HTML Editor

EX-96.1 5 ex_465792.htm EXHIBIT 96.1 HTML Editor

Exhibit 96.1

2022 TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE

HORSESHOE-RAVEN PROJECT,

SASKATCHEWAN

Uranium Energy Corp.

Effective Date: October 31, 2022

Nathan A. Barsi, P.Geo.

Christopher J. Hamel, P.Geo.

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

December 30, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE #

1		EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
	1.1	Introduction	1
	1.2	Property Description and Ownership	1
	1.3	History	2
	1.4	Geology and Mineralization	2
	1.5	Exploration	3
	1.6	Development and Operations	4
	1.7	Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security	4
	1.8	Data Verification	4
	1.9	Metallurgy	4
	1.10	Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates	4
	1.11	Recovery Methods	7
	1.12	Adjacent Properties	8
	1.13	Permitting Requirements	8
	1.14	Conclusions and Recommendations	8
2		INTRODUCTION	10
	2.1	Work Program	10
	2.2	Basis of the Technical Report	10
	2.3	Qualifications of Authors and UEX Team	10
	2.4	Site Visit	11
	2.5	Previous Reports	11
	2.6	Key Definitions	11
	2.7	Declaration	11
3		PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	12
	3.1	Mineral Tenure	13
	3.2	Mining Rights in Saskatchewan	15
	3.3	Underlying Agreements	15
	3.4	Permits and Authorization	15
	3.5	Environmental Considerations	15
4		ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	16
	4.1	Accessibility	16
	4.2	Local Resources and Infrastructure	16
	4.3	Climate	17
	4.4	Physiography	17
5		HISTORY	19
	5.1	Property Ownership	19
	5.2	Exploration and Development History	19
	5.3	Early Uranium Exploration (1968 to 2002)	20
	5.4	Historical Mineral Resource Estimates	21
	5.5	Historical Production	21
6		GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION	22
	6.1	Regional Geology	22
	6.2	Geology of the Horseshoe-Raven Property: Distribution of Lithologies	26
	6.3	Pre-Athabasca Lithologies on the Hidden Bay Property: Wollaston Group

6.3.1	Lower Pelitic Gneiss	27
6.3.2	Meta-Arkose Unit	27
6.3.3	Carbonate and Calc-Silicate Units at the top of the Meta-Arkose Sequence	28
6.3.4	Hidden Bay Assemblage	28
6.3.5	Granitic Rocks and Other Igneous Lithologies in the Region	28
6.3.6	Paleoweathering/Saprolite at the Top of the Basement Rocks	28
6.3.7	Granite Sills and Dykes in the Wollaston Group	29
6.3.8	Granitic Gneiss in Quartzite of Hidden Bay Assemblage	29

6.3.9	Pegmatite Sills and Dykes	31
6.3.10	Post-Metamorphic Sediments: Athabasca Sandstone	31
6.3.11	Paleoweathering/Saprolite at the Top of the Basement Rocks	31

6.4

Structural Setting of the Horseshoe-Raven Property

6.4.1	Penetrative Deformation and Folding	32
6.4.2	D1 Deformation	32
6.4.3	D2 Deformation	32

	6.5	Mineralization	33
	6.6	Local Geology of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits	34

6.6.1	Host Lithologies to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits	34
6.6.2	Structural Setting - Metamorphic Structural Architecture	34
6.6.3	Mineralization	34

6.7

Athabasca Uranium Deposits

		6.7.1	Sandstone-Hosted Deposits	36
		6.7.2	Basement-Hosted Deposits	36

7		EXPLORATION	39
	7.1	Geophysics in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area	39
	7.2	Drilling in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area	40

7.2.1

Historical Drilling by Gulf in the Horseshoe and Raven Area

	7.3	Drilling (Mid-2009 – 2012)	42
	7.4	Core Handling, Drillhole Surveys and Logistical Considerations during the Mid-2009 – 2012 Drilling Programs	65

7.4.1	Drillhole Field Locations and Surveys	66
7.4.2	Downhole Surveys	66
7.4.3	Drill Core Handling Procedures	66
7.4.4	Core Recovery	67
7.4.5	Drill Core Logging	67
7.4.6	Geotechnical Logging	68
7.4.7	Radiometric Probing of Drillholes	69
7.4.8	Relationship between Sample Length and True Thickness	69
7.4.9	Hydrogeology	70

8		SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	71
	8.1	Horseshoe and Raven Geochemical Sample Collection	71
	8.2	Drillhole Sampling Quality and Representativeness	72
	8.3	Shipping and Security	73
	8.4	Geochemical Analyses	73

8.4.1	Analytical Procedures	73
8.4.2	SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories U₃O₈ Method Summary	74
8.4.3	Laboratory Audits	74

	8.5	Uranium Equivalent Grades	74
	8.6	Dry Bulk Density Samples	75

8.6.1

Analytical Methods

8.7

Summary

8.7.1

Verifications of Analytical Quality Control Data

9		DATA VERIFICATION	89
	9.1	Qualified Person Data Verification	89
	9.2	Database Verification	89
	9.3	Logging and Sampling Procedure Review	90
	9.4	Collar Position	90

9.4.1

Downhole Surveys, Collar and Lithology Review

	9.5	Assay and Bulk Densities Databases	91
	9.6	Independent Samples	91
	9.7	Conclusion	92
	9.8	QP Comments	92
10		MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	93

11		MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE	95
	11.1	Introduction	95
	11.2	Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology	95
	11.3	Resource Database	96
	11.4	Geological Modelling	97
	11.5	Specific Gravity	99
	11.6	Composites	102
	11.7	Capping	102
	11.8	Block Model Definition	105
	11.9	Search Ellipsoid	105
	11.10	Estimation Strategy	106
	11.11	Block Model Validation	107

11.11.1	Block Volume/Solid Volume Comparison	107
11.11.2	Visual Validation of Sections	107
11.11.3	Swath Plots	109
11.11.4	Validation Author Statement	111

