combined uranium SX raffinate solution became feed to copper SX. Components of the uranium SX circuit, after cleaning and tubing replacement, were used to assemble the copper SX, and the stage configuration was identical. The copper SX solvent was 20% LIX 984N (aldoxime-ketoxime blend) in aliphatic diluent. The stripping agent was 180 g/L H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>; no copper was introduced into the strip feed to ensure that the copper cathode produced in the electrowinning (EW) step would be 100% ore-sourced. The copper SX circuit was operated for 35 hours over 4 days and produced 15.8 L of pregnant strip solution at a concentration of 38.2 g/L Cu. Copper extraction during steady-state operation exceeded 96%, with raffinate copper levels of less than 0.3 g/L.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

The copper SX strip product became feed to a small-scale, continuous copper EW operation. A single glass cell was assembled using a calcium-lead alloy anode and a stainless steel cathode. A small Hewlett Packard rectifier provided the power to apply a current density of 300 ampere per square foot (A/ft<sup>2</sup>) to the cathode. The operation design targeted a 3 g/L to 4 g/L reduction in copper concentration, from 38 g/L Cu to 34 g/L Cu. This reduction was achieved over 64 hours of continuous operation, and an approximately 50 g copper plate was produced. An impurity scan of the copper product by glow discharge mass spectroscopy (GDMS) conducted by Northern Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (NAL), in Londonderry, New Hampshire, showed generally low levels or an absence of the 78 impurities analyzed. Lead was present at 300 ppm, which was attributed to loss from the lead anode caused by a nonoptimized EW setup and operation; commercial EW operation should minimize or eliminate lead as a cathode impurity.

During the bench- and pilot-scale programs, Hazen was able to demonstrate that extraction of copper from the Project ore using EFR's process is technically feasible. The data collected from the bench-scale experiments were repeatable in the pilot-scale demonstration in terms of uranium and copper extractions. The results and observations from both programs elucidated potential issues for commercial scaleup, including material stickiness during roasting and the formation of uranium precipitate (metazeunerite, Cu(UO<sub>2</sub>)2(AsO<sub>4</sub>)2·8H<sub>2</sub>O) in diluted acid leach liquor.

Residual sulfide after roasting affects copper extraction as confirmed in the bench- and pilot-scale leaches. The average residual sulfide removed from the roasted products during the pilot-scale program was 95%, which resulted in a copper extraction of 90%.

During the pilot-scale roasting program, temperature excursions were experienced, likely due to the exothermic oxidation of sulfides. The temperature excursions caused the ore to become sticky, which may have affected the residence time through the kiln. There was still a considerable amount of residual sulfide on the roasted product, which suggests that material stuck on the kiln walls may have caused a decrease in the effective cross-sectional area of the kiln. At the end of the pilot roast program, the kiln was inspected and cleaned out. A total of 8 kg of material was found stuck on the kiln walls and required physical separation. Because of the short duration of the continuous roasting program, evaluating this phenomenon was not considered.

Acid leaching of calcine at the conditions established by EFR showed good uranium and copper dissolution, exceeding 90% for both metals in some experiments. Uranium appeared to leach more rapidly than copper. In one roast-leach experiment, copper extraction exceeded 90% in two hours of leaching; the batch roast conditions for this calcine sample were 650°C and double the standard airflow (six litres per minute, L/min). These and other data collected in the program confirm the relationship between sulfide oxidation and both leaching potential and leaching kinetics.

Uranium SX of the dilute acid leach PLS proceeded very well and showed excellent results; the use of tertiary amine for SX of uranium in a sulfate system is a proven and robust unit operation. The SX circuit operated well within the conditions evaluated. Hazen recommended that the formation of metazeunerite in the dilute PLS be further evaluated to determine the conditions of its precipitation, which deprives leach liquor of both uranium and copper.

Copper was successfully recovered from uranium SX raffinate by SX using LIX 984N. After circuit shakedown and adjustment of the overall extraction, the copper tenor in the raffinate was consistently less than 0.3 g/L Cu. Stripping using copper-free strong H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> generated pregnant strip solution with more than 40 g/L Cu. Analysis of stripped, washed organic showed approximately 3 g/L Cu, suggesting that an additional strip stage may have been beneficial. Arsenic was notably absent at a significant concentration in the strip product; therefore, it was unavailable as a potential impurity in copper EW.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

Copper EW from pregnant SX strip solution was carried out in a small glass cell using a single lead-calcium anode and single stainless steel cathode. Preoperational design resulted in achievement of the operating targets: 300 A/ft<sup>2</sup> current density, and a nominal 3 g/L Cu bite in a single pass. A 50 g copper plate was produced, which contained minimal impurities (as shown by GDMS analysis) other than lead, a typical contaminant when using a lead anode. Because of the short duration of the copper EW operation, optimization of the system was not evaluated. Therefore, further evaluation of the copper EW process is recommended to determine how improvements to impurity levels can be made. The lead content, especially, can be significantly reduced or eliminated through EW operational changes to reduce cell turbulence.

The roast-acid leach, uranium SX, copper SX, and copper EW process designed by EFR for the Pinyon Plain deposit and modeled at bench and pilot scale by Hazen comprises a series of proven, robust unit operations. Each of these operations performed well in the test work. Minor idiosyncrasies in some experimental work discussed in individual report sections herein may point to potential process optimization paths, however, the overall process showed strong competency to recover and concentrate the uranium and copper values. A summary of uranium and copper recoveries from each unit operation is provided in Table 13-3.

**Table 13-3:** **Summary of Uranium and Copper Recoveries (Hazen)**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit of Operation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit of Operation** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cu** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pilot Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Uranium SX | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Copper SX | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Copper EW | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Overall Calculated Recoveries | &nbsp;&nbsp; 95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 86 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. N/A = not applicable

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Recoveries are calculated from the inputs and outputs of individual unit operations.

To economically produce copper cathode, the copper cathode grade will need to be considered when scaling to a commercial capacity. Based on the GDMS results from NAL, certain impurities may need to be further evaluated for refinement depending on market criteria.

**13.2** **Opinion of Adequacy**

Copper test work indicates the best scenario to process the metal is using roasting, followed by acid leach and solvent extraction. Acid leach followed by solvent extraction is the current process used for uranium recovery. Following solvent extraction, a saleable copper product could be produced by electrowinning. To recover copper from the Pinyon Plain mineralized material, some modifications to White Mesa Mill process circuits would be required. The copper modifications would be expected to include the existing vanadium solvent extraction circuit for copper extraction, the addition of a roaster to improve copper recovery, and the addition of an electrowinning circuit. Bench and pilot scale test work done by HAZEN in 2018 indicates that acid leaching after roasting pre-treatment would result in satisfactory copper and uranium recoveries.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x025.jpg)

The metallurgical test results provided by the White Mesa Mill, ANSTO, and Hazen indicate that metallurgical recoveries using optimum roasting and leach conditions are expected to be approximately 96% for uranium and 86 to 90% for copper.

The metallurgical composites that were used for metallurgical testing are representative of the various types and styles of copper and uranium mineralization for the Main Zone. The average U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades for these two test composites were close to the average grade of the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> presented as a resource in this Technical Report.

There are no known processing factors or deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on potential economic extraction.

The White Mesa Mill has a significant operating history using the uranium SX circuit, which has included milling relatively high grade copper ores with no detrimental impact to the uranium recovery or product grade. Expected White Mesa Mill modifications to recover copper include utilizing the existing vanadium solvent extraction circuit for copper and the addition of an EW circuit. Carry over of uranium to the copper electrolyte is not expected and will be verified by future laboratory test work.

The SLR QP supports the conclusions of the expected performance of the metallurgical processes based on test work data from the White Mesa Mill, ANSTO, and Hazen, in addition to historical operating data from White Mesa Mill. In the SLR QP's opinion, the metallurgical test work is adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x027.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 13-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.0** **MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE**

**14.1** **Summary**

Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300, which are consistent with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI 43-101.

The SLR QP has reviewed and accepted the Mineral Resource estimate prepared by EFR based on block models constrained with 3D wireframes on the principal mineralized domains. Mineralized values for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and copper values were interpolated into blocks using inverse distance squared (ID<sup>2</sup>) or ordinary kriging (OK).

A geologic and resource model of the breccia pipe host was constructed based on drill logs. Mineralization wireframes for U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> were based on assays at a nominal cut-off grade of 0.15%. Low and high grade copper wireframes were based on nominal cut-off grades of 1% and 8%, respectively.

The previously reported Mineral Resources estimate with an effective date of December 31, 2021 (SLR, 2022) disclosed both uranium and copper Mineral Resources in the Main and Main-Lower zones and uranium only Mineral Resource in the Juniper Zone. Copper processing adds significantly higher milling costs and thus a higher equivalent uranium cut-off grade was used to report resources at the Main-Lower and Juniper zones. EFR has not included copper in the Mineral Reserve estimate but recognizes that a copper circuit could be added to the mill in the future. As a result, uranium and copper mineralization are reported separately in this updated Mineral Resource. In addition, the following are important changes in the reporting of Mineral Resources:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• All previously reported uranium Mineral Resources in the Main Zone have been converted into Mineral Reserves (Section 15) based on designed mine stopes.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• In 2022, EFR moved from a General Aquifer Protection Permit to an Individual Aquifer Protection Permit with ADEQ. In an effort to protect the perched aquifer in the Coconino sandstone, ADEQ requested and EFR agreed to limit mining between the elevations of 5,340 ft and 4,508 ft. As a result, this updated Mineral Resource report excludes previously reported uranium mineralization from the Cap and Upper zones.

Table 14-1 summarizes the uranium Mineral Resource estimate based on a $65/lb uranium price at an equivalent uranium cut-off grade of 0.30% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for the Main-Lower and Juniper zones with an effective date of December 31, 2022. The Mineral Resource is in situ. The Resources stated in this Technical Report supersede any previous Mineral Resources reported for the Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 14-1:** **Summary of Attributable Uranium Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off <br>Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained <br>Metal**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery <br>U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper I | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 703000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Indicated** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **37000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.95** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **703000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main-Lower | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper I | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper II | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Inferred** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.50** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **48000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral Resources are estimated at 0.30% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> with estimated recoveries of 96% for uranium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> (12.2 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 2.63 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR and are in situ.

There are no permitting constraints to EFR for processing the copper at the mill, and previous test studies conducted by Hazen (Price and Schwartz, 2018) shows that it is possible to process it. Depending on future copper price conditions, EFR may determine that it is economically beneficial to process the copper or may evaluate alternatively reprocessing it out of tails. It is also possible that additional development drilling in the Juniper Zone, expected to be completed in 2023, may encounter additional copper mineralization, making the process more economically viable.

Further study is required to determine if the copper associated with uranium mineralization in the reserve stopes may eventually be processed and add value to the project.

Table 14-2 lists the current estimated copper mineralization associated with the Main and Main-Lower zone resources at Pinyon Plain at a cut-off grade of 0.4% equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> due to higher processing costs for copper. Initial preliminary studies indicate that the copper does have reasonable prospects for economic extraction, however, at this time the Company's focus is on the uranium only.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 14-2:** **Summary of Attributable Copper Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Classification | &nbsp;&nbsp; Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Cut-Off <br>Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp; Tonnage | &nbsp;&nbsp; Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp; Contained <br>Metal | &nbsp;&nbsp; Metallurgical <br>Recovery Cu |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Classification | &nbsp;&nbsp; Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; (% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) | &nbsp;&nbsp; (tons) | &nbsp;&nbsp; (% Cu) | &nbsp;&nbsp; (lb Cu) | &nbsp;&nbsp; (%) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1155000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10553000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Measured + Indicated |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11708000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main-Lower | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 470000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. For the Main and Main-Lower zones of the Pinyon Plain Project, a 0.40% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. The %U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq grade term is not the same as the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>% grade term which indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound and a copper price of $4.00 per lb.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. A copper to U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades (U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. For the Pinyon Plain Project, Mineral Resource tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower zones.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> (12.2 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 2.63 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR and are in situ.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Section 1 and Section 26, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that there are no other known environmental, permitting, legal, social, or other factors that would affect the development of the Mineral Resources.

While the estimate of uranium and copper Mineral Resources is based on the SLR QP's judgment that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction, no assurance can be given that Mineral Resources will eventually convert to Mineral Reserves.

**14.2** **Resource Database**

As of the effective date of this report, EFR and its predecessors have completed 150 holes (45 surface and 105 underground) totalling 92,724 ft from 1978 to 2017. No drilling was conducted on the Project from 1994 to 2016. In 2016 and 2017, EFR completed 105 underground drill holes totalling 30,314 ft at the Project. For this Resource estimate, all holes drilled from underground and 25 of the 45 surface holes were used in the modeling of mineralization. Twenty surface holes were excluded because they are located outside the pipe and contain no mineralization.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

The Project resource database, dated June 17, 2017, includes drilling results from 1978 to 2017 and includes surveyed drill hole collar locations (including dip and azimuth), assay, radiometric probe, and lithology data from 130 diamond drill holes totalling 79,775 ft of drilling.

The resource dataset for the Main Zone is primarily based on assay data, supported by probe composites where assay data was not available. This practice is unique for Arizona Strip District uranium deposits, where standard practice is to use only probe assay data. The use of chemical assays within the Main Zone is due to the large copper component which is not captured with radiometric logging. A summary of the Project resource database is presented in Table 14-3.

**Table 14-3:** **Summary of Available Drill hole Data**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Table** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Number of Records** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Collar | &nbsp;&nbsp; 130 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Survey | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23483 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Geology | &nbsp;&nbsp; 512 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Geotech | &nbsp;&nbsp; 488 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Lab | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3651 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Probe | &nbsp;&nbsp; 120942 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Assay, including: |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Probe U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97994 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Assay U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3409 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Assay Cu | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3409 |

---

**14.3** **Geological Interpretation**

**14.3.1 Uranium**

Uranium mineralization at the Project is concentrated in six vertical zones (Cap, Upper, Main, Main-Lower, Juniper I, and Juniper II) within a collapse structure ranging from 100 ft to 230 ft in plan section with a vertical extension from a depth of 650 ft to over 2,100 ft below ground surface, resulting in approximately 1,450 ft of mineralization vertically. Intercepts range widely up to several tens of feet, with grades in excess of 1.00% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Uranium mineralization is hosted within each zone; copper mineralization has been modeled within the Main and Main-Lower zones only. For reporting purposes, the six zones have been combined into three geologic zones: the Upper/Cap, Main, and Juniper Zones (Figure 14-1). The bulk of mineralization for both commodities is hosted within the Main Zone. At present, no structural features other than the pipe boundary have been incorporated into the geological model.

The model of the breccia pipe host was constructed based on drill logs. Geological interpretations supporting the estimate were generated by EFR personnel and audited for completeness and accuracy by the SLR QP. Topographical surfaces, solids, and mineralized wireframes were modeled using Maptek's Vulcan software.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

EFR created a series of north-south and east-west polylines spaced at 10 ft. The polylines were edited and joined together in 3D using tie lines. During this "stitching" process, polylines and/or tie lines were snapped to composite control intervals, which were interpreted using a 0.15% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> cut-off. Occasionally, lower grade intersections were included to facilitate continuity. Extension distance for the mineralized wireframes was half-way to the next hole, or approximately 20 ft vertically and horizontally past the last drill intercept. In total, 38 uranium wireframes, or domains, were contained within the three geologic zones and assigned identifier numbers for Upper/Cap (17 domains), Main (12 domains), and Juniper (9 domains). The domains ranged in size from 105 tons to 100,500 tons, for a total of 187,700 tons. Domains M_01 (Main) and J_1_01 (Juniper I) account for over 80% of the total tons. A detailed description of these two domains follows.

Within the M_01 domain, the uranium mineralization occurs within the structurally prepared breccia pipe and adjacent to the country rock forming a donut shape roughly 185 ft in diameter and extending from an elevation of 5,325 ft to 5,115 ft. Mineralization consists predominantly of uraninite/pitchblende that occurs as massive to semi-massive accumulations ranging in thickness from less than five feet to 50 ft but is generally in the 30 ft to 40 ft range (horizontally). Within this area, the center or throat of the breccia pipe is essentially barren of uranium mineralization.

EFR proposes that the underlying J_1_01 zone that extends from 4,925 ft elevation to 4,700 ft elevation may be the down-dropped center block of uranium mineralization from the overlying M_01 domain. The shape, depth extension, and horizontal thickness of the mineralization, which ranges from five feet to 50 ft but is generally 25 ft to 30 ft, generally mimics the dimensions of the unmineralized portion of the M_01 zone.

The SLR QP reviewed the uranium mineralization domains and found them to be appropriately extended beyond existing drilling, snapped, and referenced to the principal mineralization controls. The SLR QP recommends EFR continue to work to smooth the connection of the uranium wireframes between sections in future updates.

**14.3.2 Copper**

Copper mineralization models at Pinyon are restricted to the Main and Main-Lower zones. Copper mineralization present within the Juniper Zone has not been modeled at this time due to the much lower sample assay values overall. Final wireframe surfaces, as well as a cross section of mineralization from within the Main Zone, are shown in Figure 14-1.

Within the Main zone, the copper mineralization domain has been modeled at a nominal cut-off grade of 1% Cu, encapsulating mineralization within the breccia pipe. The mineralization tends to concentrate at the contact between the breccia pipe and the country rock, creating a toroid (donut) shape, and elongated at depth. A few flat lying structures carry mineralization into the center of the pipe. Mineralization ranges in thickness from five feet to 80 ft thick (horizontally) but is generally from 20 ft to 40 ft thick. The domain is located from 5,320 ft to 5,120 ft elevation and ranges from 50 ft. deep in the southeast of the breccia pipe and up to 200 ft deep elsewhere.

