EX-96.6 15 ex_495574.htm EXHIBIT 96.6 ex_495574.htm

Exhibit 96.6

 uec966_page001.jpg

 

 

CONTENTS


 

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-1

1.1

Property Description

1-1

1.2

Ownership

1-2

1.3

Geology and Mineralization

1-2

1.4

Exploration Status

1-2

1.5

Development and Operations

1-3

1.6

Mineral Resource Estimates

1-3

1.7

Permitting Requirements

1-3

1.8

QP Conclusion and Recommendations

1-3

2.0

INTRODUCTION

2-1

2.1

Registrant/Issuer of Report

2-1

2.2

Terms of Reference

2-1

2.3

Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations

2-1

2.4

Personal Inspection

2-1

2.4.1

QP Qualifications

2-1

2.5

Previous Technical Report Summaries

2-2

3.0

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3-1

3.1

Location, Description, Leases and Mineral Rights

3-1

3.1.1

Allemand-Ross

3-7

3.1.2

Barge

3-8

3.1.3

Charlie

3-8

3.1.4

Christensen Ranch

3-8

3.1.5

Clarkson Hill

3-9

3.1.6

Irigaray

3-10

3.1.7

Jab/West Jab

3-10

3.1.8

Ludeman

3-10

3.1.9

Moore Ranch

3-10

3.1.10

Nine Mile

3-10

3.1.11

Red Rim

3-11

3.1.12

Reno Creek

3-11

3.2

Encumbrances

3-12

3.3

Property Risk Factors

3-13

3.4

Royalties (Confidential)

3-15

4.0

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4-1

4.1

Physical Setting

4-1

4.1.1

Powder River Basin

4-1

4.1.2

Greater Green River Basin

4-1

4.1.3

Wind River Basin

4-2

4.2

Accessibility and Local Resources

4-3

4.3

Availability of Infrastructure

4-4

5.0

HISTORY

5-1

6.0

GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT

6-1

6.1

Regional Geology

6-1

6.1.1

Powder River Basin

6-1

6.1.2

Greater Green River Basin

6-8

 

i
March 2023

 

6.1.3

Wind River Basin

6-9

6.2

Local Geology

6-18

6.2.1

Powder River Basin

6-18

6.2.2

Greater Green River Basin

6-20

6.2.3

Wind River Basin

6-21

6.3

Mineralization and Deposit Type

6-21

7.0

EXPLORATION

7-1

7.1

Drilling Programs

7-1

7.2

Hydrogeologic Information

7-8

7.3

Geotechnical Information

7-11

7.4

Exploration Target

7-11

7.4.1

Charlie Project Area

7-11

7.4.2

Jab/West Jab

7-12

8.0

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

8-1

8.1

Typical and Standard Industry Methods

8-1

8.2

QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

8-3

9.0

DATA VERIFICATION

9-1

9.1

Summary

9-1

9.2

Limitations

9-4

9.3

QP Opinion on Data Adequacy

9-5

10.0

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

10-1

10.1

Summary of Properties

10-1

10.2

QP Opinion on Data Adequacy

10-3

11.0

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

11-1

11.1

Mineral Resource Assumptions and Parameters Applied to Each Project Area

11-1

11.1.1

Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction

11-1

11.1.2

Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates

11-3

11.2

Site-by-Site Summaries

11-4

11.3

Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

11-8

11.4

QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate

11-9

12.0

MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

12-1

13.0

MINING METHODS

13-1

14.0

PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS

14-1

15.0

INFRASTRUCTURE

15-1

16.0

MARKET STUDIES

16-1

17.0

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

17-1

18.0

CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

18-1

19.0

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

19-1

20.0

ADJACENT PROPERTIES

20-1

21.0

OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

21-1

22.0

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

22-1

 

ii
March 2023

 

22.1

Conclusions

22-1

22.2

Risks and Opportunities

22-1

23.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

23-1

24.0

REFERENCES

24-1

25.0

RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

25-1

26.0

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

26-1

 

TABLES


 

Table 1-1:

Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project Areas

1-1

Table 3-1:

Property Description Summary

3-5

Table 3-2:

Project Area Permitting Status

3-12

Table 5-1:

Past Operations Summary

5-2

Table 7-1:

Project Area Drilling Programs Summary

7-2

Table 7-2:

Extent of Project Area Hydrogeologic Investigations

7-9

Table 7-3:

Project Exploration Target

7-12

Table 10-1:

Project Area Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Summary

10-1

Table 11‑1:

Methods, Parameters and Cutoffs by Project Area

11-2

Table 11-2:

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

11-3

Table 11-3:

Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area

11-4

Table 11‑4:

Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

11-5

Table 11‑5:

Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

11-7

Table 20-1:

Significant Uranium Projects in the Powder River, Wind River and Greater Green River Basins

20-1

 

FIGURES


 

Figure 3‑1.