	11.12	Mineral Resource Classification	111
	11.13	Grade Sensitivity Analysis	113
	11.14	Resource Uncertainty and Prospect of Economic Extraction	114
12		MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	115
13		MINING METHODS	116
14		PROCESS AND RECOVERY METHODS	117
15		INFRASTRUCTURE	118
16		MARKET STUDIES	119
17		ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	120
18		CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	121
19		ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	122
20		ADJACENT PROPERTIES	123
21		OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	124
22		INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	125
23		RECOMMENDATIONS	126
	23.1	Preliminary Economic Assessment	126
	23.2	Additional Field Duplicate Sampling	126
	23.3	Advanced Metallurgy	126
24		REFERENCES	128
25		RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS	134
26		DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGES	135

iii

LIST OF FIGURES	Page #
Figure 3‑1: Location of the Horseshoe-Raven Property in Saskatchewan, Canada	12
Figure 3‑2: Land Tenure Map of the Horseshoe-Raven Property	14
Figure 4‑1: Typical Landscape in the Horseshoe-Raven Property Area	18
Figure 6‑1: Regional Geology Setting	23
Figure 6‑2: Horseshoe-Raven Local Area Stratigraphy	24
Figure 6‑3: Geological Sketch Map of the Athabasca Basin.	25
Figure 6‑4: Idealized cross-section through the eastern Cree Lake zone	26
Figure 6‑5: Horseshoe-Raven Property Local Geology	30
Figure 6‑6: Types of Unconformity-Type Uranium Deposits	38
Figure 7‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Drillhole Collars	41
Figure 7‑2: Recent Historical Drilling on the Horseshoe-Raven Property	44
Figure 8‑1: Logarithmic Plot of Dry Bulk Density versus Uranium Grade in Corresponding Geochemical Samples	78
Figure 8‑2: Quantile - Quantile Plot of Laboratory Bulk Density Replicated for Batches Submitted for all Seasons Prior to September 2008	78
Figure 8‑3: Quantile - Quantile Plot of Laboratory Bulk Density Replicated for Batches Submitted between September 2008 and June 2009	79
Figure 8‑4: Control Chart for Reference Material CG51509* analyzed for Uranium at SRC	83
Figure 8‑5: Control Chart for Reference Material CAR110 analyzed for Uranium at SRC	84
Figure 8‑6: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-2a analyzed for %U₃O₈ at SRC	84
Figure 8‑7: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-3* analyzed for Uranium and %U₃O₈ at SRC	85
Figure 8‑8: Control Chart for Reference Material BL-4a* analyzed for Uranium and %U₃O₈ at SRC	85
Figure 8‑9: Control Chart for Reference Material UEX08* analyzed for Uranium and %U₃O₈ at SRC	86
Figure 8‑10: Control Chart for Reference Material UEX02* analyzed for Uranium and %U₃O₈ at SRC	86
Figure 8‑11: XY Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium at SRC 2009	88
Figure 8‑12: RPD Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium at SRC 2009	88
Figure 8‑13: XY Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium SRC 2011	89
Figure 8‑14: RPD Chart for Lab Replicates Analyzed for Uranium SRC 2011	89
Figure 11‑1: Horseshoe Wireframe Plan View (Looking Down)	100
Figure 11‑2: Horseshoe Wireframe Isometric View (Looking NNE)	100
Figure 11‑3: Raven Wireframe Plan View (Looking Down)	101
Figure 11‑4: Raven Wireframe Isometric View (Looking NNE)	101
Figure 11‑5: Horseshoe Density vs U₃O₈	102
Figure 11‑6: Raven Density vs U₃O₈	103
Figure 11‑7: Log Probability Plot for Horseshoe Composite and Trimmed Assays	105
Figure 11‑8: Log Probability Plot for Raven Composite and Trimmed Assays	106
Figure 11‑9: Horseshoe Visual Check of Drillhole Grades against Block Grades (Section Orientation of 335°)	108
Figure 11‑10: Raven Visual Check of Drillhole Grades against Block Grades (Section Orientation of 345°)	109
Figure 11‑11: Horseshoe Swath Plot in the X Direction	110
Figure 11‑12: Raven Swath Plot in the X Direction	110

LIST OF TABLES	Page #
Table 1‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates	6
Table 1‑2: Grade Sensitivity Analysis Using Global Block Model Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various U3O8 Cut-Off Grades	7
Table 3‑1: Mineral Tenure Information for the Horseshoe-Raven Property	13
Table 5‑1: Historical Drilling by Other Companies on the Horseshoe-Raven Property	20
Table 7‑1: Summary of Drilling on the Horseshoe-Raven Property	42
Table 7‑2: Summary of Drilling by UEX on the Horseshoe-Raven Project	45
Table 7‑3: Assay Results Mid-2009 through 2012	47
Table 7‑4: UEX Lithology Legend	68
Table 8‑1: Horseshoe Bulk Density (g/cm3) Statistics Grouped by Lithology	76
Table 8‑2: Raven Bulk Density (g/cm3) Statistics Grouped by Lithology	77
Table 8‑3: Average Dry Bulk Densities (g/cm³) by Grade Bins	77
Table 8‑4: Number of Samples for Each Deposit by Year	80
Table 8‑5: Summary of the Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period 2005 to September 2008 (Baldwin, 2009)	81
Table 8‑6: Summary of the Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period September 2008 to June 2009 (Baldwin, 2009)	82
Table 8‑7: Summary of Horseshoe and Raven QC Results for the Reporting Period July 2009 to 2011	83
Table 9‑1: Raven Collars, Comparison between QP's GPS and UEX Database	92
Table 9‑2: Independent Samples taken by Golder at Horseshoe and Raven	94
Table 11‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Exploration Drillholes	98
Table 11‑2: Horseshoe Density Statistics	102
Table 11‑3: Raven Density Statistics	104
Table 11‑4: Basic Statistics for Mineralized Wireframes at Horseshoe and Raven	106
Table 11‑5: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Block Model Specifications	107
Table 11‑6: Search Ellipse Parameters for Horseshoe and Raven Estimation	107
Table 11‑7: Estimation Parameters for Horseshoe and Raven Deposits	108
Table 11‑8: Volume Estimated per Pass for Each Deposit	109
Table 11‑9: Wireframe Volume vs Block Model Volume	109
Table 11‑10: Cut-Off Grade Determination	114
Table 11‑11: Horseshoe and Raven Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates	115
Table 11‑12: Global Block Model Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various U₃O₈ Cut-Off Grades	115
Table 23‑1: Cost Break Down of Metallurgical Drill Program	130