Additionally, a high grade domain has been modeled in the Main Zone at a cut-off grade of approximately 8% Cu. High grade mineralization also follows the contact with the country rock, but does not extend into the center, or to the southeast, creating a C-shape which is oriented to the southeast and vertically elongated. Mineralization has been modeled to be thickest in the northeast; however, this is also the region with the best access, and therefore the closest drill hole spacing, allowing for a more robust interpretation. The high grade domain is as elongate as the lower grade domain, but patchier, particularly at depth. The high grade domain accounts for approximately 30% of the total copper domain in the Main Zone. The copper domain overlaps approximately 50% of the uranium domain.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

Within the Main-Lower Zone, mineralization has been captured within three separate wireframes, using a cut-off grade of 1% Cu, delineated using from one to five drill holes. As with the Main Zone, mineralization is modeled towards the edge of the breccia pipe. There is no high grade domain in the Main-Lower Zone.

The SLR QP reviewed the copper mineralization domains and found them to be appropriately extended beyond existing drilling, snapped, and referencing the principal mineralization controls. The SLR QP recommends that future updates to the copper mineralization include some marginal material where appropriate to increase the continuity and volume of the wireframes, particularly the high grade copper wireframe.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x030.jpg)

**Figure 14-1:** **Uranium and Copper Mineralized Zones**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.4** **Resource Assays**

The mineralization wireframe models were used to code the drill hole database and to identify samples within the mineralized wireframes. These samples were extracted from the database on a group-by-group basis, subjected to statistical analyses for their respective domains, and then analyzed by means of histograms and probability plots. A total of 5,203 samples were contained within the mineralized uranium wireframes. The sample statistics are summarized by zone in Table 14-4. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of variability of the data.

**Table 14-4:** **Summary Statistics of Uncapped U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Assays**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Minimum**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Maximum**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Mean**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variance** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **SD**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **CV** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.213 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.141 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.660 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; 733 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.585 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.337 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.405 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.200 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3128 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45.121 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.886 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.397 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.710 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN-LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; 108 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.835 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.267 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.090 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.305 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.140 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 955 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22.720 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.612 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.580 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.606 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.630 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.489 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.254 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.159 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.630 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **ALL ZONES** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5203** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **45.121** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.710** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4.010** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2.002** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **2.820** |

---

**14.5** **Treatment of High Grade Assays**

**14.5.1 Capping Levels**

Where the assay distribution is skewed positively or approaches log-normal, erratic high grade assay values can have a disproportionate effect on the average grade of a deposit. One method of treating these outliers to reduce their influence on the average grade is to cut or cap them at a specific grade level. In the absence of production data to calibrate the capping level, inspection of the assay distribution can be used to estimate a "first pass" cutting level.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that the influence of high grade uranium assays must be reduced or controlled and uses a number of industry best practice methods to achieve this goal, including capping of high grade values. The SLR QP employs a number of statistical analytical methods to determine an appropriate capping value including preparation of frequency histograms, probability plots, decile analyses, and capping curves. Using these methodologies, the SLR QP examined the selected capping values for the mineralized domains for the Project.

Examples of the capping analysis are shown in Figure 14-2 and Figure 14-3 as applied to the data set for the mineralized domains. Very high grade uranium outliers were capped at 15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> within the M_01 and J_1_01 domains, resulting in a total of 16 capped assay values. Capped assay statistics by zones are summarized in Table 14-5 and compared with uncapped assay statistics.

In the SLR QP's opinion, the selected capping values are reasonable and have been correctly applied to the raw assay values for the Pinyon Plain Mineral Resource estimate.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 14-5:** **Summary Statistics of Uncapped vs. Capped Assays**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Upper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Upper** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Main** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Main** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **Descriptive Statistics** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Uncap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Uncap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Uncap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Number of Samples | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 733 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 733 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3128 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3128 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Minimum (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Maximum (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.585 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.585 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45.121 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mean (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.213 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.213 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.337 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.337 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.886 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.842 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Variance | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3.710 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; SD (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.141 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.141 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.405 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.405 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.397 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.927 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CV | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.660 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.660 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.710 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.290 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Number of Caps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Main-Lower** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Main-Lower** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Juniper-1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Juniper-1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Juniper-2** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Juniper-2** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Descriptive Statistics** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Uncap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Uncap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Uncap** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cap** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Number of Samples | &nbsp;&nbsp; 108 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 108 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 955 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 955 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 180 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Minimum (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Maximum (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.835 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.835 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 22.720 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.489 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.489 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mean (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.267 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.267 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.612 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.595 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.254 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.254 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Variance | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.090 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.090 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.580 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.030 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; SD (%U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.305 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.305 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.606 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.414 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.159 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.159 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CV | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.140 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.630 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.380 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.630 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.630 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Number of Caps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x031.jpg)

**Figure 14-2:** **Histogram of U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Resource Assay in M_01 and J_1_01 Domains**

![](exhibit99-3x032.jpg)

**Figure 14-3:** **Log Normal Probability Plot with Capping Grades**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.5.2 High Grade Restriction**

In addition to capping thresholds, a secondary approach to reducing the influence of high grade composites is to restrict the search ellipse dimension (high yield restriction) during the estimation process. The threshold grade levels, chosen from the basic statistics and from visual inspection of the apparent continuity of very high grades within each estimation domain, may indicate the need to further limit their influence by restricting the range of their influence, which is generally set to approximately half the distance of the main search.

Upon review of the capped assays, the SLR QP agrees with EFR's approach that no high grade restrictions are required for a Mineral Resource estimation.

**14.6** **Compositing**

Composites were created from the capped, raw assay values using the downhole compositing function of Maptek's Vulcan modeling software package. The composite lengths used during interpolation were chosen considering the predominant sampling length, the minimum mining width, style of mineralization, and continuity of grade. The majority of assay intervals within the mineralized domains varied in length from 0.5 ft (probe data) to 10 ft (assay data), as presented in Figure 14-4, with a few samples outside this range. Most assay samples were four feet, and the drill hole samples were composited to four feet, starting at the wireframe pierce point for each domain, continuing to the point at which the hole exited the domain. A small number of unsampled and missing sample intervals were ignored. Residual composites were maintained in the dataset. The composite statistics by zone are summarized in Table 14-6.

**Table 14-6:** **Summary of Uranium Composite Data by Zone**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Minimum<br>(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Maximum<br>(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Mean <br>(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variance** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **SD <br>(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **CV** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.076 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.689 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.220 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.148 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.670 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.683 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.335 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.786 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.847 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.589 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.609 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.900 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN_LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.152 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.064 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.253 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 186 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14.130 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.691 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.402 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.244 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.119 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.619 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.252 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.102 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.405 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ALL ZONES | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1384 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.753 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.262 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.504 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.997 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x033.jpg)

**Figure 14-4:** **Length Histogram**

**14.7** **Trend Analysis**

**14.7.1 Variography**

EFR generated downhole and directional variograms using the four-foot U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> composite values located within the M_01 and J_1_01 mineralized domains (Figure 14-5) for uranium. The variograms were used to support search ellipsoid anisotropy, linear trends observed in the data, and Mineral Resource classification decisions.

Long range directional variograms were focused in the primary plane of mineralization, which commonly strikes northeast and dips steeply to the southeast. Most ranges were interpreted to be from 40 ft to 60 ft.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x034.jpg)

**Figure 14-5:** **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Variogram Models**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.8** **Search Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters**

The steps in calculating the U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade are presented in Table 14-7, including a description of each step and the variable parameters. Section 14.11 describes how the cut-off grade was determined in this report.

**Table 14-7:** **Estimation Steps of Block Model Variables**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Step** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variable Name** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Steps 1 and 2 estimate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade within individual wireframes | &nbsp;&nbsp; Steps 1 and 2 estimate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade within individual wireframes | &nbsp;&nbsp; Steps 1 and 2 estimate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade within individual wireframes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Build Uranium Estimation File | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1<sup>st</sup> Pass Estimation: canu_est_pass_1_final.bef |
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2<sup>nd</sup> Pass Estimation: canu_est_pass_2_final.bef |
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3<sup>rd</sup> Pass Estimation: canu_est_pass_3_final.bef |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Run Uranium Estimation File:<br>Calculates U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok (2 triangulations) and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw (38 triangulations) variables | &nbsp;&nbsp; All Uranium: July_2017_43101_Est_Run_File_U_Only.ber |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Steps 3 and 4 calculate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final (combines U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw estimations) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Steps 3 and 4 calculate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final (combines U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw estimations) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Steps 3 and 4 calculate U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final (combines U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok and U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw estimations) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Block->Manipulation->Calculate |  |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Variable Name: | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Calculation = | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; OK |  |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Select Blocks by bounding triangulation: | &nbsp;&nbsp; ore.tri/U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.tri/ok.00t to calc U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final from U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Select Block centers |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Block->Manipulation->Calculate |  |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Variable Name: | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Calculation = | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; OK |  |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Select Blocks by bounding triangulation: | &nbsp;&nbsp; ore.tri/U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.tri/idw.00t to calc U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final from U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Select Block centers |  |

---

Estimation of uranium grades was controlled by the grade zones. In the larger domain wireframes, search ellipsoid geometry of the major, semi-major, and minor axis was oriented into the structural plane of the mineralization, as indicated by the variography ranges for each domain. Within the small domain wireframes, the search ellipse was isotropic. The interpolation strategy involved setting up search parameters in three nested estimation runs for each domain. Each subsequent pass was doubled in size. A maximum of three passes was employed to interpolate all blocks.

First, second, and third pass search ellipses maintained normalized anisotropic ratios. Grade interpolation was carried out using OK on mineralized domains M_01 and J_1_01 with ID<sup>2</sup> on all remaining mineralized domains. Depending on the pass and domain wireframe, a minimum of one to eight to a maximum of 1 to 16 composites per block estimate were employed, with a maximum of two to six composites per drill hole. Hard boundaries were used to limit the restrict composites to within the domain wireframe in which they were located. A nearest neighbor (NN) block model was also prepared for comparison purposes. Search parameters are listed in Table 14-8 for the Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

In order to reduce the influence of very high grade composites, grades greater than a designated threshold level for each domain were restricted to shorter search ellipse dimensions. The threshold grade level of 7% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> was chosen from the basic statistics and from visual inspection of the apparent continuity of very high grades within each domain, which indicated the need to limit their influence to 32 ft by 22 ft by 4 ft or 40 ft by 21.6 ft by 16 ft, domain dependant.

**Table 14-8:** **Uranium Interpolation Plan**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Wireframe1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Interp. Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Bearing/Plunge** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **First Pass Dimensions**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP | &nbsp;&nbsp; c_01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 335°/-1° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP | &nbsp;&nbsp; c_03 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 345°/1° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; u_04 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 84°/-33° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; u_08 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 44.5°/-10° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; u_09 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 44.5°/-4° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; u_10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 150°/-28° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; u_12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 177°/2° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN | &nbsp;&nbsp; m_01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; OK | &nbsp;&nbsp; 315°/-70° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN-LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; ml_01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 345°/0° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN-LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; ml_02 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 356.5°/12° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN-LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; ml_05 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 245.5°/-5° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN-LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; ml_06 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 287.5°/4° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN-LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; ml_08 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62.5°/-33° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER I | &nbsp;&nbsp; j_1_01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; OK | &nbsp;&nbsp; 350°/10° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 80 x 43.2 x 32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER I | &nbsp;&nbsp; j_1_02 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 298°/-3° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER II | &nbsp;&nbsp; j_2_01 | &nbsp;&nbsp; ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 284.5°/0° | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64 x 44 x 8 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Wireframes not included in this table were interpolated using an omnidirectional search ellipse, the first pass of which was 20 ft x 20 ft x 20 ft.

**14.9** **Bulk Density**

Bulk density was determined by EFR with specific gravity (SG) measurements on drill core by measuring a minimum four-inch piece of core in all directions with calipers to determine a volume. The sample is then weighed to get a mass and the density calculated. This method was used to determine the density of 2,857 samples. The density is modeled using inverse distance weighting squared and an average value across the deposit of 0.082 t/ft<sup>3</sup> was calculated.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

This method of density determination was validated using the water immersion method according to the Archimedes principle, after the core has been sealed in wax. SG is calculated as weight in air (weight in air - weight in water). Under normal atmospheric conditions, SG (a unitless ratio) is equivalent to density in t/m<sup>3</sup>. The validation utilized 37 bulk density measurements that were collected on six-inch drill core samples from the main mineralized zones to represent local major lithologic units, mineralization styles and alteration types. Samples were collected on full core, which had been retained in the core box prior to splitting for sampling. EFR determined the difference between the caliper method and water immersion method is about 1% in favor of the caliper method.

A global density of 0.082 t/ft<sup>3</sup> was assigned to the block model.

**14.10** **Block Models**

All modeling work was carried out using Maptek's Vulcan software version 10.0 software. The Pinyon Plain block model has 4 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft whole blocks and an origin at 646,630 ft East, 1,776,530 ft North, 4,450 ft elevation. The block model is not rotated, and extends 360 ft east-west, 320 ft north-south and 1,460 ft elevation. Before grade estimation, all model blocks were assigned density and mineralized domain codes (copper and uranium), based on majority rules. A summary of the block model variables is provided in Table 14-9.

**Table 14-9:** **Summary of Block Model Variables**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variable** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Default** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_ok | &nbsp;&nbsp; Double | &nbsp;&nbsp; -99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> estimation using ordinary kriging |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_idw | &nbsp;&nbsp; Double | &nbsp;&nbsp; -99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> estimation using inverse distance |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_nn | &nbsp;&nbsp; Double | &nbsp;&nbsp; -99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> estimation using nearest neighbor |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ok_u_est_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Ordinary Kriging Estimation Flag |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ok_u_samp_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; No. of samples used in ordinary kriging |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ok_u_holes_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; No. of holes used in ordinary kriging |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; idw_u_est_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Inverse Distance Estimation Flag |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; idw_u_samp_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; No. of samples used in inverse distance |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; idw_u_holes_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; No. of samples used in inverse distance |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; nn_u_nearest_samp | &nbsp;&nbsp; Double | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Distance to nearest neighbor |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; class | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Block Classification |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; dens | &nbsp;&nbsp; Double | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.082 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Density of Block (Default is 12.2 cu ft/ton - 0.082) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; bound | &nbsp;&nbsp; Name | &nbsp;&nbsp; out | &nbsp;&nbsp; Mineralized Boundary Zone (C, U, M, ML, J_1, J_2) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>_final | &nbsp;&nbsp; Double | &nbsp;&nbsp; -99 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Final U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> idw or ok block grade |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; u_tri_flag | &nbsp;&nbsp; Integer | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; block in U shape (in =1, out=0) |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-16 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.11** **Cut-off Grade**

Two cut-off grades were used for the resource estimate. For the uranium and copper bearing zones, a 0.40% uranium equivalent (% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) cut-off grade was used. For the uranium-only zones, a 0.30% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> cut-off grade was used. The two cut-off grades account for separate process campaigns with different unit costs.

Assumptions used in the determination of the Pinyon Plain uranium resource cut-off grade of 0.30% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and the uranium and copper resource cut-off grade of 0.40% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq are presented in Table 14-10.

* Total operating cost (mining, G&A, processing) of US$372. Per short ton for uranium only.

* Total operating cost (mining, G&A, processing) of US$471. Per short ton for uranium + copper.

* Royalty cost of $1.88/ton

* Process recovery of 96% for uranium and 90% for copper.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Uranium price of US$65.00/lb and copper price of US$4.00/lb. The prices are based on independent, third-party, and market analysts' average forecasts as of 2022, and the supply and demand projections are for the period 2023 to 2035. In the SLR QP's opinion, these long-term price forecasts are a reasonable basis for estimation of Mineral Resources.

**Table 14-10:** **Pinyon Plain Project Cut-off Grade Calculation for Mineral Resources**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Quantity** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Metal Price Uranium | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 65.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Metal Price Copper | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/lb Cu | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process Plant Recovery Uranium | &nbsp;&nbsp; % | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process Plant Recovery Copper | &nbsp;&nbsp; % | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface Haulage Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing Cost (Uranium + Copper) | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 291.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing Cost (Uranium) | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 192.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Operating Cost (Uranium + Copper) | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 471.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Operating Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 372.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Royalty Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton processed | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; lb/ton |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Break-Even Cut-off Grade (Uranium +Copper (% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) | &nbsp;&nbsp; % | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Break-Even Cut-off Grade (Uranium % eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>) | &nbsp;&nbsp; % | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.30 |

---

The SLR QP reviewed the operating costs and cut-off grade reported by EFR and is of the opinion they are reasonable for disclosing Mineral Resources.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-17 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.12** **Classification**

Classification of Mineral Resources as defined in SEC Regulation S-K subpart 229.1300 were followed for classification of Mineral Resources. The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (CIM 2014) are consistent with these definitions.

A Mineral Resource is defined as a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth's crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A mineral resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, considering relevant factors such as cut-off grade, likely mining dimensions, location, or continuity, that with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization drilled or sampled.

Based on this definition of Mineral Resources, the Mineral Resources estimated in this Technical Report have been classified according to the definitions below based on geology, grade continuity, and drill hole spacing.

**Measured mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.

**Indicated mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.

**Inferred mineral resource** is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve.

The SLR QP has considered the following factors that can affect the uncertainty associated with each class of Mineral Resources:

* Reliability of sampling data:

* Drilling, sampling, sample preparation, and assay procedures follow industry standards.