General Location Map

3-2

Figure 3‑2:

Powder River Basin and Wind River Basin Projects Location Map

3-3

Figure 3‑3:

Greater Green River Basin Projects Location Map

3-4

Figure 6‑1:

Upper PRB Stratigraphic Column

6-3

Figure 6-2:

Nine Mile Project Area Stratigraphic Column and Cross Section A-A’

6-4

Figure 6‑3:

PRB Projects Cross-Section Location Map

6-5

Figure 6‑3a:

PRB Projects Cross-Sections B-B’ and C-C’

6-6

Figure 6‑3b:

PRB Projects Cross-Sections C-C’ and D-D’

6-7

Figure 6‑4:

GGRB Stratigraphy and Sedimentary Relationships

6-10

Figure 6‑5:

Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

6-11

Figure 6‑5a:

Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section

6-12

Figure 6‑6:

Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

6-13

Figure 6‑6a:

Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section

6-14

Figure 6‑7:

Wind River Basin Stratigraphic Column

6-15

Figure 6‑8:

Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

6-16

Figure 6‑8a:

Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section

6-17

 

iii
March 2023

 

Figure 7-1:

Drill Hole Map for the Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Project Areas

7-3

Figure 7‑2:

Drill Hole Map for the Allemand-Ross, Barge and Ludeman Project Areas

7-4

Figure 7‑3:

Drill Hole Map for the Clarkson Hill and Nine Mile Project Areas

7-5

Figure 7‑4:

Drill Hole Map for the Jab/West Jab Project Area

7-6

Figure 7-5:

Drill Hole Map for the Red Rim Project Area

7-7

 

 

 

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

 

iv
March 2023

 

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This independent Technical Report Summary (TRS) for the Wyoming In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Hub and Spoke Project (the Project) has been prepared for Uranium Energy Corporation (UEC) under the supervision of Western Water Consultants, Inc., d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC), pursuant to Regulation S-K Subpart 1300, “Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants” (S‑K 1300). This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached concerning the Initial Assessment (IA) to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Project. The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Project.

 

1.1

Property Description

 

The Project consists of 12 project areas as shown in Table 1-1.

 

Table 1-1:         Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project Areas

Project Area

County

Structural Basin

Site Visit Date

Allemand-Ross

Converse

Powder River

3/27/2019

Barge

Converse

Powder River

Inaccessible

Charlie

Johnson

Powder River

6/28/2022

Christensen Ranch

Johnson/Campbell

Powder River

2/16/2022

Clarkson Hill

Natrona

Wind River

7/15/2022

Irigaray

Johnson

Powder River

2/16/2022

Jab/West Jab

Sweetwater/Fremont

Greater Green River

1/28/2022

Ludeman

Converse

Powder River

10/18/2018

Moore Ranch

Campbell

Powder River

12/27/2021

Nine Mile

Natrona

Powder River

5/23/2022

Red Rim

Carbon

Greater Green River

6/29/2022

Reno Creek

Campbell

Powder River

12/27/2021

 

Mineral rights for the Project are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. Chapter 3 summarizes the different mineral leases and claims for each project area, and the annual maintenance cost.

 

1-1
Match 2023

 

1.2

Ownership

 

This Project is owned and operated by UEC. UEC has executed fee mineral leases with landowners who hold mineral ownership within and outside the various project boundaries. UEC also holds unpatented Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the various project areas.

 

1.3

Geology and Mineralization

 

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas reside in the Powder River Basin (PRB). The PRB is a structural basin that extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline. The basin is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains on the west and Casper Arch to the southwest, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south. The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.

 

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Greater Green River Basin (GGRB). The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline. The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south. The GGRB contains up to 25,000 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.