1	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1

Introduction

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

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

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

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

1.2

Property Description and Ownership

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

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

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

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

1.3

History

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

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

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

1.4

Geology and Mineralization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.5

Exploration

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

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

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

1.6

Development and Operations

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

1.7

Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

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

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

1.8

Data Verification

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

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

1.9

Metallurgy

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

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

1.10

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Processing, water treatment, general and administrative costs, along with mining and milling recoveries using heap leach extraction, were estimated by a QP for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. The uranium price of US$60/lb was used and is considered reasonable given the range of spot uranium prices reported by industry price expert TradeTech between September 15, 2021 and this TRS’ effective date of December 31, 2021. An exchange rate of C$1.00 to US$0.79 was used.

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

The marginal COG was determined using the formula:

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

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

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

Horseshoe Deposit Uranium Resource*
Deposit	Category	Quantity (Tonnes)	Average Grade U₃O₈ (%)	Total lbs U₃O₈
Horseshoe	Indicated	4,982,500	0.215	23,594,000
Raven Deposit Uranium Resources*
Deposit	Category	Quantity (Tonnes)	Average Grade U₃O₈ (%)	Total lbs U₃O₈
Raven	Indicated	5,370,000	0.117	13,832,400
*Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Resources were estimated using a COG of 0.05% U3O8.

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

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

Horseshoe Grade Sensitivity Analysis
Cut-Off	Indicated Blocks
Grade	Volume / Quantity		Grade
U₃O₈	Volume	Tonnage	U₃O₈
(%)	(m³)	(tonnes)	(%)
0.01	4,113,990	10,202,696	0.119
0.02	3,415,704	8,470,945	0.140
0.05	2,009,077	4,982,512	0.215
0.10	1,196,033	2,966,088	0.313
0.15	866,315	2,148,462	0.386
0.20	628,722	1,559,230	0.466
0.25	468,775	1,162,562	0.548
0.30	372,190	923,032	0.620
0.35	300,907	746,250	0.689
0.40	238,923	592,530	0.771
Raven Grade Sensitivity Analysis
Cut-Off	Indicated Blocks
Grade	Volume / Quantity		Grade
U₃O₈	Volume	Tonnage	U₃O₈
(%)	(m³)	(tonnes)	(%)
0.01	5,013,261	12,432,888	0.066
0.02	4,117,590	10,211,623	0.077
0.05	2,165,334	5,370,028	0.117
0.10	867,706	2,151,912	0.186
0.15	439,339	1,089,560	0.250
0.20	244,018	605,165	0.312
0.25	149,652	371,138	0.368
0.30	93,338	231,479	0.424
0.35	60,029	148,873	0.481
0.40	40,251	99,822	0.534

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

1.11

Recovery Methods

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

1.12

Adjacent Properties

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

1.13

Permitting Requirements

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

1.14

Conclusions and Recommendations

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

The Horseshoe Deposit is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 23,594,000 lbs U₃O₈ with an average grade of 0.215% U₃O₈at a COG of 0.05% U₃O₈. The Raven Deposit is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 13,832,400 lbs U₃O₈, with an average grade of 0.117% U₃O₈ at a COG of 0.05% U₃O₈. No inferred resources have been estimated for either deposit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.	INTRODUCTION

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

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

2.1

Work Program

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

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

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

2.2

Basis of the Technical Report

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

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

●	Historical exploration data collected by UEX; and

●	Additional information from public domain sources.

2.3

Qualifications of Authors and UEX Team

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

2.4

Site Visit

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

2.5

Previous Reports

This TRS represents the initial report on the Property to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Property has previously been reported upon in Canada.

2.6

Key Definitions

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

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

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

2.7

Declaration

The QPs’ opinions contained herein and effective October 31, 2022 is based on information collected by UEX throughout the course of UEX’s exploration programs.

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

3.	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

The Property is in the Wollaston Lake area of Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 695 km north of Saskatoon, southwest of Wollaston Lake. The Property is located within the eastern Athabasca, approximately four km south of the uranium mill at Rabbit Lake, and 431 km north of the town of La Ronge. The centre of the Property is located at approximately 103°46’00” degrees longitude west and 58°08”10” degrees latitude north (Figure 3‑1).

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

3.1

Mineral Tenure

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

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

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

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

Disposition

Number

Record

Date

Area (Ha)

Annual Assessment ($/Ha)

Total Annual

Assessment ($)

Work Due / Lapse Date

S-106962

12/1/1977

4,486

$112,150

2/28/2041

Total

4,486

$112,150

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

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

3.2

Mining Rights in Saskatchewan

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

3.3

Underlying Agreements

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

3.4

Permits and Authorization

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

3.5

Environmental Considerations

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

The only liabilities on the Property are represented by drill cuttings that have been collected in drums and are stored in the fenced compound with the radioactive drill core. Additionally, there is some contaminated material that was collected from the remains of a core logging structure that burned down. The Company intends to dispose of these materials during a remediation program planned for 2023.