* Data verification and validation work confirm drill hole sample databases are reliable.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-18 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

* No significant biases were observed in the QA/QC analysis results.

Confidence in interpretation and modeling of geological and estimation domains:

* Mineralization domains are interpreted manually in cross-sections and refined in longitudinal sections by an experienced resource geologist.

* There is good agreement between the drill holes and mineralization wireframe shapes.

* The mineralization wireframe shapes are well defined by sample data in areas classified as Measured and Indicated.

Confidence in block grade estimates:

* Measured and Indicated block grades correlate well with composite data, statistically and spatially and locally and globally.

Blocks were classified as Indicated or Inferred based on drill hole spacing, confidence in the geological interpretation, and apparent continuity of mineralization.

**14.12.1 Measured Mineral Resources**

Classification of Measured Resources was limited to blocks contained in the Main Zone, directly adjacent to underground drilling station 1-4, where 67 drill holes were collared in a fan pattern on general drill hole spacing of 15 feet. A cross section of block classification in the Main Zone is shown in Figure 14-6. All Measured and Indicated Resources in the Main Zone have been converted to Reserves and are excluded from the current Mineral Resource estimate.

**14.12.2 Indicated Mineral Resources**

The remainder of the blocks within the Main Zone, as well as the blocks in primary wireframe within Juniper I, j_1_01, were assigned a classification of Indicated, in which drill hole pierce point spacing is generally less than 25 feet from underground drilling station 1-4.

**14.12.3 Inferred Mineral Resources**

All remaining blocks in the model were limited to an Inferred classification.

In the SLR QP's opinion the classification of Mineral Resources is reasonable and appropriate for disclosure.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-19 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x035.jpg)

**Figure 14-6:** **Block Classification within the Main Zone**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-20 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.13** **Block Model Validation**

The SLR QP reviewed and validated the block model using various modeling and interpolation aspects of the Pinyon Plain model. Observations and comments from the model validation are provided below.

Mineralization wireframes were checked for conformity to drill hole data, continuity, similarity between sections, overlaps, appropriate terminations between holes and into undrilled areas, and minimum mining thicknesses. The wireframes were snapped to drill hole intervals, are reasonably consistent, continuous, and generally representative of the extents and limits of the mineralization. The SLR QP recommends that EFR continue to work to smooth the connection of the uranium wireframes between sections in future updates.

Capping statistics were reviewed and audited for a series of individual zones and compared to the statistics of capping groups defined by EFR. The SLR QP is satisfied with the chosen caps.

Compositing routines were checked to confirm that composites started and stopped at the intersections with the wireframes and that the composite coding is consistent with the wireframes. The SLR QP is satisfied with the compositing routines and finds the composites appropriate for Mineral Resource estimation.

Contact plots were prepared for selected mineralization domains and confirmed the appropriateness of hard boundaries between the domains during estimation.

Visual inspection and comparison of drill hole composites against mineralized solids were carried out for a number of sections with focus on the Main and Juniper I domains for both copper and uranium. The mineralized solids were found to conform reasonably well to the drill hole composite grades, although some evidence of smoothing was present. A cross section and plan section comparing uranium composite and uranium block grades are presented in Figure 14-7 and Figure 14-8.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-21 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x036.jpg)

**Figure 14-7:** **Cross Section Comparing Block and Composite U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Grades in the Main Zone**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-22 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x037.jpg)

**Figure 14-8:** **Plan View Comparing Block and Composite U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Grades in the Main Zone**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-23 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

The SLR QP reviewed the variogram models for selected mineralization groups and prepared variogram models representing selected individual mineralization domains for comparison, then validated the trend of the variogram against observed trends and grade shells created in Leapfrog Geo software. The SLR QP recommends exploring the use of dynamic anisotropy for the interpolation of mineralization within the Main Zone in future updates, where mineralization follows the contact of the breccia pipe with the country rock.

The SLR QP validated the grades estimated in the block models prepared by EFR using basic statistics, visual inspection, volumetric comparison, swath plots, and a re-estimation of a portion of the Main Zone using the ID<sup>2</sup> method. The grades of re-estimated areas were found to be within 10%.

A statistical comparison of the estimated block grades with the four-foot composites is shown in Table 14-11. The block results compare well with the composites, indicating a reasonable overall representation of the uranium grades in the block model.

**Table 14-11:** **Comparison of Block and Composite Uranium Grades**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Min** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Max** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Variance** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **SD** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **CV** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP | &nbsp;&nbsp; Blocks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 685 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.076 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.361 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.196 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP | &nbsp;&nbsp; Comps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.076 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.689 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.220 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.148 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.670 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; Blocks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.117 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.338 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.336 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.165 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.490 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; UPPER | &nbsp;&nbsp; Comps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.683 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.335 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.786 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN | &nbsp;&nbsp; Blocks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19339 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10.887 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.872 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.910 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.953 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.090 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN | &nbsp;&nbsp; Comps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1015 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.847 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.589 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.609 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.900 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN_LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; Blocks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1397 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.884 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.233 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.170 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.730 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; MAIN_LOWER | &nbsp;&nbsp; Comps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.152 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.251 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.064 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.253 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Blocks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10516 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.831 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.724 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.110 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.054 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.460 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Comps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 186 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14.130 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.691 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.402 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.550 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2.244 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Blocks | &nbsp;&nbsp; 833 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.124 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.614 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.259 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; JUNIPER-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Comps | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.119 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.619 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.252 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.102 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.405 |

---

**14.14** **Grade Tonnage Sensitivity**

Table 14-12 shows the Indicated block model sensitivity to cut-off grade and uranium prices as represented in the grade tonnage curve shown in Figure 14-9.

Table 14-13 shows the Inferred block model sensitivity to cut-off grade and uranium prices as represented in the grade tonnage curve shown in Figure 14-10 .

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-24 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 14-12:** **Block Model Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade and Uranium Price in the Main-Lower and Juniper Zones (Indicated)**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Price**<br>**($/lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off Grade**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **)<sup>1</sup>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>**(ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 43000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 734000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 730000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 721000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **$65** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.30** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **37000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.95** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **703000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.98 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 693000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $55 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 678000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 662000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 641000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 605000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 21000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 575000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 538000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 491000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Recovery and operating costs held constant for sensitivity analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Base Case Scenario

![](exhibit99-3x038.jpg)

**Figure 14-9:** **Indicated Grade Tonnage Curve Main-Lower and Juniper Zones**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-25 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 14-13:** **Block Model Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade and Uranium Price in the Main-Lower and Juniper Zones (Inferred)**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Price**<br>**($/lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off Grade**<br>**(%U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **)<sup>1</sup>** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>**(ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>**(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal**<br>**(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 60000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 55000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **$65** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.30** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.50** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **48000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 43000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $55 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 38000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $50 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2900 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 35000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2300 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $40 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1600 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $35 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1200 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $30 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 900 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; $25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 800 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Recovery and operating costs held constant for sensitivity analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Base Case Scenario

![](exhibit99-3x039.jpg)

**Figure 14-10:** **Inferred Grade Tonnage Curve Main-Lower and Juniper Zones**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-26 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**14.15** **Mineral Resource Reporting**

A summary of the Pinyon Plain uranium Mineral Resources is presented in Table 14-14. Mineral Resources are based on a $65/lb uranium price at an equivalent uranium cut-off grade 0.30% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>88</sub>. In the SLR QP's opinion, the assumptions, parameters, and methodology used for the Pinyon Plain Mineral Resource estimate is appropriate for the style of mineralization and mining methods. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2022.

The SLR QP is of the opinion that with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Section 1 and Section 26, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work. There are no other known environmental, permitting, legal, social, or other factors that would affect the development of the Mineral Resources.

While the estimate of Mineral Resources is based on the SLR QP's judgment that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction, no assurance can be given that Mineral Resources will eventually convert to Mineral Reserves.

**Table 14-14:** **Summary of Attributable Uranium Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% eU<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Metal**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper I | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 37000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 703000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Indicated** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **37000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.95** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **703000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main-Lower | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper I | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Juniper II | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Inferred** |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.50** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **48000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral Resources are estimated at 0.30% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> with estimated metallurgical recovery of 96% for uranium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> (12.2 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 2.63 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR.

Table 14-15 lists the current estimated copper mineralization associated with the Main and Main-Lower zones at Pinyon Plain. Further study is required to determine if the copper associated with uranium mineralization in the zones may eventually be processed and add value to the project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-27 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 14-15:** **Summary of Attributable Copper Mineral Resources - Effective Date December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off <br>Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Eq)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% Cu)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained <br>Metal**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb Cu)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical <br>Recovery Cu**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1155000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10553000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Measured + Indicated |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11708000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main-Lower | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 470000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 90 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. For the Main and Main-Lower zones of the Pinyon Plain Project, a 0.40% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. The %U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq grade term is not the same as the eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8 </sub>% grade term which indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report. For details, seethe Pinyon Plain Project below.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound and a copper price of $4.00 per lb.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. A copper to U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grades (U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. For the Pinyon Plain Project, Mineral Resource tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower zones.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft<sup>3</sup> (12.2 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton or 2.63 t/m<sup>3</sup>).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 14-28 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**15.0** **MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE**

**15.1** **Summary**

The Mineral Reserve estimate for Pinyon Plain, summarized in Table 15-1, is based on the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2022, a detailed mine design, and modifying factors such as a feasible mining method, external dilution, and mining extraction factors. Mineral Resource to Mineral Reserve conversion was 100% within the Main Zone, with the remaining zones (Main-Lower and Juniper) not considered for inclusion as Mineral Reserves. No Inferred Mineral Resources were converted to Mineral Reserves.

The underground mine design completed by EFR was based on grade envelopes of assays at a nominal grade of 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> using underground mining methods and processing via a toll milling agreement.

Current economic conditions, mine design, and cash flow analysis do not account for processing of copper mineralization and thus copper is excluded from the Mineral Reserve estimate.

**Table 15-1:** **Summary of Mineral Reserve Estimate - December 31, 2022**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-Off Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grade**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained <br>Metal**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery <br>U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp; Main Zone |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Proven | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7800 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 50800 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 126700 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1517000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Proven + Probable** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **134500** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1567800** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. SEC S-K-1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Reserve categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$60.00/lb.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Underground Mineral Reserves were estimated by creating stope shapes using a grade envelope of 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>, with a minimum mining width of 5 ft (including hanging wall and footwall dilution), on 10 ft vertical stope heights.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. The breakeven cut-off grade is 0.32% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. A mining extraction factor of 95% was applied to the underground stopes, while underground development assumed a 100% mining extraction factor.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Mining Reserves are in situ.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. The density varies according to the block model.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 15-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

The SLR QP is not aware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, permitting, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate.

**15.2** **Dilution**

Dilution for the Mineral Reserve estimate was estimated as the material outside of the Mineral Resource limits but included within the stope designs in the application of the 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade contour. The Mineral Reserves include 34,600 tons (35%) of dilution which has been included at zero grade.

The QP is of the opinion that the dilution estimate is appropriate considering:

* The irregular shape of the deposit

* The high grade nature of the ore

* The target of maximum extraction

**15.3** **Extraction**

Extraction of the planned stopes is 95%. Long hole stope ore will be drilled from successive levels sequenced upward and blasted, dropping to the lowest mine level (the 5130 level), where it will be mucked and transported to the shaft loading pocket.. The potential for ore loss is reduced as the losses would only occur in the final stages of mucking and efforts to maximize extraction will reduce losses.

**15.4** **Cut-off Grade**

The SEC defines cut off grade as "the grade that distinguishes material deemed to have no economic value (it will not be mined in underground mining or if mined in surface mining, its destination will be the waste dump) from material deemed to have economic value (its ultimate destination during mining will be a processing facility)". The calculated cut off grade for Pinyon Plain Mineral Reserves was based on modifying factors including metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, operating costs, and other operational constraints. Mine operating costs were based on historical operating costs for similar underground operations on the Arizona Strip operated by Energy Fuels and comparisons to underground mining cost models while mill operating costs and process recovery were based on current data.

Metal prices used for Mineral Reserves are based on industry institutions and other sources. For Mineral Resources, metal prices used are slightly higher than those for reserves. Metal pricing and the royalty cost are discussed in Sections 19.1 and 4.4 of this report, respectively.

The uranium cut off grade applied to the Mineral Reserves is 0.32% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for the Main Zone. Table 15-2 lists the assumptions used in determining the uranium cut off grade.

**Table 15-2:** **Cut Off Grade Calculation for Mineral Reserves**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Quantity** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Metal Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; $60.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process Plant Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp; % | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton ore | &nbsp;&nbsp; $101.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface Haulage Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton ore | &nbsp;&nbsp; $72.00 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 15-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Quantity** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton ore | &nbsp;&nbsp; $192.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A Cost |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Total Operating Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton ore | &nbsp;&nbsp; $372.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Royalty Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$/ton ore | &nbsp;&nbsp; $1.88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Break-Even Cut-off grade | &nbsp;&nbsp; % U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.32% |

---

**15.5** **Classification**

Measured Mineral Resources were converted to Proven Mineral Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Mineral Reserves. No Inferred Mineral Resources were converted to Mineral Reserves.

**15.6** **Reconciliation**

Reconciliation cannot be performed on the Mineral Reserve estimate as there has been no ore production at the Project.

SLR recommends that EFR develop grade control and production reconciliation procedures to permit an ongoing evaluation of the Mineral Reserve estimation parameters (dilution and extraction) and to maximize the value of the production from the mine.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 15-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.0** **MINING METHODS**

The mine is an underground, vertical shaft access mine which is planned to be mined using small scale mechanized rubber tired equipment. Energy Fuels and its predecessors have mined numerous uranium bearing breccia pipes by underground methods dating back to the 1980s. Because mineralization can be found in fractures which range from a single fracture to intersections of many, forming large zones, several mining methods will be employed based on the size and geometry of the mineralization.

Ore will be mined by a combination of longhole stoping and shrinkage mining to suit the irregular nature of the deposit. Ore will be hoisted to surface, stored in a surface ore stockpile, and then transported by highway trucks to a processing facility. The shaft is 1,470 ft deep with mine production planned over a 150 ft vertical interval, from 1,223 ft below surface (approximately the 1-4 level of the shaft) to 1,376 ft below surface (approximately the 1-5 level of the shaft). A spiral ramp will be driven up from the 1-5 level to connect the planned sublevels and to connect to the shaft at the 1-4 level.

Mineral Reserves are located on the outer side of a roughly cylindrical shape with a diameter of 300 ft and a barren center with a diameter of approximately 50 ft. Mining sublevels are spaced at irregular intervals of 20 ft to 35 ft. An eight foot diameter return air raise, also functioning as an emergency escapeway, will be developed in the barren center of the deposit to a depth of 1,400 ft below surface.

**16.1** **Mine Design**

The mine is currently accessed via a production shaft. The shaft is 1,470 ft deep with the 1-4 shaft station at approximately 5,283 ft ASL and the 1-5 station at 5,130 ft ASL. The shaft is equipped with a double drum hoist and is used for personnel and materials.

The stope design at Pinyon Plain was completed using Maptek's Vulcan mine software (Vulcan) and based on a block model also completed in the software. A grade shell from the block model at a 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> grade guided the mine design process, which is less than the breakeven cut off grade of 0.32% for the Project. This accounted for planned dilution due to blasting overbreak around a given stope shape. In some cases, because of the narrow nature of the mineralized fractures, internal dilution was also included in the stope designs.

Drifts in ore and waste were designed to a minimum size of 10 ft x 10 ft, which also accounts for blasting overbreak. Ore production will be realized from these drifts and supplemented by breasting the back, ribs, and in some cases, floor pulls. However, longhole stoping will contribute the majority of ore tons in the mine plan, accounting for 71% of contained U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Longhole stopes vary in dimension from 10 ft to 55 ft wide and 20 ft to 35 ft in height.

Access to the orebody is through a 10 ft by 10 ft spiral ramp located on the south side of the breccia pipe. The ramp connects the shaft stations of the 1-4 and 1-5 levels and is driven at a 15% gradient. Flat cross cuts from the spiral ramp are developed at five mining levels referenced by their sill elevation above sea level: the 5130, 5175, 5215, 5255, and 5283 levels. The mining levels are spaced apart 30 ft to 35 ft vertically. From these mining levels, a circular drift is developed around the inside perimeter of the breccia pipe, alternating though ore and waste. Once drifts in ore are widened to the extent of mineralization, longhole drilling can begin. Ring drilling will be sequenced in a clockwise and counter clockwise direction, retreating back to the mine level entrance to develop two stope faces and facilitate optimal mine production. Longhole drilling will begin at the 5175 level and sequence upward. The bottom of the mine (the 5130 mining level) is the sole mucking level during the mine life.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

An eight foot diameter exhaust ventilation raise is designed in the center of the breccia pipe. Depending on which mining levels are active at any one time, drifts will intersect the ventilation raise to exhaust air. A series of air doors or regulators will control the volume of air required for mining or block air flow once mining is completed on a given level.

Figure 16-1 shows the overall mine design and naming convention at Pinyon Plain.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x040.jpg)

Notes: View looking northwest.

**Figure 16-1:** **Pinyon Plain Overall Mine Design and Naming Conventions**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.2** **Mining Method**

Energy Fuels and its predecessors have mined numerous uranium bearing breccia pipes by underground methods dating back to the 1980s. Because mineralization can be found in fractures which range from single high grade structures to intersections of many forming large zones, several mining methods will be employed based on the size and geometry of the mineralization.