 

The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (WRB). The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south. The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.

 

Uranium mineralization at the Project is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flow.

 

1.4

Exploration Status

 

To date, UEC holds data from approximately 51,780 drill holes and core holes that have been drilled by previous uranium exploration companies on and nearby the 12 project areas held by UEC. Data from the drilling, including survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts, have been incorporated into UEC’s database.

 

1-2
March 2023

 

1.5

Development and Operations

 

Summary capital and operating cost estimates are not included with this TRS, because UEC is reporting the results of an IA without economic analysis. No construction has taken place on the Project during UEC’s ownership.

 

1.6

Mineral Resource Estimates

 

Cautionary Statement:

 

This TRS is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves, which may result in economic and technical failure and may adversely impact future profitability.

 

The in-place resources were estimated separately for each area in the Project. The Project contains a measured resource of 23.90 million lbs and an indicated resource of 42.30 million lbs of U3O8 in-place. The Project contains 15.05 million lbs of inferred mineral resources in-place.

 

1.7

Permitting Requirements

 

The Irigaray Central Processing Plant (CPP) is fully permitted. The Christensen Ranch, Ludeman and Moore Ranch project areas are fully permitted for ISR operations through both the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) and BLM as appropriate. Portions of the Irigaray and Reno Creek project areas are also permitted for ISR operations.

 

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Clarkson Hill, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas are not permitted. Portions of the Reno Creek project area and the majority of the Irigaray project area are also not permitted for ISR operations.

 

1.8

QP Conclusion and Recommendations

 

Key conclusions and recommendations from WWC, a third-party firm, which employs professionals meeting the definition of “qualified person” (QP) set out in S-K 1300, are as follows:

 

 

The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources at the Project to indicate favorable conditions for future extraction.

 

 

UEC should develop a Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Project; obtain required regulatory authorizations required to mine at the Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas and the Allemand-Ross, Barge, Clarkson Hill, Charlie, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas; and continue to maintain mining claims and mineral leases along with surface use agreements to accommodate future oil and gas drilling and Project development.

 

 

UEC should advance the baseline studies necessary to obtain regulatory authorizations required to mine at the Allemand-Ross, Barge, Clarkson Hill, Charlie, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile, Red Rim and portions of the Reno Creek project areas as the resources become necessary to provide material to the Irigaray CPP.

 

 

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

 

1-3
March 2023

 

2.0

INTRODUCTION

 

2.1

Registrant/Issuer of Report

 

This TRS was prepared for UEC to report the results of an IA and describe the Project. The Project includes the 12 project areas shown in Table 1-1.

 

The Irigaray CPP, located at the Irigaray project area, will serve as the “hub” of the Project, with the other project areas serving as satellite ISR mining facilities, or the “spokes.” For the purposes of this TRS, the satellite facilities are considered material to the Irigaray CPP.

 

UEC is incorporated in the State of Nevada, with principal offices located at 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401, and at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2Y3.

 

2.2

Terms of Reference

 

The Project includes the 12 project areas shown in Table 1-1. The Project is owned and operated by UEC. This TRS has been prepared for UEC to report mineral resources for the Project.

 

2.3

Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations

 

The information and data presented in this TRS were gathered from various sources listed in Chapters 24 and 25 of this TRS.

 

Data sources for the estimation of uranium mineral resources for the Project include 51,780 drill holes and core holes, including survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts.

 

Units of measurement unless otherwise indicated are feet (ft), miles, acres, pounds (lbs), short tons (2,000 lbs), grams (g), milligrams (mg), liters (L), parts per million (ppm) and gallons per minute (gpm). Uranium production is expressed as pounds U3O8, the standard market unit. ISR refers to in-situ recovery, sometimes also termed in-situ leach (ISL). Unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($) refer to United States currency.

 

2.4

Personal Inspection

 

WWC professionals most recently visited the project areas on the dates shown in Table 1-1. Additionally, a professional employed by WWC worked at the facilities for over four years in the late 1990s when Christensen Ranch was operated by COGEMA Resources, Inc. (COGEMA). WWC professionals were unable to inspect the Barge project area due to surface access limitations.