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

4.	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1

Accessibility

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

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

4.2

Local Resources and Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

4.3

Climate

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

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

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

4.4

Physiography

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.	HISTORY

5.1

Property Ownership

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

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

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

5.2

Exploration and Development History

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

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

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

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

			Type			Meters*
Year	Total	DDH	RC	Sonic	Total	DDH	RC	Sonic	Company
1972	15	15			2,701	2,701			Gulf
1973	26	26			6,593	6,593			Gulf
1974	141	141			32,331	32,331			Gulf
1975	84	84			21,763	21,763			Gulf
1976	156	32	124		9,402	7,861	1,540		Gulf
1977	11	11			2,159	2,159			Gulf
1978	39	3	36		1,233	655	578		Gulf
1984	1	1			82	82			Eldorado
1985	7	7			542	542			Eldorado
Total	480	320	160		76,805	74,687	2,118

5.3

Early Uranium Exploration (1968 to 2002)

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

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

5.4

Historical Mineral Resource Estimates

No mineral resource estimates exist for the Property that comply with S-K 1300. UEX completed previous mineral resources estimates for the Property under the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 in 2009, 2011 and 2021.

5.5

Historical Production

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

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

6.	GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

6.1

Regional Geology

The Property is just east of the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin. It is underlain by Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss and Archean granitic gneiss basement rocks of the Hearne Province (Figure 6‑1).

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

i.	massive to weakly foliated meta-arkose, and

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

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

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

Figure 6‑1: Regional Geology Setting

Figure 6‑2: Horseshoe-Raven Local Area Stratigraphy

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.2

Geology of the Horseshoe-Raven Property: Distribution of Lithologies

Lithologies and foliation of the Wollaston Domain rocks of the Property trend northeast with predominantly moderate to steep southeast dips, although northwest dips occur as the result of the broad synform that is the host to uranium mineralization at the Property.

6.3

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

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

6.3.1

Lower Pelitic Gneiss

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

6.3.2

Meta-Arkose Unit

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

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

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

6.3.3

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

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

6.3.4

Hidden Bay Assemblage

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

6.3.5

Granitic Rocks and Other Igneous Lithologies in the Region

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

6.3.6

The Collins Bay and McClean Lake Domes: Possible Archean Basement

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

6.3.7

Granite Sills and Dykes in the Wollaston Group

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

6.3.8

Granitic Gneiss in Quartzite of Hidden Bay Assemblage

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

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

Figure 6‑5: Horseshoe-Raven Property Local Geology

6.3.9

Pegmatite Sills and Dykes

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

6.3.10

Post-Metamorphic Sediments: Athabasca Sandstone

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

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

6.3.11

Paleoweathering/Saprolite at the Top of the Basement Rocks

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

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

6.4

Structural Setting of the Horseshoe-Raven Property

6.4.1

Penetrative Deformation and Folding

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

6.4.2

D1 Deformation

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

6.4.3

D2 Deformation

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

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

6.5

Mineralization

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

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

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

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

6.6

Local Geology of the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

6.6.1

Host Lithologies to the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

The Horseshoe and Raven Deposits are hosted by the Hidden Bay Assemblage, which occurs within a complex northeast trending D2 synclinorium that sits structurally above and south of the underlying meta-arkose unit of the Daly River subgroup. The synclinorium is cored by quartzite that is succeeded outward concentrically from the core of the folds by other components of the Hidden Bay Assemblage, which include a mixed sequence of calc-arkose, additional quartzite, locally graphitic sillimanite-bearing pelitic schist and amphibolite (Figure 6‑5). While no Athabasca Sandstone is present above the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits since it has been eroded from the local area, sandstone outliers that occur to the southeast of the deposits and the local presence of paleoweathering in some drillholes south of the deposit area suggest that the sub-Athabasca unconformity was present just above the current surface.

6.6.2

Structural Setting - Metamorphic Structural Architecture

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

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

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

6.6.3

Mineralization

Based upon the recommendations of the authors of the 2009 Report, the Horseshoe and Raven deposits were wireframed using a cut-off of 0.02% U3O8. The new wireframe shells encompass all of the subzones that were originally utilized for the 2009 Report for both the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. Using a lower cut off for the wireframe has resulted in the subzones being contained within the newly modeled ore shell. The mineralization at the Horseshoe Deposit has been defined over a strike length of approximately 800 m and occurs at depths between 100 m to 450 m below surface. Mineralization occurs in several stacked and shallow plunging shoots that generally follow the fold axis of a gently folded arkose-quartzite package. Uranium mineralization is often best developed along the zones of dilation developed along bedding.

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

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

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

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

6.7

Athabasca Uranium Deposits

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

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

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

6.7.1

Sandstone-Hosted Deposits

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

6.7.2

Basement-Hosted Deposits

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

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

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

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

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

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

7	EXPLORATION

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

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

7.1

Geophysics in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area

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

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

●

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

●

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

●

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

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

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

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

7.2

Drilling in the Horseshoe and Raven Deposit Area

Drilling on the Property dates to the 1970s and was undertaken in a number of campaigns until mid-2009 (Figure 7‑1). All the historical drillholes targeted uranium mineralization and prospects. Between 1973 and 2009, a total of 951 diamond drilling boreholes (263,388 m) and 160 reverse circulation boreholes (2,118 m) were drilled through the Property by, Gulf, Eldorado, Cameco, and UEX, summarized in Table 7‑1. From mid-2009 to 2012, UEX drilled 105 diamond drillholes for 28,315 m.