The majority and largest ore zones at Pinyon Plain will be mined by longhole stoping using a ring drill due to this mining method's low cost and high productivity per employee-shift. Narrower mineralized zones will be mined as a single drift using handheld jackleg drills with breasting of the roof and ribs to the ore's extents. In some cases, the sill will be blasted and mucked out (termed a "floor pull"). All broken material will be hauled by diesel powered, low profile load-haul-dump loaders (LHDs) to a muck raise located on the mining level and dropped to the lowest mining level (the 5130 level) or the muck raise located off the spiral ramp. From either location, an LHD will rehandle the muck and tram it to the dump pocket located at the 1-5 shaft station. The ore control system at the mine will ensure ore and waste are not commingled.

Due to the circular nature of the breccia pipe in plan view, each level will be developed in a circular fashion from the mine access drift to the level and be connected. Longhole stoping will be initiated from the farthest point away from the access drift and sequenced in both a clockwise and counter clockwise fashion to facilitate broken rock to the mucking level (the 5130 level).

The current planned production rate, assuming day shift only, is 250 stpd ore, based on past production metrics at similar uranium breccia pipes and the Pinyon Plain hoisting capabilities. Hoisting at Pinyon Plain can achieve 400 stpd, assuming work on day shift only, which allows for skipping a significant amount of waste development during the mine life of mine (LOM). An opportunity exists to skip ore on night shift with a limited crew with day shift using muck bays and the 5130 level to store a sufficient broken ore inventory.

Longhole stoping, also known as blasthole or sublevel stoping, is an open stoping, high-production, bulk mining method applicable to large, steeply dipping, regular ore bodies having competent ore and host rock that requires little or no support. Typical production ranges from 15 tons to 40 tons per employee-shift, and individual stopes may produce in excess of 25,000 tons/month.

Sublevel stoping is very development intensive, although the cost of development is compensated by the fact that much of it is done in ore. It is limited to steeply inclined ore bodies where both ore and country rock are competent and broken ore flows under the influence of gravity. Ore bodies should be regular, because the method is not selective.

Production drilling is accomplished using longhole equipment utilizing large-diameter down-the-hole (DTH) drills because of their directional accuracy. Efficient use of large-scale blasting makes sublevel stoping one of the lowest-cost underground mining methods available.

Mining will start from the lowest mining level (the 5130 level) and progress upward through the four additional mining levels. Each one of these levels will have developed a circular, connected drift which will produce ore from drifting and subsequently breasting of backs and ribs. Longhole drilling will then begin, first on the 5175 level and blasted ore will drop to the mucking level (the 5130 level). Once the ore has been extracted from this level, sufficient mine development will have been completed to continue drifting in ore, breasting, and ring drilling from the next level (the 5215 level), and so on until the Reserve has been completed exploited. Once mining is completed, all development rock stored on surface will be placed back underground through the ventilation raise as part of the Project's reclamation plan, as agreed to with State regulators.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.3** **Geotechnical**

In 1987, the geotechnical consulting firm of Dames and Moore completed an evaluation of mine stability and subsidence potential at the Project.

The scope of work was based on a review of geologic and geotechnical data from similar breccia pipe uranium mines on the Arizona Strip (the Orphan Mine, the Hack 2 Mine, Kanab North, and the Pigeon Mine), including the stability of existing underground stopes.

Numerical modelling of stopes was analyzed at depths of 800 ft, 1,200 ft, and 1,600 ft below surface with a surrounding rock strength of 3,000 psi. Stope dimensions at these mines varied from 60 ft high by 30 ft wide (Orphan Mine) to 350 ft high by 200 ft wide (Hack 2 Mine). Ground support was limited to rock bolts in the stope backs and no backfill.

The report concluded that stopes up to 350 ft high at a depth of 1,200 ft would not develop significant stability problems as long as prudent ground supports were employed, which EFR plans on installing during mining. In addition, the paper predicted mined out stopes would fill with rubblized rock as a result of subsidence reaching surface in several hundred years; the surface expression would be less than two feet over a broad area and would be difficult to observe in the field. Since the geotechnical report was produced, EFR has decided to fill stopes with waste rock, which will significantly reduce any post-mining surface expression from to-ground subsidence.

SLR recommends that EFR develop a program for monitoring the geotechnical conditions in the stopes to provide an early warning of potential ground condition problems or stope wall failures. Similarly, the geotechnical condition of the development headings should be noted and recorded to support any required changes in the ground support regimes.

**16.4** **Hydrological**

Mine workings will be constructed within competent bedrock having low to very low permeability. The breccia pipe and bedrock underlying the workings (the Lower Supai) are both considered nearly impermeable.

Despite the low permeability of the Coconino sandstone at the site, workings (including the mine access shaft) that penetrate saturated portions of the Coconino sandstone are expected to experience water seepage, at rates similar to those currently measured at the shaft, due to the relatively large, saturated thickness (approximately 200 ft) of the Coconino sandstone. The transmissivity (the product of hydraulic conductivity and saturated thickness) is high enough that current seepage to the mine shaft is approximately 16 gpm.

Even where fully saturated, the Upper Supai is expected to have a hydraulic conductivity (and transmissivity) substantially lower than that of the Coconino sandstone, therefore, mine workings that penetrate the Upper Supai are expected to make very little water, as supported by the current low seepage entering the mine shaft from the Upper Supai, consistent with expectations.

Mine workings that penetrate the breccia pipe are expected to make little to no water due to the nearly impermeable nature of the breccia material.

Regardless of the amount of water that actually seeps into the mine workings, such water will drain or be pumped to a lined sump at the base of the shaft.

In addition, during mining operations, the workings will act as sinks for any perched groundwater encountered; flow will be directed from the country rock toward the workings rather than the reverse. Furthermore, the long-term impacts of the relatively small volume of workings penetrating a very large volume of low permeability rock will have a negligible impact on the overall average hydraulic properties of the surrounding rock.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.4.1 Mine Shaft Seepage**

As discussed above, although the Mine is located within an area of the Coconino Plateau where the Coconino sandstone contains only locally perched groundwater, perched groundwater encountered within the Coconino during sinking of the mine shaft is slightly higher than but comparable to that anticipated. Perched groundwater is currently seeping into the shaft at a rate of approximately 16 gpm. This water is currently collected in a lined sump at the base of the shaft, however, EFR has installed water rings within the shaft at the base of the Coconino and at the base of the Kaibab to separate this water from any other water that may seep into the shaft.

The rate of seepage of water from the Coconino into the shaft, which acts as a very large diameter well, is consistent with the low estimated hydraulic conductivity for the Coconino. The rate of seepage of water from the Kaibab into the shaft is minimal (a few gpm), which is consistent with expectation. Any water from the Coconino and Kaibab that overflows or is not otherwise captured by or pumped out of the water rings reports to the sump at the bottom of the mine shaft.

Seepage from the Coconino has created a cone of depression within the perched groundwater that directs flow inward towards the shaft. Effectively, the shaft acts as a well that is continuously overpumped to the extent that a seepage face is created. As long as the shaft is in use and water is being pumped from the lined sump at the bottom of the shaft, groundwater flow will be directed inward from the Coconino into the shaft.

Potential seepage from perched water zones in other formations penetrated by the shaft (such as the Kaibab, Toroweap, and Upper Supai) is relatively small, however, groundwater flow from these formations will also be directed inward toward the shaft.

As the ventilation shaft will be installed within the breccia pipe, which is comprised of a dense, well-cemented, compact and predominantly dry rock matrix, no additional water inflows are expected during the planned ventilation raise or after installation of the vent shaft. .

**16.4.2 Drifts into Breccia Pipe Orebody**

Drifts extending from the shaft into the orebody are expected to remain dry unless saturated materials are penetrated. If saturated materials are penetrated, water is expected to seep into the drifts, with the rate of seepage roughly proportional to the permeability of the saturated materials. As discussed above, workings penetrating any materials other than saturated Coconino are expected to make little or no water. In particular, drifts designed to access the main orebody will be completed in Hermit Shale or very low permeability Supai Formation materials and are expected to have an insignificant impact on the surrounding hydrogeology.

Because drifts will be designed to drain toward the shaft, any water seeping into the drifts will drain or be pumped to the lined sump at the base of the shaft. In general, drifts are expected to act much like horizontal wells and to collect, rather than discharge, water from surrounding materials.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.5** **Preproduction Schedule**

Mine development recommenced at the site in mid 2022 and is ongoing. There are 1,595 ft of waste development before preproduction ore development commences. The ventilation raise construction is scheduled for June and July 2023 and this will be followed by installation of the ventilation facilities and emergency hoist pad.

SLR recommends that the ventilation raise development contractor be selected and the work scheduled to avoid delays in the project implementation.

**16.6** **Life of Mine Plan**

The LOM development and ore production plan is summarized in Table 16-1. Mine development takes four months and the first development ore is hoisted and sent for processing in Month 5 of Year 0. The LOM production plan is shown in Table 16-2. Ore production totals 134,464 tons grading 0.58% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and containing 1.57 Mlb of uranium oxide. The total LOM recovered uranium oxide production totals 1.5 Mlb. Once ore production commences, mining is scheduled to be complete in 28 months.

Daily rock production averages 143 stpd of ore and 41 stpd of waste over the life of mine. The maximum daily production from the mine is 343 tons of ore plus waste.

This mine plan covers the Main zone only. There are uranium Mineral Resources in the Jupiter Zone that exist below the Main Zone.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 16-1:** **Life of Mine Development and Production Plan**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Ore Hoisted**<br>**(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Waste <br>Hoisted**<br>**(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Raise <br>Cuttings <br>Hoisted**<br>**(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total <br>Material<br>Hoisted**<br>**(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Waste <br>Development**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Ventilation <br>Raise**<br>**(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total <br>Waste**<br>**(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Year 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3475 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3475 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 424 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 424 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 414 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 414 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2754 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2754 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 336 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 336 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6426 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6426 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 784 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 784 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2013 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5246 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7259 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 640 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 640 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3501 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4877 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10370 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 595 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 484 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1079 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1052 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5582 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3629 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 681 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 881 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1562 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2138 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3852 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5991 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 470 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 470 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4376 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1335 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5711 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 459 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5709 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 56 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 56 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1377 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6627 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 168 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 168 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Year 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 344 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5594 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 42 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 66 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7066 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1887 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10637 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 230 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 230 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6164 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6164 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 267 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Year 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7264 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 459 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7723 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 56 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 56 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2426 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 157 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2583 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 530 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 530 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **134464** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **38978** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5621** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **179063** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4720** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1365** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **6085** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 16-2:** **Life of Mine Production Plan**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Mill Feed <br>Processed**<br>**(tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Head <br>Grade, U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained <br>U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>**(lb)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Average <br>Metallurgical <br>Recovery**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Recovered <br>U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>**<br>**(lb)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **<br>Sales**<br>**(lb)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Year 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2013 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15051 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14449 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14449 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3501 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 26178 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25131 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25131 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1052 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12155 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11669 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11669 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2138 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25972 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24933 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 24933 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4376 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 53203 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51074 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51074 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 106523 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 102262 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 102262 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63914 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61357 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61357 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64137 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61571 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61571 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Year 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 73027 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 70105 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 70105 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96548 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92686 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92686 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 118192 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 113465 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 113465 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 76646 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 73581 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 73581 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6164 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 71868 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 68993 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 68993 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8750 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100271 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96260 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96260 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 62017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 59536 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 59536 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96553 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92691 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92691 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96553 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92691 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92691 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 89339 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85765 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 85765 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58812 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58812 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 61263 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58812 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 58812 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Year 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 5250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 51143 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49098 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 49098 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67396 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64700 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64700 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7264 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67480 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64781 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64781 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2426 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9046 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8684 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8684 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; Month 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 530 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1975 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1896 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1896 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **134464** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **0.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1567711** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **96** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1505003** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1505003** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-9 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.7** **Mine Infrastructure**

The Project has significant existing infrastructure and has been used for the storage of surplus materials and equipment from other similar mining projects. The existing infrastructure at the Project includes:

* 1,470 ft deep, three compartment shaft, measuring 19 ft 6 in by 8 ft 2 in

* Shaft stations at depths of 1,230 ft and 1,400 ft below surface

* Unsheeted steel headframe

* Hoistroom and 400 hp double drum hoist with 10 ft diameter drums

* Water tanks

* Fuel tanks

* 455 kVA back up power generators

* Six mile 12 kV power line to the site, 12kV/4160 V/480V transformers on site

* Evaporation pond

* Fenced yard

* Offices

* Maintenance shop

* Air compressor

**16.7.1 Mine Shaft and Hoist**

The mine shaft is a conventional three compartment shaft; the shaft bottom is at a depth of 1,470 ft. below the collar. Two compartments are for hoisting and the third is for the manway, ventilation duct, and services. A plan view of the shaft is shown in Figure 16-2.

The shaft is equipped with steel sets on 10 ft spacing with wooden guides for conveyances. The shaft collar is at an elevation of 6,506 ft. The 1-3 level is approximately 1,000 ft below the collar, the 1-4 level is approximately 1,230 ft below the collar, and the lowest station is at the 1-5 level, 1,400 ft below the collar. It is currently planned to connect the 1-4 and 1-5 stations via a spiral ramp.

The loading pocket will be installed below the 1-5 station level. A decline to the shaft bottom is planned for shaft bottom clean up.

The shaft is serviced by a Nordberg 400 hp double drum hoist with 10 ft diameter drums grooved for 1.5 in wire rope. The hoisting speed is 800 feet per minute (fpm). The skips will have a capacity of 60 ft<sup>3</sup>. The head frame is an unsheeted steel structure.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-10 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x041.jpg)

**Figure 16-2:** **Pinyon Plan Mine Shaft Plan View**

**16.7.2 Mine Ventilation**

EFR contracted a consultant to complete the prefeasibility level ventilation design on the Main Zone of the Pinyon Plain mine (Rawlins, 2022). The planned production rate (250 tpd), existing shaft and drift openings, and planned future development drifts (10 ft x 10 ft) were utilized in the design.

EFR contracted a consultant to complete the prefeasibility level ventilation design on the Main Zone of the Pinyon Plain mine (Rawlins, 2022). The existing shaft and drift openings and planned future development drifts (10 ft x 10 ft) were utilized in the design.

The ventilation design follows the production schedule and meets all industry and regulatory standards for mining uranium in the US. Capital and operating costs are based on budgetary quotes based on specifications from the ventilation design.

The calculated air quantity was based on three factors, namely:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Diesel equipment fleet requirements

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Radon exposure from exposed mineralization

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Mine environmental conditions (heat, dust, noise, etc.).

Other aspects for the mine and ventilation design evaluation included determining acceptable and practical air velocities in intake and return airways.

The ventilation circuit at Pinyon Plain is a push-pull system with fresh air downcast from the Production Shaft and returning through the Ventilation Shaft located in the center of the orebody. The Ventilation Shaft, also referred to as the Return Air Raise (RAR) will be used for secondary egress if needed.

The mine ventilation design determined that the air quantity needed will be 136,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) to allow for the following requirements:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Legal aspects such as air supply for diesel equipment.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Underground workshop air requirements.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Radon air requirements from exposed mine workings.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-11 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Air leakages.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Avoiding critical velocities in the upcast shaft.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Heat loads, including auto-compression effects.

The RAR is planned to have a diameter of eight feet. The surface shaft bend in the RAR ducting will include a hinged hatch that can open to allow an emergency man-cage to pass through the exhaust duct system to descend to the bottom of the ventilation shaft where miners can be loaded and brought to surface in an emergency.

The mine ventilation system was designed for both winter and summer conditions; during winter periods, where air temperatures fall below 32°F, a four million British Thermal Unit per Hour (BTUH) propane heater system will be needed to heat the ambient air to 38°F and force it down the five foot square manway compartment of the Production Shaft using a 250 hp fan. The single variable frequency drive (VFD) force fan will force 140, 000 CFM at 5.6 inches of water gauge (WG), using a 250 hp fan, into the manway compartment of the downcast mine access shaft. Approximately 10,000 CFM will upcast back to surface to allow the shaft collar and systems to remain above freezing during winter periods. The remainder of the fresh air will be pulled down the shaft via the exhaust fans on the RAR.

Fresh air will be distributed to the development and production sections of the mine via secondary force fans (60 hp, 25,000 CFM at 10 inches of WG) through 30-inch diameter rigid steel or rigid plastic type ducting positioned at the RAR through a vent door.

The recommended exhaust fan option includes two fans operating at the same time in both bifurcation legs. Each exhaust fan was specified as 68,000 CFM, 8.7 inches of WG, and motor size of 150 hp.

Ventilation doors will be positioned at mined out areas to minimize leakage and prevent air losses. Forced air fans in production and development areas will also utilize regulators to ensure airflow distribution is maintained and applied where needed. The ventilation design includes for additional allowances such as workshop, overall leakages, auto-compression effects, etc., to maintain both the legal and practical airflow distribution requirements, thereby establishing an effective and efficient operating system for the Main zone.

Figure 16-3 illustrates the ventilation design at Pinyon Plain.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-12 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x042.jpg)

Note: View looking southeast.