 

2.4.1

QP Qualifications

 

Completion of this TRS was under the direction and supervision of WWC. WWC is a third-party QP as defined by Regulation S-K 1300. Additionally, WWC has approved the technical disclosure contained in this TRS.

 

2-1
March 2023

 

2.5

Previous Technical Report Summaries

 

UEC previously filed a TRS for the Reno Creek Project titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project, Campbell County, WY USA,” which was current on December 31, 2021.

 

On March 31, 2022, UEC filed a TRS for the Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA,” which was current on December 31, 2021. This report represents an update to the March 31, 2022 TRS, adding the Charlie, Clarkson Hill, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas to the Project.

 

 

 

 

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

 

2-2
March 2023

 

3.0

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

 

3.1

Location, Description, Leases and Mineral Rights

 

The Project is located in Wyoming, USA, and includes the 12 project areas shown in Table 1-1. The Irigaray CPP will serve as the “hub” of the Project, with the other project areas serving as satellite ISR mining facilities, or the “spokes.” The project area locations are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3. Each project area is described in detail in Chapters 3.1.1 through 3.1.12.

 

Mineral rights for the Project are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases. Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. State surface and mineral leases can be extended in perpetuity, provided that annual payments and/or production royalty payments are current. If the terms of the lease are not fulfilled and/or the lease is not renewed, the State of Wyoming may revoke or terminate the lease. Table 3-1 summarizes the different mineral leases or claims for each project area, expiration dates, if applicable, and the annual maintenance costs.

 

State mineral leases have a 5% gross royalty attached. No royalties are due to the federal government from mining on lode claims. The claims will remain under UEC’s ownership and control, provided that UEC adheres to required BLM annual filing and payment requirements. Legal surveys of unpatented claims are not required and to the QP’s knowledge have not been completed. Fee minerals have varying royalty rates and calculations, depending on the agreements negotiated with individual mineral owners. In addition, surface use and access agreements may include a production royalty, depending on agreements negotiated with individual surface owners at various levels. UEC’s average combined mineral plus surface production royalty applicable to the Project is variable, based upon the selling price of U3O8.

 

Surface ownership at the Project consists of predominantly agricultural fee lands, lands owned by the State of Wyoming and federally owned lands administered by the BLM. As part of the Wyoming mine permitting process, the company must have obtained surface access to conduct baseline data acquisition and must demonstrate surface owner consent to the mine and reclamation plans. On the project areas that are currently permitted, UEC has surface use agreements in place with the private landowners and, as necessary, the state and federal authorities have approved of the mine and reclamation plans. UEC has or will obtain surface use agreements with landowners and, as necessary, will obtain state and federal approval of the mine and reclamation plans before a mine permit is issued. Obtaining surface access rights is a standard process in mine permitting, and the QP does not anticipate that obtaining these rights presents a significant risk to UEC’s ability to perform work on the Project as a whole. Chapters 3.2 and 3.3 discuss specific project areas in detail.

 

The QP has not verified the claims within the various project areas or how the claims are mapped or plotted. The QP has relied on information provided by UEC with regard to royalty rates and has not independently verified royalty agreements, rates or surface use and access agreements.

 

3-1
March 2023

 

Figure 31:         General Location Map

ex_495574img009.jpg

 

3-2
March 2023

 

Figure 32:         Powder River Basin and Wind River Basin Projects Location Map

ex_495574img010.jpg

 

 

 

3-3
March 2023

 

Figure 33:         Greater Green River Basin Projects Location Map

ex_495574img011.jpg

 

 

 

3-4
March 2023

 

Table 3-1:         Property Description Summary

Project Area

State of

Wyoming

Leases

Expiration

Date

Fee Mineral

Leases

Expiration
Date

Federal

Lode

Mining

Claims

Expiration

Date

Total

Allemand-Ross

Acreage

318

Annual

2,773.9

March 2025 through Jan. 2029 (Variable)