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

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

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

Figure 7‑1: Horseshoe and Raven Drillhole Collars

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

		Type				Meters*
Year	Total	DDH	RC	Sonic	Total	DDH	RC	Sonic	Company
1972	15	15			2,701	2,701			Gulf
1973	26	26			6,593	6,593			Gulf
1974	141	141			32,331	32,331			Gulf
1975	84	84			21,763	21,763			Gulf
1976	156	32	124		9,402	7,861	1,541		Gulf
1977	11	11			2,159	2,159			Gulf
1978	39	3	36		1,233	655	578		Gulf
1984	1	1			82	82			Eldorado
1985	7	7			542	542			Eldorado
2002	3	3			1,350	1,350			Cameco**
2003	1	1			314	314			Cameco**
2004	4	4			648	648			Cameco**
2005	44	44			12,811	12,811			UEX
2006	27	27			8,617	8,617			UEX
2007	210	210			67,777	67,777			UEX
2008	232	232			63,261	63,261			UEX
2009	110	110			33,923	33,923			UEX
2009***	19	19			5,406	5,406			UEX
2011	76	76			20,011	20,011			UEX
2012	10	10			2,898	2,898			UEX
Total	1,216	1,056	160		293,821	291,702	2,119

* Rounded to the nearest metre

** Cameco Operated on behalf of UEX

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

7.2.1

Historical Drilling by Gulf in the Horseshoe and Raven Area

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

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

7.3

Drilling (Mid-2009 – 2012)

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

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

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

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

Borehole ID	Azimuth	Dip	Length (m)	Easting* (m)	Northing* (m)	Elevation (m)	Year
HU-359	305	-45	300.0	573861.0	6447179.0	439.0	2009
HU-360	305	-45	300.0	574161.0	6447471.0	440.0	2009
HU-361	305	-77	270.0	574532.2	6447161.5	438.0	2009
HU-362	90	-45	291.0	574642.0	6446778.0	429.0	2009
HU-363	305	-63	639.0	574779.8	6446803.8	426.0	2009
HU-364	309	-46	537.0	574288.3	6446496.3	425.0	2009
HU-365	305	-45	399.0	573992.0	6446067.5	422.0	2009
HU-366	125	-45	324.0	574355.7	6446069.1	422.0	2009
HU-367	305	-65	489.5	574355.7	6446069.1	422.0	2009
RU-217	350	-65	81.0	573326.0	6446327.0	428.0	2009
RU-218	350	-90	72.0	573326.2	6446326.8	428.0	2009
RU-219	350	-65	81.0	573295.7	6446321.4	430.0	2009
RU-220	195	-90	72.0	573295.7	6446321.0	430.0	2009
RU-221	350	-65	81.0	573355.8	6446300.0	426.0	2009
RU-222	350	-90	72.0	573268.0	6446300.0	430.0	2009
RU-223	350	-72	411.0	573235.2	6446293.0	431.0	2009
RU-224	350	-58	549.0	573012.0	6446063.0	431.0	2009
RU-225	350	-51	222.0	572386.0	6446140.0	464.0	2009
RU-226	350	-74	219.0	572429.0	6446241.0	465.0	2009
VU-001	305	-52	400.0	571641.0	6446864.0	436.0	2009
VU-002	305	-45	366.0	571687.0	6447121.0	436.0	2009
VU-003	305	-60	549.0	571370.0	6446775.0	436.0	2009
VU-004	305	-61	391.0	571125.0	6446701.0	436.0	2009
HR-001	305	-48	299.0	573651.5	6446977.7	438.0	2011
HR-002	305	-47	300.0	572439.5	6447179.8	475.0	2011
HR-003	305	-47	299.0	571473.5	6446417.0	458.0	2011
HR-004	125	-45	388.0	571270.7	6446339.0	452.0	2011
HR-005	305	-49	90.6	575330.4	6445170.0	409.0	2011
HR-006	305	-45	309.0	575322.6	6445174.0	408.0	2011
HR-007	125	-45	313.0	570921.6	6446188.8	447.0	2011
HR-008	125	-50	67.0	570820.0	6445940.0	452.0	2011
HR-009	125	-60	69.0	570820.0	6445940.0	452.0	2011
HR-010	305	-60	122.0	570500.6	6445852.7	439.0	2011
HR-011	305	-75	464.0	570482.4	6445867.9	438.0	2011
HR-012	305	-70	411.0	570095.2	6445671.0	437.0	2011
HR-013	305	-70	422.0	570547.0	6446061.8	437.0	2011
HU-368	0	-60	270.0	573963.6	6446655.8	428.0	2011
HU-369	300	-60	231.0	574223.9	6446811.8	432.0	2011
HU-370	42	-61	381.0	574111.5	6446864.5	431.0	2011
HU-371	330	-80	393.0	574435.7	6446801.3	427.0	2011
HU-372	90	-57	402.0	574472.0	6446928.4	431.0	2011
HU-373	305	-90	30.0	573893.7	6446334.3	427.0	2011
RU-227	353	-90	321.0	573381.4	6446459.8	431.0	2011
RU-228	353	-60	291.0	573333.8	6446538.0	432.0	2011
RU-229	353	-60	270.0	573482.9	6446604.1	433.0	2011
RU-230	353	-60	222.0	573417.3	6446588.5	436.0	2011
RU-231	313	-60	219.0	573535.2	6446660.2	439.0	2011
RU-232	317	-60	291.0	573615.7	6446654.1	428.0	2011
RU-233	353	-50	291.0	573331.5	6446565.2	434.0	2011
RU-234	353	-60	291.0	573335.7	6446516.6	432.0	2011
RU-235	313	-60	282.0	573572.3	6446622.4	431.0	2011