**Figure 16-3:** **Pinyon Plain Ventilation Design**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-13 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**16.7.3 Water Management**

The mine dewatering facilities consist of:

* 3 hp submersible shaft pump to move up to 50 gpm from the shaft bottom to the 1-5 station level

* 10 hp positive displacement pump (20 gpm capacity) with a four inch line from the 1-5 station level to surface

* 10 hp positive displacement pump (25 gpm capacity) with a two inch line from the1-4 station level to surface

The last pump listed handles the water from the shaft water ring. Mine inflow during care and maintenance has averaged less than 20 gpm. Mine inflow will continue to be collected in underground sumps for use in underground drills and other aspects of underground mining. Any excess water not needed for mine operations that collects in the lined sump will be pumped to the surface impoundment. Excess water from the water rings will be pumped to the surface and treated in existing facilities for beneficial use.

The Project has an existing evaporation pond and permitted rock stockpile areas on surface. It is anticipated that mineralized and non-mineralized rock will be stored in the permitted stockpile areas. No process tailings will be stored at the Project site. During mine operations, it is expected that excess water will be stored in the evaporation pond, or in some cases it may be beneficially used as per Arizona state law.

After closure, the site will be monitored for reclamation performance by state and federal agencies until reclamation is deemed complete and the bond(s) are released.

**16.7.4 Compressed Air**

Compressed air is supplied from surface from one of three units:

* 970 CFM Ingersoll Rand rotary screw compressor (SSR EP 200)

* 1,200 CFM Ingersoll Rand rotary screw compressor (SSR EP 300

* 1,500 CFM Quincy rotary screw compressor (QS1 1500)

The 970 CFM compressor is sufficient for development and the 1,500 CFM unit is a spare.

**16.8** **Mine Equipment**

Surface support equipment was purchased or rehabilitated in 2022. Equipment purchased or rehabilitated in 2022 included three Bobcat loaders for underground, a surface front end loader, vans for personnel transportation to site, air compressors, a chippy hoist, and water truck which has a blade for snow removal. Additional equipment required for underground mining is listed in Table 16-3.

**Table 16-3:** **Required Underground Mining Equipment Purchases and Rebuilds**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 0** |
| Stope Drill (Boart Stope Mate-rebuilt) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-14 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 0** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Jackleg Drills (hammers and legs) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Skid-Steer Loaders (new Bobcat model S510) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; LHD (rebuilt JCI 125, 1 ¼ yd) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; LHD (rebuilt LT 350, 2 ½ yd) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Boss Buggy (side-by-side) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |

---

**16.9** **Personnel Requirements**

Staffing of personnel began in mid-2022 as the Project came out of care and maintenance. The Project is currently in preproduction. Current mine operations personnel provided an estimate of personnel requirements for the life of mine, as summarized in Table 16-4. Production will cease in year 2, after which some of the labor listed will assist in mine reclamation.

**Table 16-4:** **Personnel Requirements**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Position** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 2** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Staff** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Staff** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Staff** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Staff** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mine Superintendent | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Assistant Mine Superintendent | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Engineer / Surveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Geologist / Ore Control | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Environmental Scientist/Technician/Safety | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4.25** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Water Truck / Compliance Technician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Master Mechanic | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Master Electrician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Lead Miner | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Miner | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hoistman | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Toplander | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Electrician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mechanic | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Skip Tender | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **24** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **29** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **14** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 16-15 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**17.0** **RECOVERY METHODS**

Mineralized material from the Pinyon Plain Mine (the Project) will be milled based on a toll milling agreement at the White Mesa Mill.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 17-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**18.0** **PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE**

Pinyon Plain is a developed site with gravel road access and facilities, including line power. Infrastructure at the Project has been designed to accommodate all mining and transportation requirements. In addition to the mine shaft, existing mine infrastructure includes offices, mine dry, warehousing, air compressor, water lines, development rock storage, standby generators, fueling station, fresh water well, monitor wells and water tanks, a containment pond, electrical power, rapid response services, explosive magazines, equipment utilities, and a workshop. Prior to mine production, EFR will construct the shaft load out, ore pad, ventilation raise, primary ventilation circuit and secondary egress apparatus. The Pinyon Plain Mine Project layout is shown in Figure 18-1.

**18.1.1 Power**

Electrical power to Pinyon Plain is available through an existing power line located along Arizona State Highway 64 from the Arizona Public Service (APS). An APS substation provides a six-mile powerline (12 KW) to the mine over a route that parallels the mine access road. Onsite, the power is stepped down to 4160, 480 and other voltages as needed through several transformers to power the hoist motor, pumps, ventilation fans, onsite buildings, and any remaining site power needs.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 18-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

A 455 KVA diesel generator provides emergency backup power to operate the mine hoist, an air compressor, and the shaft pumps if line power is interrupted.

![](exhibit99-3x043.jpg)

**Figure 18-1:** **Pinyon Plain Mine Facility Layout**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 18-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**19.0** **MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS**

**19.1** **Markets**

Uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed since buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. Monthly long-term industry average uranium prices based on the month-end prices are published by Ux Consulting, LLC and TradeTech, LLC (TradeTech). EFR primarily utilizes the pricing forecasts from TradeTech, which is considered a leading independent provider of uranium prices and nuclear fuel market information.

**19.1.1 Supply**

According to the World Nuclear Association (World Nuclear, 2022), world uranium requirements totaled more than 48,300 t U in 2021, with the global pandemic accelerating a trend of slowly-decreasing production:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 2017 - 60,514 t U

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 2018 - 54,154 t U

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 2019 - 54,742 t U

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 2020 - 47,731 t U

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• 2021 - 48,332 t U

The top five producing countries (Kazakhstan, Namibia, Australia, Canada, and Uzbekistan) accounted for over 80% of world production in 2021.

The share of uranium produced by in situ recovery (ISR) mining has steadily increased, mainly due to the addition of ISR operations in Kazakhstan, and now accounts for over 50% of production.

Over half of uranium mine production is from state-owned mining companies, some of which prioritise secure supply over market considerations.

**19.1.2 Demand**

The primary demand is as a source for nuclear power plants. The use of nuclear power generation plants has become increasingly acceptable politically. Both China and India have indicated an intention to increase the percentage of power generated by nuclear plants. The largest increase in demand will come from those two countries.

Demand for uranium fuel is more predictable than for most other mineral commodities, due to the cost structure of nuclear power generation, with high capital and low fuel costs. Once reactors are built, it is very cost-effective to keep them running at high capacity and for utilities to make any adjustments to load trends by cutting back on fossil fuel use. Demand forecasts for uranium thus depend largely on installed and operable capacity, regardless of economic fluctuations.

The World Nuclear Association website notes that mineral price fluctuations are related to demand and perceptions of scarcity. The price cannot indefinitely stay below the cost of production, nor can it remain at a very high price for longer than it takes for new producers to enter the market and for supply anxiety to subside.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 19-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**19.1.3 Price**

Figure 19-1 and Table 19-1 show TradeTech's latest (Q3 2022) uranium price forecast through 2040 (TradeTech, 2022).

**Table 19-1:** **TradeTech Uranium Market Price Forecast (Real & Nominal US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

![](exhibit99-3x044.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 19-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x045.jpg)

**Figure 19-1:** **TradeTech Uranium Market Price Forecast (Real & Nominal US$/lb U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)**

The production from the Project is planned to begin within the next five years; uranium spot prices during that time are expected to range between $61/lb and $64/lb. Based on this data, SLR used a constant uranium price of $60/lb for the cash flow analysis.

By their nature, all commodity price assumptions are forward-looking. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

**19.2** **Contracts**

EFR has signed uranium sales contracts with major nuclear utilities for a portion of the production from the Project. These contracts provide for sales prices that are expected to be consistent with the prices forecast by TradeTech (Table 19-1) through the period of planned production from the property. In that event, realized uranium prices may be $2 to $4 higher that the $60/lb that SLR has used for the cash flow analysis if the Project operates within this timeframe.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 19-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

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

**20.1** **Environmental Studies**

Environmental studies have been completed for the Pinyon Plain Mine as part of the permitting process through state and federal agencies. These studies include components such as land use, climate, geology and mineralization, seismicity, soils, vegetation, air quality, surface water, ground water, wildlife, radiological, and cultural and archaeological resources. There are no ongoing permit-related environmental studies beyond compliance-based data collection and reporting.

**20.2** **Social and Community Requirements**

While development and operation of the Mine requires limited surface disturbance (less than 20 acres) and has minimal environmental impact, the Mine has been particularly contentious among local communities due to factors such as (a) its proximity to Grand Canyon National Park (b) claims by the Havasupai Indian Tribe that the Mine site has significant religious value and (c) its location within the US Bureau of Land Management's (BLMs) 2009 mineral withdrawal of approximately one million acres of public lands around Grand Canyon National Park. A discussion of these issues is presented in more detail below as it relates to project permitting requirements. As stated in its Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability Policy, Energy Fuels is committed to the operation of its facilities in a manner that puts the safety of its workers, contractors and community, the protection of the environment, and the principles of sustainable development above all else. Accordingly, Energy Fuels considers environmental and social issues which may impact its stakeholders, including minority groups, local landholders, and the communities in which it operates.

**20.3** **Water Management**

The Mine has been designed to have no discharge of fluids, to eliminate the possibility of migration of contaminants to groundwater, and to maintain structural integrity during a 500-year, 24-hour stormwater runoff event. All stormwater runoff from surface operations will be contained within the 17-acre mine site. The entire site is surrounded by diversion structures capable of diverting runoff from areas upslope around the perimeter of the facility from a 500-year, 24-hour storm event (ELMA, 1993). All runoff from precipitation that falls within the bermed Mine site drains to the lined Impoundment, as shown in the Site Plan provided in Figure 2. Surface water drainage within the Mine site is diverted away from the Mine access shaft and will be diverted away from the future ventilation shaft.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 20-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

Groundwater encountered in the Mine workings below the Coconino Formation is collected in a lined sump at the base of the main shaft and pumped to the surface for on-site use or evaporation in the lined Impoundment and water storage tanks. Two water rings have been installed in the shaft to capture water infiltrating from the Coconino Formation and, to the extent water is available, from the Kaibab Formation. Water collected in the capture rings is pumped to aboveground storage tanks at the site for use as dust control or other beneficial use (water from the two water capture rings is currently assigned to the Impoundment). Water from the Coconino and Kaibab Formations that is not captured in the water capture rings and pumped to the Impoundment, reports to the Mine shaft sump. Water in the lined Impoundment is used for dust control on the current DRS, and will be used, as needed, for dust control on the future IOS, where drainage and runoff flows are returned to the lined Impoundment. Water in the Impoundment is circulated through a boiler/heat exchanger and APEX 2.0 Wastewater Evaporator ("APEX") units to enhance evaporation. Sump water will also be used in other mining operations when active mining commences. Water management at the site is illustrated in the Process Flow Diagram provided in Figure 20-1.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 20-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Figure 20-1:** **Process Flow Diagram for Pinyon Plain Mine**

![](exhibit99-3x046.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 20-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**20.4** **Permitting**

In October 1984, Energy Fuels Nuclear submitted a proposed Plan of Operations (PoO) to mine uranium from the Pinyon Plain claims, approximately 7 miles south of Tusayan, Arizona. The US Forest Service (USFS) completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the Plan, including significant comment and input from federally recognized tribes. The final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) were issued on September 29, 1986, approving the PoO with modifications. Mine site surface preparation activities began in late 1986. Appeals of this decision were made to the Southwestern Regional Forester, and the Chief of the Forest Service, who both affirmed the Forest Supervisor's decision. The Havasupai Tribe and others then sued over this decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The District Court ruled for the USFS on all counts, and a subsequent appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court on August 16, 1991. In 1992, due to the economic downturn in the price of uranium, the Mine was put into standby status.

On September 13, 2011, Denison Mines informed the Kaibab Forest Supervisor they intended to resume operations at Pinyon Plain Mine under the existing PoO and ROD. On June 25, 2012, the USFS completed a review of the Pinyon Plain Mine PoO and associated approval documentation in anticipation of the resumption of operations. The USFS' review concluded that (a) no modification or amendment to the existing PoO was necessary, (b) no correction, supplementation, or revision to the environmental document was required and (c) that operations at the Pinyon Plain Mine could continue as a result of no further federal authorization being required.

On May 22, 2020, after the matters were briefed, the District Court issued its final order in favor of the Defendants, which the Pinyon Plaintiffs thereafter appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In December 2020, the Pinyon Plaintiffs filed their Appellant's Opening Brief with the Ninth Circuit and, in April 2021, the Defendants filed their respective Answering Briefs. Oral arguments were held remotely on August 30, 2021. On February 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its Opinion in favor of the USFS and the Company. The Pinyon Plaintiffs did not request a hearing on this matter in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, this matter is now resolved.

In 2020, Energy Fuels submitted a clean closure plan to the USFS to provide a description of how the Company will reclaim the mine to clean closure standards after the cessation of mining operations, as contemplated in the USFS-approved PoO, ROD and modifications to the reclamation plan contained in Appendix B of the EIS. The clean closure plan included an update to the reclamation cost estimate, resulting in an increase in the reclamation bond from $461,245 to $1,407,235.

In September 2009, the groundwater General Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) was obtained for the water storage pond from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). This permit was up for renewal in 2019, and an application for renewal was timely submitted by the Company in 2019. General APPs were also obtained from ADEQ for the development rock stockpile and intermediate ore stockpile in December 2011 and renewed in 2018. At the request of the ADEQ, the three General APPs were consolidated into an Individual APP on April 28, 2022, which resulted in a supplemental reclamation bond through ADEQ in the amount of $132,581. The Individual APP was amended on October 26, 2022, to establish an alert level (AL) and aquifer quality limit (AQL) for arsenic and an AQL for uranium in a monitoring well completed in the regional Redwall-Muav aquifer. An Air Quality Permit was issued by the ADEQ in March 2011, renewed in 2016, amended in 2017, and renewed in 2021. The Company received EPA's approval under the Clean Air Act National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for the Pinyon Plain Project in September of 2015.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 20-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

Table 20-1 presents a list of active permits including the approving authority, validity period and expiry dates, status, and indicating if renewal is required or not.

**Table 20-1:** **Environmental Permits for Operation**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Authority** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Obligation/License** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Date of<br>Issue<br>MM/DD/YY** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Expiration <br>Date<br>MM/DD/YY** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Status** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ADEQ | &nbsp;&nbsp; Class II Air Quality Permit No. 88788 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/20/21 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/19/26 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ADEQ | &nbsp;&nbsp; Individual APP, Minor Amendment (No. P-100333) (Includes previously approved; Development Rock Stockpile, Intermediate Ore Stockpile and Non-Stormwater Impoundment) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/26/22 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ADEQ | &nbsp;&nbsp; AZPDES Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit - Industrial for Mining (#AZMS79829) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/01/20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/31/24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ADWR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Well Registration Number 55-515772 (Redwall-Muav Water Supply/Monitoring Well) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/07/86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; ADWR | &nbsp;&nbsp; Well Registration Numbers 55-924769 through 55-924771 (Coconino Monitoring Wells) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 08/21/20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; CCDPH | &nbsp;&nbsp; Permit to Construct No. 5918 (Septic System) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12/17/86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; USEPA | &nbsp;&nbsp; Approval to Construct an Underground Uranium Mine (NESHAPs Subpart B) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/21/15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; USFS | &nbsp;&nbsp; Record of Decision | &nbsp;&nbsp; 09/26/86 | &nbsp;&nbsp; N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; USFS | &nbsp;&nbsp; Road Use Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp; 01/20/23 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10/31/27 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Active |

---

**20.5** **Mineral Examination**

In July 2009, the BLM issued a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal (the 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, subject to valid existing rights, for a period of two years. BLM stated that the purpose of the withdrawal, if determined to be appropriate, would be to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from any adverse effect of locatable hardrock mineral exploration and mining. This timeframe was extended an additional six months in July 21, 2011 to complete the EIS studies. In January 2012, the Secretary of the Interior implemented the withdrawal proposed in the 2009 Notice, subject to valid existing rights, for a 20-year period. Whether or not a mining claim is valid must be determined by a Mineral Examination conducted by BLM or the USFS. The Mineral Examination for the Mine deposit was completed by the USFS on April 18, 2012, and determined that the Pinyon Plain Mine has valid existing rights.

**20.6** **Negotiations and Agreements with Local Groups**

Commitments to Ensure Local Procurement and Hiring

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 20-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

EFR is committed to supporting local businesses and labor markets in the region of their operations.

**20.7** **Mine Closure Remediation and Reclamation Plans**

The costs to reclaim the project to its pre-mining land use is estimated to be approximately US$1,500,000. Reclamation performance bonds are in place with the USFS in the amount of $1,407,235 and through the state of Arizona in the amount of $132,581. At the conclusion of underground operations, the shafts will be backfilled, mine openings will be plugged and sealed, and most of the buildings and infrastructure will be dismantled and removed. The evaporation pond and other infrastructure such as the office trailer, electrical substation, power line, and perimeter fencing and berms are expected to remain on site for an additional 30 years during long-term monitoring of groundwater. At the end of long-term groundwater monitoring, the remaining infrastructure will be removed, wells will be abandoned, and final reclamation and clean closure activities will be completed. The water supply/monitoring well in the Redwall-Muav aquifer is expected to remain in place as a regional water supply well for livestock grazing or other uses as appropriate.

**20.8** **Opinion of Adequacy**

EFR has all of the permits and authorizations necessary to construct, operate, and close the Project. Financial assurance is in place to guarantee reclamation and closure activities will occur. After closure, the site will be monitored for reclamation performance by state and federal agencies until reclamation is deemed complete and the bond(s) are released.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 20-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**21.0** **CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS**

EFR has experience in operating several similar underground uranium mines on the Arizona Strip, an area located in northern Arizona, north of the Colorado River to the Colorado border. These past producers include Kanab North, Arizona 1, Pinenut, and EZ1 mines.