8,518.2

Annual

11,610.1

Leases/Claims

2

7

452

461

Total Annual Cost

$683

Confidential

$74,580

$75,263

Barge

Acreage

640

Annual

0

N/A

6,374.2

Annual

7,014.2

Leases/Claims

1

0

342

343

Total Annual Cost

$1,920

$0

$56,430

$58,350

Charlie

Acreage

720

6/1/2026

0

N/A

0

N/A

720

Leases/Claims

1

0

0

1

Total Annual Cost

$2,880

$0

$0

$2,880

Christensen Ranch

Acreage

1,280

Annual

720

Annual

5,140

Annual

7,140

Leases/Claims

1

1

257

259

Total Annual Cost

$5,120

Confidential

$42,405

$47,525

Clarkson Hill

Acreage

0

N/A

0

N/A

500

Annual

500

Leases/Claims

0

0

25

25

Total Annual Cost

$0

$0

$4,125

$4,125

Irigaray

Acreage

480

Annual

0

N/A

1,640

Annual

2,120

Leases/Claims

2

0

82

84

Total Annual Cost

$1,600

$0

$13,530

$15,130

Jab/West Jab

Acreage

960

Annual

0

N/A

4,483.4

Annual

5,443.4

Leases/Claims

3

0

217

220

Total Annual Cost

$2,880

$0

$35,805

$38,685

Ludeman

Acreage

1,440

Annual

1,741.9

Sept. 2026 and
Jan. 2029

17,586.1

Annual

20,768

Leases/Claims

4

Annual

2

746

Annual

752

Total Annual Cost

$4,320

Confidential

$123,090

$127,410

 

3-5
March 2023

 

Table 3-1:         Property Description Summary (Continued)

Project Area

State of

Wyoming

Leases

Expiration

Date

Fee Mineral

Leases

Expiration
Date

Federal

Lode

Mining

Claims

Expiration

Date

Total

Moore Ranch

Acreage

1,200

Annual

1,740

Aug. 2025 through Feb. 2029 (Variable)

1,754.1

Annual

4,694.1

Leases/Claims

2

5

86

93

Total Annual Cost

$3,600

Confidential

$14,190

$17,790

Nine Mile

Acreage

1,280

2024 & 2025

1,258.6

Oct. 2025 and Aug. 2026

3,800

Annual

6,339

Leases/Claims

2

2

190

194

Total Annual Cost

$2,560

Confidential

$31,350

$33,910

Red Rim

Acreage

0

N/A

0

N/A

1,000

Annual

1,000

Leases/Claims

0

0

49

49

Total Annual Cost

$0

$0

$8,085

$8,085

Reno Creek

Acreage

3,200

Annual

4,583

Annual

10,980

Annual

18,763

Leases/Claims

4

36

549

589

Total Annual Cost

$9,600

Confidential

$90,585

$100,185

Project Totals

State of

Wyoming

Leases

 

Fee Mineral

Leases

 

Federal

Lode

Mining

Claims

 

Total

Acreage

11,518

 

12,817

 

61,776

 

86,111

Leases/Claims

22

53

2,995

3,070

Annual Cost

35,163

Confidential

494,175

529,338

 

 

 

 

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

 

3-6
March 2023

 

3.1.1

Allemand-Ross

 

The Allemand-Ross project area was previously divided into north and south areas, with North Allemand-Ross historically called the Sand Draw Property and South Allemand-Ross called the North Bear Creek Property. This designation is not utilized by UEC as both areas are now within UEC’s Allemand-Ross project area.

 

The Allemand-Ross project area is in the PRB in Converse County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.3101 and longitude -105.7787 in decimal degrees. The Allemand-Ross project area covers all or portions of 21 sections in four townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T39N R75W – All of Section 24 and portions of Sections 12, 13 and 25

     
 

T39N R74W – All of Sections 7, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31 and 32 and portions of Sections 17, 20 and 33

     
 

T38N R75W – Portions of Section 12

     
 

T38N R74W – All of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 and portions of Sections 6 and 7

 

The Allemand-Ross project area is located approximately 40 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) or state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (318 acres), 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (8,518.2 acres) and seven fee (private) mineral leases (2,773.9 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 11,610.1 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.2

Barge

 

The Barge project area is in the PRB in Converse County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.2729 and longitude -105.5905 in decimal degrees. The Barge project area covers all or portions of 18 sections in three townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T38N R72W – All of Sections 16, 17 and 18 and portions of Sections 7 and 19

     
 

T38N R73W – All of Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and portions of Sections 22, 23 and 24

     
 

T39N R73W – All of Sections 35 and 36

 