Borehole ID	Azimuth	Dip	Length (m)	Easting* (m)	Northing* (m)	Elevation (m)	Year
RU-236	353	-60	294.0	573338.2	6446490.4	431.0	2011
RU-237	313	-60	336.0	573622.5	6446578.6	427.0	2011
RU-238	353	-60	282.0	573437.9	6446528.9	432.0	2011
RU-239	0	-60	270.0	573489.0	6446540.4	432.0	2011
RU-240	313	-60	328.0	573666.6	6446527.8	426.0	2011
RU-241	353	-60	330.0	573512.8	6446473.8	428.0	2011
RU-242	316	-70	317.0	573711.3	6446638.4	427.0	2011
RU-243	351	-73	270.0	573307.8	6446470.4	430.0	2011
RU-244	352	-65	249.0	573307.8	6446470.4	430.0	2011
RU-245	313	-60	252.0	573720.8	6446715.0	428.0	2011
RU-246	353	-60	252.0	573260.4	6446420.8	432.0	2011
RU-247	2	-56	162.0	573047.8	6446441.2	448.0	2011
RU-248	0	-54	261.0	573290.0	6446426.5	433.0	2011
RU-249	340	-61	150.0	572686.6	6446378.8	460.0	2011
RU-250	353	-64	222.0	573214.9	6446480.7	434.0	2011
RU-251	338	-73	339.0	572776.3	6446267.0	451.0	2011
RU-252	348	-68	222.0	673186.7	6446475.1	436.0	2011
RU-253	340	-62	339.0	572736.3	6446230.9	450.0	2011
RU-254	359	-86	300.0	573018.8	6446371.9	444.0	2011
RU-255	352	-59	351.0	572626.0	6446218.2	457.0	2011
RU-256	353	-84	300.0	572988.9	6446383.5	447.0	2011
RU-257	354	-67	180.0	572829.7	6446387.8	455.0	2011
RU-258	351	-73	297.0	573347.7	6446476.5	431.0	2011
RU-259	351	-60	282.0	573347.7	6446477.1	431.0	2011
RU-260	351	-56	321.0	572591.9	6446213.8	459.0	2011
RU-261	285	-50	306.0	572825.3	6446351.7	450.0	2011
RU-262	56	-57	351.0	572942.3	6446490.0	456.0	2011
RU-263	172	-58	201.0	572986.9	6446373.6	446.0	2011
RU-264	350	-70	150.0	573041.6	6446411.0	447.0	2011
RU-265	0	-74	159.0	573328.0	6446471.4	430.0	2011
RU-266	351	-90	54.0	572856.3	6446788.7	473.0	2011
RU-267	351	-90	45.0	572637.5	6445755.9	453.0	2011
RU-268	355	-59	347.0	572530.1	6446191.6	460.0	2011
RU-269	351	-90	201.0	573565.5	6446118.1	422.0	2011
RU-270	351	-90	30.0	573562.4	6446126.4	423.0	2011
RU-271	351	-90	201.0	573348.0	6446027.9	420.0	2011
RU-272	360	-64	342.0	572870.3	6446277.3	444.0	2011
RU-273	353	-85	282.0	573260.4	6446420.8	432.0	2011
RU-274	5	-77	276.0	573046.7	6446412.4	446.0	2011
RU-275	339	-75	309.0	572811.4	6446316.3	449.0	2011
RU-276	336	-83	291.0	572829.7	6446387.8	455.0	2011
RU-277	353	-77	318.0	572874.3	6446342.2	449.0	2011
RU-278	336	-67	216.0	572829.7	6446387.8	455.0	2011
RU-279	354	-67	210.0	572867.5	6446386.9	453.0	2011
RU-280	180	-86	318.0	572921.5	6446404.3	451.0	2011
RU-281	348	-75	237.0	572890.5	6446381.4	450.0	2011
RU-282	350	-72	318.0	572549.6	6446293.9	462.0	2011
RU-283	349	-77	204.0	572919.4	6446418.5	452.0	2011
HR-014	313.1	-72	288.0	574205.7	6444616.0	288.0	2012
HR-015	310.9	-72	288.0	574359.8	6444749.0	288.0	2012
HR-016	315.0	-72	291.0	574907.0	6445340.0	291.0	2012
HR-017	307.4	-72	291.0	575152.3	6445676.0	291.0	2012
HR-018	302.9	-74	291.0	575302.2	6445803.0	291.0	2012

Borehole ID	Azimuth	Dip	Length (m)	Easting* (m)	Northing* (m)	Elevation (m)	Year
HR-019	302.8	-72	291.0	575532.4	6445841.0	291.0	2012
HR-020	305.7	-72	291.0	575060.4	6445465.0	291.0	2012
HR-021	304.9	-72	286.5	574885.8	6445057.0	286.5	2012
HR-022	295.8	-72	289.4	574659.5	6445005.0	289.4	2012
HR-023	305.0	-70	291.0	574380.6	6445036.0	291.0	2012
Total			30,025**
* The North American Datum of 1983, zone 13N. ** Rounded up

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

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

					Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower Grades Intersections
Borehole ID	From*	To*	Length*	%U₃O₈	From	To	Length	%U₃O₈
HO-001	241.6	248.9	7.3	0.067	-	-	-	-
HO-002	246.5	250.0	3.5	0.114	-	-	-	-
HO-003	224.3	229.9	5.6	0.095	-	-	-	-
	233.2	239.8	6.6	0.551	-	-	-	-
HO-004	184.1	201.5	17.4	0.332	-	-	-	-
	222.3	230.6	8.3	0.377	-	-	-	-
HO-006	243.5	246.5	3.0	0.117	-	-	-	-
HO-007	232.5	237.9	5.4	0.255	-	-	-	-
HO-008	118.7	120.4	1.7	0.137	-	-	-	-
	199.1	226.0	26.9	0.096	-	-	-	-
HO-009	149.9	153.1	3.2	2.557	-	-	-	-
HO-014	174.9	179.9	5.0	0.101	-	-	-	-
	204.6	205.9	1.3	0.206	-	-	-	-
	150.3	160.9	10.6	0.109	-	-	-	-
HO-015	168.3	174.5	6.2	0.102	-	-	-	-
	186.6	200.0	13.4	0.305	-	-	-	-
HO-016	209.0	220.2	11.2	0.162	-	-	-	-
	233.2	236.0	2.8	0.105	-	-	-	-
	159.4	183.5	24.1	0.015	-	-	-	-
HS-001	228.0	231.6	3.6	0.076	-	-	-	-
	239.3	249.9	10.6	0.014	-	-	-	-
	258.5	260.6	2.1	0.177	-	-	-	-
HU-006	166.9	183.3	16.4	0.25	-	-	-	-
HU-007	163.6	175.7	12.1	0.39	-	-	-	-
HU-008	155.9	178.5	22.6	0.14	-	-	-	-
	184.5	188.0	3.5	0.1	-	-	-	-
HU-009	190.9	192.0	1.1	0.2	-	-	-	-
HU-010	111.0	114.0	3.0	0.1	-	-	-	-
	261.2	263.0	1.8	0.08	-	-	-	-
HU-011	240.7	243.6	2.9	0.19	-	-	-	-
	253.3	258.5	5.2	0.72	-	-	-	-
HU-012	179.0	191.7	12.7	0.14	-	-	-	-
	196.3	199.5	3.2	0.13	-	-	-	-
HU-013	239.0	242.6	3.6	0.34	-	-	-	-

					Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower Grades Intersections
Borehole ID	From*	To*	Length*	%U₃O₈	From	To	Length	%U₃O₈
	168.7	169.5	0.8	0.28	-	-	-	-
HU-014	179.9	181.7	1.8	0.38	-	-	-	-
	207.9	209.6	1.7	0.13	-	-	-	-
HU-015	180.0	194.2	14.2	0.52	-	-	-	-
	199.6	213.9	14.3	3.97	201.5	213.9	12.4	4.53
HU-016					204.8	208.2	3.4	10.3
					204.8	205.4	0.6	22.17
HU-018	109.1	116.6	7.8	0.08	-	-	-	-
	245.1	261.2	10.6	0.17	-	-	-	-
	93.9	95.6	1.7	0.14	-	-	-	-
	205.7	210.0	4.3	0.15	-	-	-	-
	220.5	221.4	0.9	0.18	-	-	-	-
HU-019	225.8	229.6	3.8	0.13	-	-	-	-
	252.7	253.8	1.1	0.53	-	-	-	-
	259.0	261.7	2.7	0.48	-	-	-	-
	276.0	279.5	3.5	0.29	-	-	-	-
	284.5	285.5	1.0	0.23	-	-	-	-
HU-020	279.7	297.6	17.9	0.26	-	-	-	-
	301.0	301.7	0.7	0.22	-	-	-	-
HU-021	310.0	313.0	3.0	0.16	-	-	-	-
	318.7	320.5	1.8	0.11	-	-	-	-
	208.5	247.5	39.0	0.41	-	-	-	-
HU-022	257.6	258.2	0.6	0.31	-	-	-	-
	325.2	325.6	0.3	0.33	-	-	-	-
HU-023	174.0	176.8	2.8	0.17	-	-	-	-
HU-024	307.5	343.8	35.2	0.21	-	-	-	-
HU-025	166.5	173.3	6.8	0.07	-	-	-	-
	209.1	210.3	1.2	0.16	-	-	-	-
HU-026	317.2	318.0	0.9	0.14	-	-	-	-
HU-027	309.6	311.7	2.1	0.34	-	-	-	-
HU-028	185.6	201.6	16.0	0.32	191.8	193.4	1.6	2.55
					192.7	193.1	0.4	5.31
HU-029	188.0	194.0	6.0	0.06	-	-	-	-
	205.7	209.3	3.6	0.06	-	-	-	-
HU-030	188.0	198.5	10.5	0.21	-	-	-	-
	246.9	247.9	1.1	1.02	-	-	-	-
HU-032	193.8	200.6	6.8	0.58	-	-	-	-
HU-033	177.0	194.0	17.0	0.49	190.3	193.4	3.1	1.9
					193.0	193.4	0.4	5.93
HU-034	170.7	187.2	16.5	0.07	-	-	-	-
HU-036	223.5	226.1	2.6	1.08	-	-	-	-
	238.0	246.5	8.5	0.16	-	-	-	-
HU-037	181.0	194.4	13.4	0.74	181.0	184.9	3.9	1.97
					184.3	184.9	0.6	5.27
	211.3	212.3	1.0	0.79	-	-	-	-
HU-038	199.5	219.8	20.3	0.37	199.5	200.5	1.0	3.9
	136.9	139.4	2.5	0.29	-	-	-	-
HU-039	150.6	163.4	12.8	0.63	162.8	163.4	0.6	7.55
	204.5	205.9	1.4	0.16	-	-	-	-
	236.3	238.3	2.0	0.18	-	-	-	-
HU-040	262.0	272.4	10.4	0.15	-	-	-	-
	290.5	304.4	13.9	0.12	-	-	-	-
HU-041	183.5	190.3	6.8	0.08	-	-	-	-
	212.8	214.0	1.2	0.22	-	-	-	-
	156.6	161.4	4.8	0.05	-	-	-	-
	179.4	189.7	10.3	1.49	183.8	187.1	3.3	4.27
HU-043					184.2	184.7	0.5	10.59
	240.9	243.6	2.7	0.17	-	-	-	-
	260.8	262.4	1.6	0.09	-	-	-	-
	297.9	298.4	0.5	0.19	-	-	-	-

					Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower Grades Intersections
Borehole ID	From*	To*	Length*	%U₃O₈	From	To	Length	%U₃O₈