Based on the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) International classifications, Class 3 estimates have an accuracy range between -10% to -20% (low-end) to +10% to +30% (high-end) (AACE International, 2012). The base case capital and operating cost estimates are within the Class 3 ranges and would meet the S-K 1300 standard of ± 25% accuracy and ≤15% contingency.

**21.1** **Capital Costs**

The capital costs for the Mine are estimated to be $10.4 million in current Q4 2022 dollars including $7.6 million in direct capital costs, $1.4 million in contingency, and $1.5 million for reclamation. In light of the short mine life, all sustaining costs are included in operating costs. No escalation was included in the project costs.

**21.1.1 Development Capital**

The type and size of underground and surface mining equipment was based on EFR's experience at the above mines. Capital costs for each item were sourced from Infomine's Mine Cost Handbook. No rebuild or replacement cost is included, due to the Project's short production schedule (3 years).

Table 21-1 shows the life of mine capital equipment and cost, including surface support equipment.

**Table 21-1:** **Life of Mine Capital Equipment**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cost** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mine Development | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3799 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Loading Pocket & Installation | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 129 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Underground Equipment | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 590 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ventilation Fans and heater | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1726 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ventilation Raise | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1219 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Surface Works | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 140 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal UG Capital Before Contingency**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **7603** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Contingency | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1145 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total UG Capital Costs**  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **8748** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Reclamation | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1407 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **10155** |

---

Mine development capital was based upon the mine design and a development cost of $1,200/ft. Mine development rates are based on past mining experience of similar EFR mine operations. Mine and ventilation equipment costs are based on budgetary estimates from suppliers with some allowances for additional items. The ventilation raise cost was based upon a 2016 bid for the Project which was escalated to current pricing.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 21-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**21.1.2 Contingency**

Contingency is an amount added to an estimate to allow for items, conditions, or events which are uncertain and that experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs which are expected to be expended.

A capital cost contingency estimate was generated by reviewing the development capital cost elements and assigning a percentage of the costs based upon the level of detail in the estimate preparation, the operator's experience, the state of the Project and the QP's experience. The assigned percentages ranged from:

* 10% for mine development

* 15% for equipment overhauls and purchases

* 20% for the main ventilation installation

* 25% for the ventilation raise, surface ore pad, and emergency hoist preparation

The weighted average overall contingency was estimated to be 15% and this was applied as a single value. The QP considers this to be a reasonable estimate of contingency for this development capital estimate.

**21.1.3 Sustaining Capital**

Due to the short three year mine life of the Project, no sustaining capital has been budgeted in the estimate.

**21.1.4 Working Capital**

Working capital estimates assume 30 days account receivable and account payable terms. The Project has a large supply of consumable inventory at the site as EFR has consolidated material from prior mines and projects in the warehouse. Thus, the inventory working capital adjustment is estimated to be zero over LOM. All working capital will be recaptured at the end of mine life, so the net effect of LOM is zero.

**21.1.5 Reclamation**

Reclamation costs are based on the clean closure and reclamation cost estimate and surety bond, which EFR has with the USFS as the beneficiary. Table 21-2 shows the reclamation cost at the Pinyon Plain project, which will start approximately three months before the end of mine life and take 20 months in total to complete.

**Table 21-2:** **Reclamation Cost**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cost** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Infrastructure Removal | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 428 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Future Environmental Monitoring | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Backfilling | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 411 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 21-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Cost** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Reclamation Plans & Surveys | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Direct Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **951** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Indirects<sup>1</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 314 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Before Contingency** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1265 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Contingency (15% of Directs) | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 143 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Reclamation Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; **1407** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Indirects include G&A, Engineering, and Contractor cost.

**21.2** **Operating Costs**

Operating costs are based on EFR's operating experience. Table 21-3 shows the operating costs used in the economic evaluation of the Project.

**Table 21-3:** **Operating Costs Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp; $101.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Haulage | &nbsp;&nbsp; $72.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Processing | &nbsp;&nbsp; $192.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/ore ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **TOTAL OPEX** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$372.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$/ore ton mined** |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Mining costs include labour, supplies, equipment operation, and sundries as well as an allowance for ongoing mine development over the life of the project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Ore haulage covers the cost of trucking ore from the mine to White Mesa mill for toll processing. The contract haulage cost is based on a $0.225/ton mile unit rate and assumes a 5% moisture content of the ore.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Processing cost estimate is based on a toll milling arrangement between the Project and the White Mesa Mill.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.)General and Administrative (G&A) costs are based on the assumption that the Project will be supported by existing staff based in EFR's Lakewood, Colorado, office headquarters, with regular site visits as needed during the year. G&A costs, totaling $7.00/ton ore, are estimated as 2.5% of direct operating costs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. No contingency applied.

**21.2.1 Personnel**

Annual headcounts for the three year mine operations are detailed in Table 21-7.

**Table 21-4:** **Processing Operating Costs**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 2** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Salaried** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Salaried** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Salaried** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Salaried** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mine Superintendent | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 21-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 0** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Year 2** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Assistant Mine Superintendent | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Engineer/Surveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Geologist/Ore Control | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Environmental Scientist/Technician/Safety | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Salaried** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4.25** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **5** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **4** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Hourly** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Water Truck/Compliance tech | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Master Mechanic | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Master Electrician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Lead Miner | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Miner | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Hoistman | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Toplander | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Electrician | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mechanic | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Skip Tender | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Subtotal Hourly** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **24** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **29** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **14** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Headcount** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **28.25** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **34** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **18** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 21-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**22.0** **ECONOMIC ANALYSIS**

An after-tax Cash Flow Projection has been generated from the Life of Mine production schedule and capital and operating cost estimates, as summarized in Table 22-1. A summary of the key criteria is provided below.

**22.1** **Economic Criteria**

**22.1.1 Revenue** 

* Total mill feed processed: 134 thousand tons

* Average processing rate: 216 stpd (steady state)

* U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> head grade: 0.58%

* Average mill recovery: 96%

* Recovered U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>: 1.51 Mlb

* Metal price: $60/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

* Yellowcake product trucking cost from the toll mill to customer: $0.175/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

**22.1.2 Capital and Operating Costs**

* Pre-production period: Four months<br>

* Mine life: 24 months<br>

* LOM capital costs, excluding reclamation, of $8.7 million on Q4 2022 US dollar basis<br>

* LOM operating cost (excluding royalties but including severance taxes) of $50.5 million or $372/ton milled on Q4 2022 US dollar basis

**22.1.3 Royalties and Severance Taxes**

A 3.5% private royalty is payable for the Project based on sliding scale of the value of production expressed in lb/t along with allowances for mining and ore hauling. The royalty payments over the mine life are approximately $1.88/t ore.

Arizona has a severance tax that is 2.5% of the net severance base, which is 50% of the difference between the gross value of production (revenue) and the production costs. Thus, a rate of 1.25% is used to reflect this 50% base reduction. The Arizona severance tax payable to the Project is estimated at $3.70/t ore during LOM.

**22.1.4 Income Taxes**

EFR states it is not liable for corporate income tax (CIT) expenditures as a corporation, including the period that the Project is expected to operate. In addition, the short mine life of 24 months makes an estimate of income tax payable using a standard tax methodology difficult. Therefore, a proforma CIT estimate was added with the assumption that the Project was a stand-alone entity for tax purposes and does not reflect the company's actual filing position with following assumptions:

* A Federal income tax rate of 10.5% is used in this analysis. This rate takes into account the percentage depletion deduction which allows profitable mining companies to reduce their taxable income by 50% and then the remaining amount is taxed at the current Federal tax rate of 21% so that the net rate is 10.5%.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

* The Arizona state income tax rate is 4.9% so the combined Federal and state rate is 15.4%%

* The tax amounts may be negative some months as the pre-tax cash flow dips below zero. However, as taxable income is computed on an annual basis and as the annual amounts for the first 24 months are all positive, the sum of the monthly tax amounts will be positive. In the remaining 24 months after the mine ceases operation, there are negative cash flows which can be carried back to profitable years to receive a tax refund. Thus, the project total income tax is the pre-tax cash flow x 15.4%.

* CIT payable for LOM totals $6.0 million.

**22.2** **Cash Flow Analysis**

The Project production schedule is presented in Figure 22-1 and the resulting after-tax free cash flow profile is shown in Figure 22-2.

![](exhibit99-3x028.jpg)

**Figure 22-1:** **Annual Mine Production**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x029.jpg)

**Figure 22-2:** **After-Tax Metrics Summary**

Table 22-1 presents a summary of the Project economics at an average U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price of $60.00/lb. The full annual cash flow model is presented in Appendix 1.

On a pre-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $29.1 million over the mine life. The pre-tax Net Present Value (NPV) at a 5% discount rate is $26.7 million and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is 14%.

On an after-tax basis, the undiscounted cash flow totals $23.0 million over the mine life. The after-tax NPV at 5% discount rate is $21.1 million and the IRR is 12%.

LOM Project cost metrics are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Cash Operating Costs: $33.91/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• All-in Sustaining Costs: $34.84/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• All-in Costs: $40.66/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 22-1:** **After-Tax Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Price | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb | &nbsp;&nbsp; $60.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> Sales | &nbsp;&nbsp; klb | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1505 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Gross Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **90300** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Product Transport to Market | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (263) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Royalties | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (253) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Net Revenue** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **89783** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (13581) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Ore Trucking Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (9681) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Process Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (25817) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; G & A Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (941) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Severance Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (497) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(50518)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Margin** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **39266**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Corporate Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (6046) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Working Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Cash Flow** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **33220**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Development Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (8748) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Closure/Reclamation Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; (1407) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **(10155)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 29110 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **26682** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax NPV @ 8% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25318 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-tax NPV @ 12% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23602 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pre-tax IRR** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **14%** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax Free Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 23064 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax NPV @ 5%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **US$000** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **21072**  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax NPV @ 8% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 19954 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; After-tax NPV @ 12% | &nbsp;&nbsp; US$000 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 18545 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **After-tax IRR** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **%** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **12%** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Cash Operating Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 33.91 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; All-in Sustaining Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 34.84 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; All-in Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp; $/lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp; 40.66 |

---

**22.3** **Sensitivity Analysis**

Project risks can be identified in both economic and non-economic terms. Key economic risks were examined by running cash flow sensitivities calculated over a range of variations based on realistic fluctuations within the listed factors:

* U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> price: 10% increments between $51/lb and $76/lb

* Head grade: -/+ 20%

* Recovery: -20%/+4% (96% is base case already)

* Operating cost per ton milled: -10% to 25% (AACE Class 3 range)

* Capital cost: -10% to 25% (AACE Class 3 range)

The after-tax cash flow sensitivities for the base case are shown in Table 22-2, Figure 22-3, and Figure 22-4. The Project is most sensitive to head grade, uranium price, and recovery, and only slightly less sensitive to operating cost and capital cost at a Class 3 accuracy level. The sensitivities to metallurgical recovery, head grade, and metal price are nearly identical.

**Table 22-2:** **After-tax Sensitivity Analysis**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>** **Price**<br>**(US$/lb)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $48 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $6996 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $54 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $14034 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $60 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $66 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $28111 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $72 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $35149 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Head Grade**<br>**(% U<sub>3</sub>** **O<sub>8</sub>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.47% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7066 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.52% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $14072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.58% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.64% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $28074 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.70% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $35073 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 17% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Metallurgical Recovery**<br>**(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 77% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $7037 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 86% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $14055 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; 96% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 98% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $22827 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100% | &nbsp;&nbsp; $23879 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Operating Costs**<br>**(US$/ton milled)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $45019 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $24988 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 14% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $47520 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $23030 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $50021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $56273 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $16178 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $62526 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $11284 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Factor Change** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Capital Costs**<br>**(US$ M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **NPV at 5%**<br>**(US$000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **IRR**<br>**(%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $9481 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21928 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $9930 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 13% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **1.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10378 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $21072 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 12% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $11500 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $20002 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; 1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $12621 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $18932 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x047.jpg)

**Figure 22-3:** **After-tax NPV 5% Cash flow Sensitivity**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

![](exhibit99-3x048.jpg)

**Figure 22-4:** **After-tax IRR Cash flow Sensitivity**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 22-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**23.0** **ADJACENT PROPERTIES**

**23.1** **Other Breccia Pipes**

There are two mineralized breccia pipes near the Pinyon Plain Mine. The Black Box and the New Years pipes are exploration properties located within two miles of Pinyon Plain. Drilling on both these pipes in the 1980s indicate the presence of uranium and some copper mineralization, but it was determined that neither had economic quantities of either mineral. The Orphan Mine, located approximately 13 miles north-northwest of Pinyon Plain produced both copper and uranium during its production run between 1956 and 1969. EFR has successfully mined and reclaimed the Pinenut and Arizona 1 breccia pipes, both of which are located on the north rim of the Grand Canyon.

The QP has not independently verified this information and this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization at the Pinyon Plain Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 23-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**24.0** **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION**

EFR knows of no other relevant data related to the Pinyon Plain Project.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 24-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**25.0** **INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS**

SLR offers the following interpretations and conclusions on the Project:

**25.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300, which are consistent with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves dated May 10, 2014 (CIM, 2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• In the SLR QP's opinion, the assumptions, parameters, and methodology used for the Pinyon Plain Mineral Resource estimate is appropriate for the style of mineralization and mining methods.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The SLR QP is of the opinion the block models are adequate for public disclosure and to support mining activities. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2022.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Resource estimates exclude previously reported uranium mineralization from the Cap and Upper zones as a condition of current Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Aquifer Protection Permit which limits mining between the elevations of 5,340 ft and 4,508 ft.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Indicated uranium Mineral Resources total 37,000 tons at an average grade of 0.95% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for a total of 703,000 lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>. Inferred Mineral Resources total 5,000 tons at an average grade of 0.50% eU<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> for a total of 48,000 lb U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Sampling and assaying procedures have been adequately completed and carried out using industry standard quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) practices. These practices include, but are not limited to, sampling, assaying, chain of custody of the samples, sample storage, use of third-party laboratories, standards, blanks, and duplicates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The SLR QP considers the estimation procedures employed at Pinyon Plain, including compositing, top-cutting, variography, block model construction, and interpolation to be reasonable and in line with industry standard practice.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The SLR QP finds the classification criteria to be reasonable.

**25.2** **Mining and Mineral Reserves**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Reserve estimates, as prepared by EFR and reviewed and accepted by SLR, have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Reserves in S-K 1300 which are consistent with CIM (2014) definitions which are incorporated by reference in NI 43-101.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve estimate is 134,500 tons grading 0.58% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> containing 1.57 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> and is comprised of 7,800 tons grading 0.33% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> of Proven Mineral Reserves containing 0.05 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> plus 136,700 tons grading 0.60% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> of Probable Mineral Reserves containing 1.52 Mlb of U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 25-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The Mineral Reserves are based upon a cut-off grade of 0.32% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Reserves were estimated based on stope designs utilizing a mine planning software within a 0.15% U<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> wireframe.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The Mineral Reserves include 35% dilution at zero grade.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Measured Mineral Resources were converted to Proven Mineral Reserves and Probable Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• No Inferred Mineral Resources were converted into Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The existing shaft will be used for the mine access and rock hoisting.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• The ore will be mined using longhole stoping for the majority of the ore and breasting of roofs and/or ribs for narrow mineralized zones.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Ore will be mucked and hauled by load-haul-dump (LHD) loaders to a grizzly over the loading pocket feed.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• A ventilation raise will be bored in the centre of the orebody to provide an exhaust airway and emergency egress.

The SLR QP is not aware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, permitting, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate.

**25.3** **Mineral Processing**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• There is sufficient metallurgical testing to support a uranium process recovery of 96% at the White Mesa Mill.

**25.4** **Infrastructure**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• There is suitable existing or planned infrastructure to support the planned operations.

**25.5** **Environment**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• EFR has secured all of the permits required to construct, operate, and close the Pinyon Plain Project.

o Some permits require regular update/renewal.

o These permits involved significant public participation opportunity.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Financial assurance is in place to guarantee all reclamation will occur. This amount will be reviewed on a regular basis (at least every five years) to cover any changes at site and/or for any inflationary issue(s).

In SLR's opinion, there are not any significant risks and uncertainties that could reasonably be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the exploration information, mineral resource, or mineral reserve estimates, or projected economic outcomes.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 25-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**26.0** **RECOMMENDATIONS**

SLR offers the following recommendations regarding the advancement of the Project.

**26.1** **Geology and Mineral Resources**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Convert Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources within the Main-Lower and Juniper zones by completing underground delineation drilling program per the estimated budget shown in Table 26-1.

**Table 26-1:** **2023 Proposed Underground Drilling Budget for Main-Lower and Juniper Zones**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Number of Drill <br>Holes/Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Feet <br>Drilled** | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Number of Drill <br>Holes/Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Total Feet <br>Drilled** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Unit Cost**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(US$/ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Budget**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; **(US$)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; Underground Delineation Drilling | &nbsp;&nbsp; 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11250 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 31.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 349000 |

---

**26.2** **Mining and Mineral Reserves**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Continue preproduction development and preparations for production.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Develop grade control and production reconciliation procedures.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Develop a program of monitoring the geotechnical conditions in the stopes and development headings.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Monitor the water inflow rate of the ventilation raise pilot hole.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Prepare contingency plans for mine dewatering in the event that the ventilation raise encounters a water bearing strata.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Prepare contingency plans for additional dewatering due to water inflow to the ventilation raise.

Select the ventilation raise contractor and confirm the schedule for the work.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Secure contractor proposals for the ventilation raise development and prepare for development.