The Barge project area is located approximately 50 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) or state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Barge project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (640 acres) and 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (6,374.2 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 7,014.2 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the lease and all claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3-7
March 2023

 

3.1.3

Charlie

 

The Charlie project area is in the PRB in Johnson County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.8274 and longitude -106.0594 in decimal degrees. It is surrounded by the Christensen Ranch project area. The Charlie project area covers all or portions of two sections in one township with legal description as follows:

 

 

T45N R77W – All of Section 36 and portions of Section 25

 

The Charlie project area is located approximately 70 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is on private surface land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Charlie project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (720 acres). Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for the lease are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.4

Christensen Ranch

 

The Christensen Ranch project area is in the PRB in Johnson and Campbell counties (Figure 3‑2) at latitude 43.7982 and longitude -106.0235 in decimal degrees. The Christensen Ranch project area is adjacent to the Irigaray project area and surrounds the Charlie project area. The Christensen Ranch project area covers all or portions of 30 sections in 4 townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T45N R77W – Portions of Sections 24, 25, 24, 35 and 36

     
 

T45N R76W – All of Sections 30 and 31 and portions of Sections 19, 32 and 33

     
 

T44N R77W – All of Sections 1, 2 and 3 and portions of Sections 10, 11 and 12

     
 

T44N R76W – All of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and portions of Sections 3 and 10

 

The Christensen Ranch project area is approximately 70 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Christensen Ranch project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (1,280 acres), 257 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (5,140 acres) and one fee (private) mineral lease (720 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 7,140 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.5

Clarkson Hill

 

The Clarkson Hill project area is in the WRB in Natrona County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 42.6593 and longitude -106.7006 in decimal degrees. The Clarkson Hill project area covers portions of three sections in one township with legal description as follows:

 

 

T31N R82W – Portions of Sections 7, 17 and 18

 

The Clarkson Hill project area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, and is on private surface land and federal (BLM) managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Clarkson Hill project area include 25 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (500 acres). Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3-8
March 2023

 

3.1.6

Irigaray

 

The Irigaray project area is in the PRB in Johnson County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.8683 and longitude ‑106.1186 in decimal degrees. The Irigaray CPP, located at the Irigaray project area, will serve as the Project hub. The Irigaray project area covers portions of 12 sections in two townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T46N R77W – Portions of Section 29 and 32

 

 

T45N R77W – Portions of Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 21, 27, 28, 33 and 34

 

The Irigaray project area is located approximately 70 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land and federal (BLM) managed land, with a portion located on one section of state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Irigaray project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (480 acres) and 82 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,640 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 2,120 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.7

Jab/West Jab

 

The Jab/West Jab project area is in the GGRB in Sweetwater and Fremont counties (Figure 3‑3). The Jab/West Jab project area consists of two separate areas separated by less than two miles. Jab is located entirely in Sweetwater County at latitude 42.2209 and longitude -108.0439 in decimal degrees and covers all or portions of 11 sections in one township as follows:

 

 

T26N R94W – All of Sections 16 and 21 and portions of Sections 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20 and 22

 

West Jab is located in both Sweetwater and Fremont counties at latitude 42.2611 and longitude -108.1225 in decimal degrees and covers all or portions of 11 sections in four townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T27N R95W – All of Section 36 and portions of Sections 25, 26 and 35

 

 

T27N R94W – Portions of Sections 30 and 31

 

 

T26N R95W – Portions of Sections 1, 2, 11 and 12

 

 

T26N R94W – Portions of Section 6

 

The Jab/West Jab project area is located approximately 55 air miles northwest of Rawlins, Wyoming, and is on federal (BLM) and state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Jab/West Jab project area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (960 acres) and 217 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (4,483.4 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 5,443.4 acres. Annual holding costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3-9
March 2023

 

3.1.8

Ludeman

 

The Ludeman project area is in the PRB in Converse County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 42.9119 and longitude ‑105.6277 in decimal degrees. The Ludeman project area covers all or portions of 39 sections in four townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T34N R74W – All of Sections 12, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and portions of Section 22

 

 

T34N R73W – All of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 35 and portions of Sections 2, 6, 11, 24, 25, 28 and 36

 

 

T34N R72W – Portions of Sections 19 and 30

 

 

T33N R73W – Portions of Sections 1, 2 and 3

 