	158.3	159.0	0.7	0.43	-	-	-	-
HU-044	178.3	179.4	1.1	0.11	-	-	-	-
	207.0	235.9	28.9	0.21	220.1	226.0	5.9	0.67
	253.5	268.7	15.2	0.09	-	-	-	-
	163.0	164.3	1.3	0.3	-	-	-	-
HU-045					172.0	172.8	0.8	1.94
	172.0	191.0	19.0	0.58	175.4	179.7	4.3	0.9
					190.0	191.0	1.0	2.72
	117.9	119.0	1.1	0.14	-	-	-	-
	151.4	153.4	2.0	0.07	-	-	-	-
	207.7	208.6	0.9	0.2	-	-	-	-
HU-046	234.1	234.4	0.3	0.21	-	-	-	-
	237.9	239.3	1.4	0.1	-	-	-	-
	242.1	243.5	1.4	0.07	-	-	-	-
	254.3	267.4	13.1	0.14	-	-	-	-
	272.2	273.1	0.9	0.12	-	-	-	-
HU-047	247.0	249.0	2.0	0.14	-	-	-	-
	279.0	294.0	15.0	0.23	-	-	-	-
	110.6	111.8	1.2	0.12	-	-	-	-
	127.5	129.3	1.8	0.09	-	-	-	-
HU-048	135.2	139.7	4.5	0.06	-	-	-	-
	154.5	157.6	3.1	0.07	-	-	-	-
	253.9	256.5	2.6	0.39	-	-	-	-
HU-049	180.9	197.3	16.4	0.21	-	-	-	-
HU-050	274.7	276.4	1.7	0.06	-	-	-	-
	297.7	322.3	24.6	0.38	306.6	321.1	14.5	0.56
HU-051	175.0	198.0	23.0	0.31	197.0	197.5	0.5	5.66
HU-052	228.9	253.3	24.4	0.11	-	-	-	-
	258.5	259.5	1.0	0.15	-	-	-	-
HU-053	131.2	132.5	1.3	0.09	-	-	-	-
	152.7	154.0	1.3	0.15	-	-	-	-
	249.0	254.7	5.8	0.3	-	-	-	-
HU-054	265.9	267.4	1.5	0.09	-	-	-	-
	273.3	287.0	13.7	0.17	-	-	-	-
	300.3	308.8	8.5	0.18	-	-	-	-
	137.5	139.5	2.0	0.06	-	-	-	-
HU-056	161.8	170.3	8.5	0.09	-	-	-	-
	221.8	228.3	6.5	0.4	-	-	-	-
HU-057	135.0	140.0	5.0	0.07	-	-	-	-
	163.0	165.0	2.0	0.09	-	-	-	-
	254.9	260.1	5.2	0.13	-	-	-	-
HU-058	264.0	264.7	0.7	0.09	-	-	-	-
	267.6	269.2	1.6	0.18	-	-	-	-
	307.0	322.4	15.4	0.1	-	-	-	-
HU-060	119.3	120.1	0.8	0.12	-	-	-	-
HU-061	156.9	183.5	26.6	0.5	162.5	173.9	11.4	0.99
	250.8	252.6	1.8	0.45	-	-	-	-
	269.1	284.0	14.9	0.14	-	-	-	-
HU-062	299.2	304.1	4.9	0.07	-	-	-	-
	323.7	330.2	6.5	0.06	-	-	-	-
	338.2	340.7	2.5	0.13	-	-	-	-
HU-063	322.4	383.3	60.9	0.18	-	-	-	-

					Higher Grade Intervals Within Lower Grades Intersections
Borehole ID	From*	To*	Length*	%U₃O₈	From	To	Length	%U₃O₈
	281.0	292.0	11.0	0.2	-	-	-	-
	312.4	314.0	1.6	0.11	-	-	-	-
HU-065	331.3	331.9	0.6	0.34	-	-	-	-
	402.6	420.3	17.7	0.61	407.1	420.3	13.2	0.8
					408.4	413.6	5.2	1.58
HU-066	151.0	171.0	20.0	0.12	-	-	-	-
	264.5	275.0	10.5	0.06	-	-	-	-
HU-067	300.0	301.0	1.0	0.1	-	-	-	-
	325.0	328.0	3.0	0.07	-	-	-	-
	363.0	369.5	6.5	0.11	-	-	-	-
HU-068	181.2	184.3	3.1	0.08	-	-	-	-
	239.0	240.6	1.6	0.35	-	-	-	-
HU-069	421.0	421.3	0.3	0.19	-	-	-	-
	111.2	111.6	0.4	0.23	-	-	-	-
	116.1	117.3	1.2	0.08	-	-	-	-
HU-070	120.4	123.8	3.4	0.05	-	-	-	-
	131.0	133.0	2.0	0.05	-	-	-	-
	217.3	223.6	6.3	0.08	-	-	-	-
HU-071	245.6	246.5	0.9	0.3	-	-	-	-
	278.3	280.5	2.2	0.23	-	-	-	-
	285.0	288.0	3.0	0.06	-	-	-	-
HU-072	326.5	328.0	1.5	0.17	-	-	-	-
	333.1	344.0	10.9	0.43	-	-	-	-
	401.0	410.4	9.4	0.09	-	-	-	-
HU-075	257.5	259.0	1.5	0.47	-	-	-	-
HU-080	153.3	154.0	0.7	0.16	-	-	-	-
	265.1	267.0	1.9	0.51	-	-	-	-
	279.8	280.2	0.4	0.33	-	-	-	-
HU-081	315.0	324.8	9.8	0.5	-	-	-	-
	334.0	343.0	9.0	0.14	-	-	-	-
	401.0	407.0	6.0	0.17	-	-	-	-
	411.0	412.0	1.0	0.06	-	-	-	-
	163.0	164.0	1.0	0.32	-	-	-	-
HU-083	170.5	173.2	2.7	0.2	-	-	-	-
	177.4	177.7	0.3	0.25	-	-	-	-
	182.5	186.6	4.1	0.8	183.0	183.4	0.4	4.37
HU-084	178.8	193.3	14.5	0.15	-	-	-	-
	197.0	198.0	1.0	0.06	-	-	-	-
	264.0	266.0	2.0	0.08	-	-	-	-
HU-085	288.0	326.5	38.5	0.21	304.9	314.5	9.6	0.35
	333.5	335.0	1.5	0.09	-	-	-	-
HU-087	279.0	280.0	1.0	0.6	-	-	-	-
	207.3	207.8	0.5	0.09	-	-	-	-
	209.3	210.0	0.7	0.07	-	-	-	-
	220.6	232.6	12.0	0.13	-	-	-	-
HU-088	264.4	269.8	5.4	0.26	-	-	-	-
	286.3	289.1	2.8	0.07	-	-	-	-
	291.4	294.7	3.3	0.08	-	-	-	-
	297.1	335.3	38.2	0.22	323.5	330.8