**26.3** **Mineral Processing**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Investigate processing the copper.

**26.4** **Infrastructure**

None

**26.5** **Environment**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Consider development of an environmental management system that lists environmental roles and responsibilities of site personnel, permit conditions, and monitoring requirements for use should someone else unfamiliar with environmental matters have to perform them.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Establish a reclamation revegetation test plot program to ensure species selected will work at the site.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 26-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**27.0** **REFERENCES**

AACE International, 2012. Cost Estimate Classification System - As Applied in the Mining and Mineral Processing Industries, AACE International Recommended Practice No. 47R-11, 17 p.

ANSTO Minerals, 2017 Progress Note 1, Processing of Pinyon Plain Mine Ore, Dated May 16, 2017, ANSTO Minerals, 2017 Progress Note 2-Update on Batch Tests; Processing of Pinyon Plain Mine Ore, Dated June 14, 2017

Bennett, D. (n.d.). Orphan Mine. Retrieved November 2021, from Nature, Culture and History at the Grand Canyon: https://grcahistory.org/history/logging-mining-and-ranching/mining/orphan-mine/

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), 2014: CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by CIM Council on May 10, 2014.

Cottrell, J.T., 1994, Internal Memorandum to I.W. Mathisen on Canyon Resource - 1994 Changes; written for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., unpublished, June 27, 1994.

Dames and Moore, 1987: Evaluation of Underground Mine Stability and Subsidence Potential, Proposed Pinyon Plain Mine, Arizona.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 17: Commodity and Securities Exchanges, Chapter II, Part 229 Standard Instructions for Filing Forms Under Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975- Regulation S-K. (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?amp;node=17:3.0.1.1.11&rgn=div5#se17.3.229_11303)

Energy Fuels, 2016, Standard Operating Procedure: Core Handling, Sampling and QA/QC Protocols for Core Drilling at the Pinyon Plain Mine, internal report.

Energy Fuels, 2020, Application to Consolidate Existing Environmental Protections in an Individual Aquifer Protection Permit for the Pinyon Plain Mine, submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, November 11, 2020, Section 1.4.7, page 23.

Finch, W.I., 1992, Descriptive Model of Solution-Collapse Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits, in, Bliss, J.D., ed., Developments in Mineral Deposit Modeling, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2004, p. 33-35.

RME Consulting, 2022: Pinyon Plain & Juniper Underground Mine Ventilation Design, (August, 2022).

RPA, 2017: Technical Report on the Canyon Mine, Coconino County, Arizona, USA, RPA NI 43-101 report prepared for Energy Fuels Inc. Available at <u>www.sedar.com</u>

Mathisen, I.W., Jr., 1985, Internal Memorandum, written for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., unpublished, January 15, 1985.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 27-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

Mining Cost Service, 2021, Transportation, InfoMine USA, Inc. Section TR, Appendix A, p. TR A5.

Montgomery, E.L., et al., 1985, Appendix F -Groundwater Conditions Canyon Mine Region, Coconino County, Arizona, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Canyon Uranium Mine, p. 206

Parsons Behle & Latimer, 2022, Mining Claim Status Report - Pinyon Plain Mine, Coconino County, Arizona, letter report to Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., January 19, 2022, 8 pp.

Pool, T.C., and Ross, D.A., 2012: Technical Report on the Arizona Strip Uranium Projects, Arizona, USA, RPA NI 43-101 Report prepared for Energy Fuels Inc. (June 27, 2012), Available at www.sedar.com

Price, J.W. and Schwartz, R.L., 2018, Hazen Research Project 12493 Demonstration of Copper Extraction from Canyon Mine Uranium-Copper Ore, Revison1, prepared for Energy Fuels Resources, Inc, December 11, 2018, p. 313.

Scott, J.H., 1962: GAMLOG A Computer Program for Interpreting Gamma-Ray Logs; United States Atomic Energy Commission, Grand Junction Office, Production Evaluation Division, Ore Reserves Branch, TM-179, September 1962.

Shumway, L., 2017: Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Internal Memorandum dated June 9, 2017

SLR, 2022, Technical Report on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA, SLR NI 43-101 / S-K 1300 report prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., p. 119, Available at <u>www.sedar.com</u>

TradeTech, LLC, 2022: Uranium Market Study, 2022: Issue 4.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Kaibab National Forest, 1985: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Pinyon Plain Uranium Mine, Appendix F Groundwater Conditions.

US Securities and Exchange Commission, 2018: Regulation S-K, Subpart 229.1300, Item 1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations and Item 601 (b)(96) of Regulation S-K, Technical Report Summary.

Wenrich, K.J., and Sutphin, H.B., 1989, Lithotectonic setting necessary for formation of a uranium rich, solution collapse breccia pipe province, Grand Canyon Region, Arizona, in Metallogenesis of uranium deposits; Technical committee meeting on metallogenesis of uranium deposits, organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 9-12 March 1987, p. 307-344

Wenrich, K.J., 1992, Breccia Pipes in the Red Butte Area of the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 92-219, p. 14

World Nuclear, 2021. Uranium Production Figures, 2011-2020. Updated September 2021. Retrieved December 2021 from World Nuclear Association: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/uranium-production-figures.aspx

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 27-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**28.0** **DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE**

This report titled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2022, was prepared and signed by the following authors:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Mark B. Mathisen*** |
| Dated at Lakewood, CO | Mark B. Mathisen, CPG |
| February 23, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***R. Dennis Bergen*** |
| Dated at Toronto, ON | R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng. |
| February 23, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Jeffrey Woods*** |
| Dated at Sparks, NV | Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP |
| February 23, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)** ***Lee (Pat) Gochnour*** |
| Dated at Aberdeen, WA | Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA QP |
| February 23, 2023 |  |
|  | **(Signed & Sealed)*****Grant A. Malensek*** |
| Dated at Lakewood, CO | Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng. |
| February 23, 2023 |  |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 28-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**29.0** **CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**29.1** **Grant A. Malensek**

I, Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled"Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2022, prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Senior Principal Mining Engineer with SLR International Corporation, of Suite 100, 1658 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, USA 80401.

2. I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, Canada, in 1987 with a B.Sc. degree in Geological Sciences and Colorado School of Mines, USA in 1997 with a M.Eng. degree in Geological Engineering.

3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer/Geoscientist in the Province of British Columbia (Reg.# 23905). I have worked as a mining engineer for a total of 25 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Feasibility, Prefeasibility, and scoping studies

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Fatal flaw, due diligence, and Independent Engineer reviews for equity and project financings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Financial and technical-economic modelling, analysis, budgeting, and forecasting

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Property and project valuations

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Capital cost estimates and reviews

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mine strategy reviews

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Options analysis and project evaluations in connection with mergers and acquisitions

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Pinyon Plain Project on October 27, 2022.

6. I am responsible for Sections 1.2, 1.3.12, 1.3.14, 19, 21, 22, and 30, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I was the Project Manager for the report entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections 1.2, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 19, 21, 22, and 30 of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

Dated this 23<sup>rd</sup> day of February, 2023

**(Signed & Sealed)*****Grant A. Malensek***

<br>Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P.Eng.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**29.2** **Mark B. Mathisen**

I, Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2022, prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am Principal Geologist with SLR International Corporation, of Suite 100, 1658 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, USA 80401.

2. I am a graduate of Colorado School of Mines in 1984 with a B.Sc. degree in Geophysical Engineering.

3. I am a Registered Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming (No. PG-2821), a Certified Professional Geologist with the American Institute of Professional Geologists (No. CPG-11648), and a Registered Member of SME (RM #04156896). I have worked as a geologist for a total of 23 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mineral Resource estimation and preparation of NI 43-101 Technical Reports.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Director, Project Resources, with Denison Mines Corp., responsible for resource evaluation and reporting for uranium projects in the USA, Canada, Africa, and Mongolia.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Project Geologist with Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., responsible for planning and direction of field activities and project development for an in situ leach uranium project in the USA. Cost analysis software development.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Design and direction of geophysical programs for US and international base metal and gold exploration joint venture programs.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Pinyon Plain Project on November 16, 2021.

6. I am responsible for Sections 1.1.1.1, 1.1.2.1, 1.3.1- 1.3.7, 2-12, 14, 23, 24, 25.1, and 26.1, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I was involved previously with the Project from 2006 to 2012 when serving as Director of Project Resources with Denison Mines. Since the Project was acquired by Energy Fuels Resources (USA) in 2012, I authored the report entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2021.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections 1.1.1.1, 1.1.2.1, 1.3.1- 1.3.7, 2-12, 14, 23, 24, 25.1, and 26.1, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

Dated this 23<sup>rd</sup> day of February, 2023

**(Signed & Sealed)** ***Mark B. Mathisen***

<br>Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-4 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**29.3** **R. Dennis Bergen**

I, R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2022, prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am Associate Principal Mining Engineer with SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd, of Suite 501, 55 University Ave., Toronto, ON M5J 2H7.

2. I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, in 1979 with a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Mineral Engineering. I am a graduate of the British Columbia Institute of Technology in Burnaby, B.C., Canada, in 1972 with a Diploma in Mining Technology.

3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (Reg. #16064). I have worked as an engineer for a over 40 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Practice as a mining engineer, production superintendent, mine manager, Vice President Operations and a consultant in the design, operation, and review of mining operations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Review and report, as an employee and as a consultant, on numerous mining operations and projects around the world for due diligence and operational review related to project acquisition and Technical Report preparation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Engineering and operating superintendent at the Con gold mine, a deep underground gold mine, Yellowknife, NWT, Canada

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• General Manager of the Ketza River Mine, Yukon, Canada

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Vice President Operations in charge of the restart of the Golden Bear Mine, BC, Canada

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• General Manager in Charge of the Reopening of the Cantung Mine, NWT, Canada

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Mine Manager at three different mines with open pit and underground operations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Consulting engineer (Associate Principal Mining Engineer with RPA, now part of SLR) for over ten years working on project reviews, engineering studies, Mineral Reserve audits, Technical Report preparation, and other studies for a wide range of worldwide projects.

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I have not visited the Pinyon Plain Project.

6. I am responsible for 1.1.1.2, 1.1.2.2, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 15, 16, 25.2, 26.2 and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-5 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections in the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 23<sup>rd</sup> day of February, 2023

**(Signed & Sealed)*****R. Dennis Bergen***

<br>R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-6 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**29.4** **Jeffery L. Woods**

I, Jeffery L. Woods, MMSA QP, as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2022, prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am Principal Consulting Metallurgist with Woods Process Services, of 1112 Fuggles Drive, Sparks, Nevada 89441.

2. I am a graduate of Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A., in 1988 with a B.S. degree in Metallurgical Engineering.

3. I am a member in good standing of Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, membership #4018591.I have practiced my profession continuously for 34 years since graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Review and report as a consultant on numerous exploration, development, and production mining projects around the world for due diligence and regulatory requirements

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Metallurgical engineering, test work review and development, process operations and metallurgical process analyses, involving copper, gold, silver, nickel, cobalt, uranium, and base metals located in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, Turkey, Cameroon, Peru, Argentina, and Colombia

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Senior Process Engineer for a number of mining-related companies

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Manager and Business Development for a small, privately owned metallurgical testing laboratory in Plano, Texas, USA

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Vice President Process Engineering for at a large copper mining company in Sonora, Mexico

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Global Director Metallurgy and Processing Engineering for a mid-tier international mining company

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I have not visited the Pinyon Plain Project.

6. I am responsible for Section 1.1.1.4, 1.1.1.5, 1.1.2.4, 1.3.3, 1.3.10, 1.3.11, 5.5, 13, 17, 18, 25.3, 25.4, 26.3, and 26.4, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections in the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 23<sup>rd</sup> day of February, 2023<br>**(Signed & Sealed)*****Jeffrey L. Woods***<br> Jeffery L. Woods, MMSA QP***<br>***

<br> ---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-7 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**29.5** **Lee (Pat) Gochnour**

I, Lee (Pat) Gochour, MMSA QP (#01160), as an author of this report entitled "Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA" with an effective date of December 31, 2022, prepared for Energy Fuels Inc., do hereby certify that:

1. I am Associate Principal Environmental Specialist, and Principal of Gochnour & Associates, Inc. of 915 Fairway Lane, Aberdeen, Washington, 98520.

2. I am a graduate of Eastern Washington University in 1981 with a B.A. in Park Administration and Land Use Planning.

3. I am a member in good standing of Mining and Metallurgical Society of America. I have practiced my profession continuously for 42 years since graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Vice President of Environmental Services for Pincock, Allen & Holt

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Corporate Environmental Manager for St. Joe Minerals, Bond International Gold, LAC Minerals and MinVen Gold Corporation

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Environmental audits, permitting programs, developing Plan of Operations and EA/EIS, alternative siting studies, reclamation planning, environmental contingency planning, remediation and environmental litigation support

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Environmental and permitting feasibility support for project financing for domestic and international projects and clients

4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.

5. I visited the Pinyon Plain Project on October 27, 2022.

6. I am responsible for Section 1.1.1.5, 1.1.2.5, 1.3.13, 4.3, 20, 25.5, and 26.5, and contributions to Section 27 of the Technical Report.

7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Sections in the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 23<sup>rd</sup> day of February, 2023

**(Signed & Sealed)*****Lee (Pat) Gochnour***

<br>Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA QP

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 29-8 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**30.0** **APPENDIX 1**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 30-1 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 30-1:** **SLR Base Case Cash Flow Summary**

**Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Months** | **INPUTS** | **USD and US Units<br>UNITS** | **TOTAL** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **4** | **5** | **6** | **7** | **8** | **9** | **10** | **11** | **12** | **13** | **14** | **15** | **16** | **17** | **18** |
| **MINING** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Underground** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Operating Days |  | days | 750 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tons milled per day (Steady State) |  | tons / day | 219 |  |  |  |  | 67 | 117 | 35 | 71 | 146 | 292 | 175 | 175 | 175 | 233 | 292 | 233 | 205 | 292 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tons moved per day (Steady State) |  | tons / day | 227 | 116 | 14 | 92 | 214 | 242 | 279 | 221 | 200 | 190 | 292 | 190 | 221 | 186 | 236 | 355 | 233 | 205 | 301 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Production |  | dry tons | 134464 |  |  |  |  | 2013 | 3501 | 1052 | 2138 | 4376 | 8750 | 5250 | 5250 | 5250 | 7000 | 8750 | 7000 | 6164 | 8750 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Grade |  | % U3O8 | 0.58% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.37% | 0.37% | 0.58% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.70% | 0.69% | 0.68% | 0.55% | 0.58% | 0.57% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained U3O8 |  | tons | 784 |  |  |  |  | 8 | 13 | 6 | 13 | 27 | 53 | 32 | 32 | 37 | 48 | 59 | 38 | 36 | 50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste |  | tons | 38978 | 3475 | 414 | 2754 | 6426 | 5246 | 4877 | 5582 | 3852 | 1335 |  | 459 | 1377 | 344 | 66 | 1887 |  |  | 267 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Moved |  | tons | 173442 | 3475 | 414 | 2754 | 6426 | 7259 | 8378 | 6634 | 5991 | 5711 | 8750 | 5709 | 6627 | 5594 | 7066 | 10637 | 7000 | 6164 | 9017 |
| **PROCESSING** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore to Milling and Flotation |  | dry tons | 134464 |  |  |  |  | 2013 | 3501 | 1052 | 2138 | 4376 | 8750 | 5250 | 5250 | 5250 | 7000 | 8750 | 7000 | 6164 | 8750 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Head Grade U3O8 |  | % U3O8 | 0.58% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.37% | 0.37% | 0.58% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.61% | 0.70% | 0.69% | 0.68% | 0.55% | 0.58% | 0.57% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained U3O8 |  | lbs U3O8 | 1567712 |  |  |  |  | 15051 | 26178 | 12155 | 25972 | 53203 | 106523 | 63914 | 64137 | 73027 | 96548 | 118192 | 76646 | 71868 | 100271 |
| **U3O8 Recovery** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery | 96% | % | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payable U3O8 |  | lbs U3O8 | 1505003 |  |  |  |  | 14449 | 25131 | 11669 | 24933 | 51074 | 102262 | 61357 | 61571 | 70105 | 92686 | 113465 | 73581 | 68993 | 96260 |
| **REVENUE** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Market Price** |  | Input Units |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Current Market Price | SLR | US$/lb U3O8 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;% Sold At Market Price | 100% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Long-term Contract Price | $0.00 | US$/lb U3O8 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;% Sold At Contract Price | 0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Gross Revenue** |  | US$ '000 | $**90300** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**867** | $**1508** | $**700** | $**1496** | $**3064** | $**6136** | $**3681** | $**3694** | $**4206** | $**5561** | $**6808** | $**4415** | $**4140** | $**5776** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Concentrate Freight | $0.18/lb U3O8 | US$ '000 | $263 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $3 | $4 | $2 | $4 | $9 | $18 | $11 | $11 | $12 | $16 | $20 | $13 | $12 | $17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Charges** |  | **US$ '000** | $**263** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**3** | $**4** | $**2** | $**4** | $**9** | $**18** | $**11** | $**11** | $**12** | $**16** | $**20** | $**13** | $**12** | $**17** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gross Less Charges |  | US$ '000 | $90037 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $864 | $1503 | $698 | $1492 | $3056 | $6118 | $3671 | $3683 | $4194 | $5545 | $6788 | $4402 | $4128 | $5759 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | $1.88/t milled | US$ '000 | $253 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $3 | $5 | $2 | $4 | $8 | $17 | $10 | $10 | $12 | $15 | $19 | $12 | $11 | $16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Net Smelter Return** |  | **US$ '000** | $**89783** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**862** | $**1499** | $**696** | $**1487** | $**3047** | $**6101** | $**3661** | $**3673** | $**4183** | $**5530** | $**6769** | $**4390** | $**4116** | $**5743** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit NSR** |  | **US$ / t milled** | $**0.67** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**0.43** | $**0.43** | $**0.66** | $**0.70** | $**0.70** | $**0.70** | $**0.70** | $**0.70** | $**0.80** | $**0.79** | $**0.77** | $**0.63** | $**0.67** | $**0.66** |
| **OPERATING COST** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Underground Mining Cost | $101.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Trucking Cost | $72.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;WMM Milling & Processing | $192.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | $7.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Unit Operating Cost** |  | **US$/t milled** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Underground Mining Cost |  | US$ '000 | $13581 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $203 | $354 | $106 | $216 | $442 | $884 | $530 | $530 | $530 | $707 | $884 | $707 | $623 | $884 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Trucking Cost |  | US$ '000 | $9681 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $145 | $252 | $76 | $154 | $315 | $630 | $378 | $378 | $378 | $504 | $630 | $504 | $444 | $630 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Milling & Processing |  | US$ '000 | $25817 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $387 | $672 | $202 | $411 | $840 | $1680 | $1008 | $1008 | $1008 | $1344 | $1680 | $1344 | $1183 | $1680 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A |  | US$ '000 | $941 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $14 | $25 | $7 | $15 | $31 | $61 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $49 | $61 | $49 | $43 | $61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal Operating Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**50021** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**749** | $**1303** | $**391** | $**795** | $**1628** | $**3255** | $**1953** | $**1953** | $**1953** | $**2604** | $**3255** | $**2604** | $**2293** | $**3255** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AZ Severance Tax | 1.25% | **US$ '000** | $497 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $1 | $2 | $4 | $9 | $18 | $36 | $21 | $22 | $28 | $37 | $44 | $22 | $23 | $31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Operating Cost with Severance Tax** |  | **US$ '000** | $**50518** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**750** | $**1305** | $**395** | $**804** | $**1646** | $**3291** | $**1974** | $**1975** | $**1981** | $**2641** | $**3299** | $**2626** | $**2316** | $**3286** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unit Operating Cost |  | US$/t milled | $372 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $373 | $373 | $376 | $376 | $376 | $376 | $376 | $376 | $377 | $377 | $377 | $375 | $376 | $376 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Margin |  | US$ '000 | $39266 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $111 | $194 | $301 | $683 | $1401 | $2810 | $1686 | $1699 | $2202 | $2889 | $3470 | $1763 | $1800 | $2457 |
| **CAPITAL COST** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Direct Cost** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Development | $1200/ft | US$ '000 | $3799 | $509 | $61 | $403 | $941 | $970 | $916 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Loadout Installation |  | US$ '000 | $129 |  | $129 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;UG Mine Equip. |  | US$ '000 | $590 | $- | $166 | $90 | $240 | $- | $74 | $- | $- | $10 | $- | $- | $10 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ventilation Fans |  | US$ '000 | $1726 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $1726 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ventilation Raise |  | US$ '000 | $1219 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $432 | $787 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Infrastructure |  | US$ '000 | $140 | $- | $- | $140 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Direct Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**7603** | $**509** | $**355** | $**633** | $**1181** | $**970** | $**1422** | $**2513** | $**-** | $**10** | $**-** | $**-** | $**10** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Other Costs** | Incl. Above |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM / Owners / Indirect Cost |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal Costs** |  | **US$ '000** | $**7603** | $**509** | $**355** | $**633** | $**1181** | $**970** | $**1422** | $**2513** | $**-** | $**10** | $**-** | $**-** | $**10** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | 15% | US$ '000 | $**1145** | $77 | $54 | $95 | $178 | $146 | $214 | $379 | $- | $2 | $- | $- | $2 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**8748** | $**585** | $**409** | $**729** | $**1359** | $**1116** | $**1636** | $**2892** | $**-** | $**12** | $**-** | $**-** | $**12** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Working Capital |  | US$ '000 | $(0) | $- | $- | $- | $- | $118 | $87 | $103 | $392 | $736 | $1444 | $(1152) | $13 | $512 | $704 | $596 | $(1742) | $36 | $674 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation |  | US$ '000 | $1407 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Capital Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**10155** | $**585** | $**409** | $**729** | $**1359** | $**1234** | $**1723** | $**2995** | $**392** | $**748** | $**1444** | $**(1152)** | $**24** | $**512** | $**704** | $**596** | $**(1742)** | $**36** | $**674** |
| **PRE-TAX CASH FLOW** |  |  |  | (600) | (419) | (747) | (1393) | (1151) | (1571) | (2768) | 292 | 654 | 1366 | 2839 | 1674 | 1690 | 2185 | 2875 | 3505 | 1765 | 1783 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Pre-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 | $29110 | $(585) | $(409) | $(729) | $(1359) | $(1122) | $(1529) | $(2694) | $292 | $654 | $1366 | $2839 | $1674 | $1690 | $2185 | $2875 | $3505 | $1765 | $1783 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cumulative Pre-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 |  | $(585) | $(994) | $(1723) | $(3081) | $(4204) | $(5733) | $(8428) | $(8136) | $(7482) | $(6116) | $(3277) | $(1603) | $87 | $2272 | $5147 | $8652 | $10417 | $12199 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Taxes | 15.4% | US$ '000 | $6046 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $45 | $101 | $210 | $437 | $258 | $260 | $337 | $443 | $540 | $272 | $275 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 | $23064 | $(585) | $(409) | $(729) | $(1359) | $(1122) | $(1529) | $(2694) | $247 | $553 | $1156 | $2401 | $1417 | $1429 | $1849 | $2432 | $2966 | $1493 | $1508 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cumulative After-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 |  | $(585) | $(994) | $(1723) | $(3081) | $(4204) | $(5733) | $(8428) | $(8181) | $(7628) | $(6472) | $(4071) | $(2654) | $(1225) | $624 | $3056 | $6022 | $7515 | $9023 |
| **PROJECT ECONOMICS** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Tax IRR |  | % | 14% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax NPV at 5% discounting | 5% | US$ '000 | $26682 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax NPV at 8% discounting | 8% | US$ '000 | $25318 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax NPV at 12% discounting | 12% | US$ '000 | $23602 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax IRR |  | % | 12% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax NPV at 5% discounting | 5% | US$ '000 | $21072 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax NPV at 8% discounting | 8% | US$ '000 | $19954 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax NPV at 12% discounting | 12% | US$ '000 | $18545 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **PROJECT CASH COSTS** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Cash Costs |  | $/lb U3O8 | 33.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 52.29 | 52.29 | 34.21 | 32.59 | 32.56 | 32.52 | 32.52 | 32.41 | 28.59 | 28.83 | 29.41 | 36.03 | 33.91 | 34.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All-in Sustaining Costs |  | $/lb U3O8 | 34.84 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 60.46 | 55.76 | 43.07 | 48.30 | 46.97 | 46.64 | 13.74 | 32.62 | 35.90 | 36.42 | 34.66 | 12.36 | 34.42 | 41.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All-in Costs |  | $/lb U3O8 | 40.66 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 137.68 | 120.86 | 290.91 | 48.30 | 47.20 | 46.64 | 13.74 | 32.80 | 35.90 | 36.42 | 34.66 | 12.36 | 34.42 | 41.48 |
| **WORKING CAPITAL** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Receivable | 30 | Days O/S | (0) |  |  |  |  | 867 | 641 | (808) | 796 | 1569 | 3071 | (2454) | 13 | 512 | 1355 | 1247 | (2393) | (275) | 1636 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Payable | 30 | Days O/S | 0 |  |  |  |  | 749 | 554 | (911) | 404 | 832 | 1627 | (1302) |  |  | 651 | 651 | (651) | (311) | 962 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Working Capital Adjustments** |  |  | **(0)** | **-** | **-** | **-** | **-** | **118** | **87** | **103** | **392** | **736** | **1444** | **(1152)** | **13** | **512** | **704** | **596** | **(1742)** | **36** | **674** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 30-2 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x051.jpg)

**Table 30-1:** **SLR Base Case Cash Flow Summary - con't**

<br> **Energy Fuels Inc. - Pinyon Plain Project**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Months** | **INPUTS** | **USD and US Units<br>UNITS** | <br>**19** | <br>**20** | <br>**21** | <br>**22** | <br>**23** | <br>**24** | <br>**25** | <br>**26** | <br>**27** | <br>**28** | <br>**29** | <br>**30** |
| **MINING** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Underground** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Operating Days |  | days | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tons milled per day (Steady State) |  | tons / day | 175 | 233 | 233 | 233 | 175 | 175 | 175 | 233 | 242 | 81 | 18 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tons moved per day (Steady State) |  | tons / day | 175 | 233 | 233 | 233 | 175 | 175 | 175 | 233 | 257 | 86 | 18 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Production |  | dry tons | 5250 | 7000 | 7000 | 7000 | 5250 | 5250 | 5250 | 7000 | 7264 | 2426 | 530 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Grade |  | % U3O8 | 0.59% | 0.69% | 0.69% | 0.64% | 0.58% | 0.58% | 0.49% | 0.48% | 0.46% | 0.19% | 0.19% | 0.00% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained U3O8 |  | tons | 31 | 48 | 48 | 45 | 31 | 31 | 26 | 34 | 34 | 5 | 1 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste |  | tons |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 459 | 157 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Moved |  | tons | 5250 | 7000 | 7000 | 7000 | 5250 | 5250 | 5250 | 7000 | 7723 | 2583 | 530 |  |
| **PROCESSING** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore to Milling and Flotation |  | dry tons | 5250 | 7000 | 7000 | 7000 | 5250 | 5250 | 5250 | 7000 | 7264 | 2426 | 530 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Head Grade U3O8 |  | % U3O8 | 0.59% | 0.69% | 0.69% | 0.64% | 0.58% | 0.58% | 0.49% | 0.48% | 0.46% | 0.19% | 0.19% | 0.00% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained U3O8 |  | lbs U3O8 | 62017 | 96553 | 96553 | 89339 | 61263 | 61263 | 51143 | 67396 | 67480 | 9046 | 1975 |  |
| **U3O8 Recovery** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery | 96% | % | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payable U3O8 |  | lbs U3O8 | 59536 | 92691 | 92691 | 85765 | 58812 | 58812 | 49098 | 64700 | 64781 | 8684 | 1896 |  |
| **REVENUE** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Market Price** |  | Input Units |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Current Market Price | SLR | US$/lb U3O8 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;% Sold At Market Price | 100% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Long-term Contract Price | $0.00 | US$/lb U3O8 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;% Sold At Contract Price | 0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Gross Revenue** |  | US$ '000 | $**3572** | $**5561** | $**5561** | $**5146** | $**3529** | $**3529** | $**2946** | $**3882** | $**3887** | $**521** | $**114** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Concentrate Freight | $0.18/lb U3O8 | US$ '000 | $10 | $16 | $16 | $15 | $10 | $10 | $9 | $11 | $11 | $2 | $0 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Charges** |  | **US$ '000** | $**10** | $**16** | $**16** | $**15** | $**10** | $**10** | $**9** | $**11** | $**11** | $**2** | $**0** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gross Less Charges |  | US$ '000 | $3562 | $5545 | $5545 | $5131 | $3518 | $3518 | $2937 | $3871 | $3876 | $520 | $113 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | $1.88/t milled | US$ '000 | $10 | $15 | $15 | $14 | $10 | $10 | $9 | $12 | $12 | $2 | $0 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Net Smelter Return** |  | **US$ '000** | $**3552** | $**5530** | $**5530** | $**5117** | $**3509** | $**3509** | $**2928** | $**3859** | $**3864** | $**518** | $**113** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit NSR** |  | **US$ / t milled** | $**0.68** | $**0.79** | $**0.79** | $**0.73** | $**0.67** | $**0.67** | $**0.56** | $**0.55** | $**0.53** | $**0.21** | $**0.21** | $**-** |
| **OPERATING COST** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Underground Mining Cost | $101.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 | $101.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Trucking Cost | $72.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;WMM Milling & Processing | $192.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 | $192.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | $7.00/t milled | US$/t milled | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 | $7.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Unit Operating Cost** |  | **US$/t milled** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** | $**372.00** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Underground Mining Cost |  | US$ '000 | $530 | $707 | $707 | $707 | $530 | $530 | $530 | $707 | $734 | $245 | $54 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Trucking Cost |  | US$ '000 | $378 | $504 | $504 | $504 | $378 | $378 | $378 | $504 | $523 | $175 | $38 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Milling & Processing |  | US$ '000 | $1008 | $1344 | $1344 | $1344 | $1008 | $1008 | $1008 | $1344 | $1395 | $466 | $102 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A |  | US$ '000 | $37 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $49 | $51 | $17 | $4 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal Operating Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**1953** | $**2604** | $**2604** | $**2604** | $**1953** | $**1953** | $**1953** | $**2604** | $**2702** | $**903** | $**197** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AZ Severance Tax | 1.25% | **US$ '000** | $20 | $37 | $37 | $31 | $19 | $19 | $12 | $16 | $15 | $(5) | $(1) | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Operating Cost with Severance Tax** |  | **US$ '000** | $**1973** | $**2641** | $**2641** | $**2635** | $**1972** | $**1972** | $**1965** | $**2620** | $**2717** | $**898** | $**196** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unit Operating Cost |  | US$/t milled | $376 | $377 | $377 | $376 | $376 | $376 | $374 | $374 | $374 | $370 | $370 | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Margin |  | US$ '000 | $1579 | $2889 | $2889 | $2481 | $1536 | $1536 | $963 | $1239 | $1147 | $(380) | $(83) | $- |
| **CAPITAL COST** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Direct Cost** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Development | $1200/ft | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Loadout Installation |  | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;UG Mine Equip. |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ventilation Fans |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ventilation Raise |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Infrastructure |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Direct Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Other Costs** | Incl. Above |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM / Owners / Indirect Cost |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal Costs** |  | **US$ '000** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | 15% | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** | $**-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Working Capital |  | US$ '000 | $(901) | $1338 | $- | $(416) | $(966) | $- | $(583) | $285 | $(93) | $(1566) | $298 | $83 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation |  | US$ '000 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $75 | $75 | $75 | $75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Capital Cost** |  | **US$ '000** | $**(901)** | $**1338** | $**-** | $**(416)** | $**(966)** | $**-** | $**(583)** | $**285** | $**(18)** | $**(1491)** | $**373** | $**158** |
| **PRE-TAX CASH FLOW** |  |  | 2480 | 1551 | 2889 | 2897 | 2502 | 1536 | 1546 | 954 | 1165 | 1111 | (456) | (158) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Pre-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 | $2480 | $1551 | $2889 | $2897 | $2502 | $1536 | $1546 | $954 | $1165 | $1111 | $(456) | $(158) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cumulative Pre-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 | $14680 | $16231 | $19120 | $22017 | $24520 | $26056 | $27602 | $28556 | $29721 | $30832 | $30376 | $30218 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Taxes | 15.4% | US$ '000 | $382 | $239 | $445 | $446 | $385 | $237 | $238 | $147 | $179 | $171 | $- | $- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 | $2098 | $1312 | $2444 | $2451 | $2117 | $1300 | $1308 | $807 | $986 | $940 | $(456) | $(158) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cumulative After-Tax Cashflow |  | US$ '000 | $11121 | $12434 | $14878 | $17329 | $19446 | $20745 | $22053 | $22860 | $23846 | $24786 | $24330 | $24172 |
| **PROJECT ECONOMICS** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Tax IRR |  | % |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax NPV at 5% discounting | 5% | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax NPV at 8% discounting | 8% | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax NPV at 12% discounting | 12% | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax IRR |  | % |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax NPV at 5% discounting | 5% | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax NPV at 8% discounting | 8% | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax NPV at 12% discounting | 12% | US$ '000 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **PROJECT CASH COSTS** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Cash Costs |  | $/lb U3O8 | 33.48 | 28.83 | 28.83 | 31.07 | 33.88 | 33.88 | 40.39 | 40.85 | 42.30 | 103.76 | 103.76 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All-in Sustaining Costs |  | $/lb U3O8 | 18.34 | 43.27 | 28.83 | 26.22 | 17.45 | 33.88 | 28.51 | 45.26 | 42.01 | -67.97 | 300.56 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All-in Costs |  | $/lb U3O8 | 18.34 | 43.27 | 28.83 | 26.22 | 17.45 | 33.88 | 28.51 | 45.26 | 42.01 | -67.97 | 300.56 | 0.00 |
| **WORKING CAPITAL** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Receivable | 30 | Days O/S | (2203) | 1989 |  | (416) | (1617) |  | (583) | 936 | 5 | (3366) | (407) | (114) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Payable | 30 | Days O/S | (1302) | 651 |  |  | (651) |  |  | 651 | 98 | (1800) | (705) | (197) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Working Capital Adjustments** |  |  | **(901)** | **1338** | **-** | **(416)** | **(966)** | **-** | **(583)** | **285** | **(93)** | **(1566)** | **298** | **83** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) | ![](exhibit99-3x050.jpg) |
| Energy Fuels Inc. \| Pinyon Plain Project, SLR Project No: 138.02544.00006 |  |
| Technical Report - February 23, 2023 | 30-3 |

---

------

![](exhibit99-3x049.jpg)

------