The Ludeman project area is located approximately 30 air miles east of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of federal (BLM) or state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Ludeman project area include four State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,440 acres), 746 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (17,586.1 acres) and two fee (private) mineral leases (1,741.9 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 20,768 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.9

Moore Ranch

 

The Moore Ranch project area is in the PRB in Campbell County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.5652 and longitude ‑105.8480 in decimal degrees. The Moore Ranch project area covers all or portions of 16 sections in three townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T42N R75W – All of Sections 26, 27, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and portions of Sections 25 and 28

 

 

T42N R74W – Portions of Sections 30 and 31

 

 

T41N R75W – All of Sections 2, 3 and 4 and portions of Sections 1, 9 and 10

 

The Moore Ranch project area is located approximately 55 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and is primarily on private surface land with some areas of state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings within the Moore Ranch project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,200 acres), 86 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,754.1 acres) and five fee (private) mineral leases (1,740 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 4,694.1 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.10

Nine Mile

 

The Nine Mile project area is in the PRB in Natrona County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 42.9807 and longitude ‑106.3278 in decimal degrees. The Nine Mile project area covers all or portions of 22 sections in three townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T36N R80W – All of Section 36

 

 

T35N R79W – Portions of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33 and 34

 

 

T34N R79W – All of Section 3 and portions of Sections 4 and 10

 

3-10
March 2023

 

The Nine Mile project area is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is on private surface land and state managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Nine Mile project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,280 acres), 190 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (3,800 acres) and two fee (private) mineral leases (1,258.6 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 6,339 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.11

Red Rim

 

The Red Rim project area is in the GGRB in Carbon County (Figure 3-3) at latitude 41.6502 and longitude ‑107.5755 in decimal degrees. The Red Rim project area covers all or portions of four sections in two townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T19N R90W – Portions of Sections 6, 8 and 18

 

 

T19N R91W - Portions of Section 12

 

The Red Rim project area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of Rawlins, Wyoming, and is on federal (BLM) managed land.

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim project area include 49 unpatented federal mining lode claims (1,000 acres). Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.1.12

Reno Creek

 

The Reno Creek project area includes the Bing, Moore, North Reno Creek, Pine Tree and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas. The North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas are contiguous, consolidated and fully permitted for mining by ISR methods. The Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas are within about five miles of the permitted areas and have not been permitted.

 

The Reno Creek project area is in the PRB in Campbell County (Figure 3-2) at latitude 43.6796 and longitude -105.7226 in decimal degrees. The Reno Creek project area covers all or portions of 45 sections in six townships with legal descriptions as follows:

 

 

T44N R75W – All of Section 36

 

 

T44N R74W – Portions of Sections 26, 34 and 35

 

 

T43N R74W – All of Sections 3, 9, 16, 17 and 36 and portions of Sections 2, 4, 7, 10, 18, 20, 26, 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35

 

 

T43N R73W – All of Sections 27, 28, 31 and 34 and portions of Sections 21, 22, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 35

 

 

T42N R74W – All of Sections 1, 12 and 16 and portions of Sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 17 and 20

 

 

T42N R73W – All of Sections 6 and 16 and portions of Sections 7 and 10

 

The Reno Creek project area is located approximately 10 air miles southwest of the town of Wright and is primarily on private surface land and state managed land. UEC owns approximately 40 acres of surface land in the Reno Creek project area for a future satellite facility.

 

3-11
March 2023

 

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Reno Creek project area include four State of Wyoming uranium leases (3,200 acres), 549 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (10,980 acres) and 36 fee (private) mineral leases (4,583 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 18,763 acres. Annual costs are shown in Table 3-1. UEC has indicated to the QP that payments for all leases and claims are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.

 

3.2

Encumbrances

 

To the QP’s knowledge, there are no unusual encumbrances to the project areas. However, there are general regulatory and permitting requirements, depending on the specific project area. The permitting status of each project area is shown in Table 3-2.

 

Table 3-2:         Project Area Permitting Status

Project Area

Permitted

Not Permitted

Notes

Allemand-Ross

 

 

Barge

 

 

Charlie

 

May be able to be incorporated into Christensen Ranch with a permit modification. Active surface mining permit (acquired by Cotter Corporation (Cotter) in 1979). Cotter sought conversion to ISR in 2014, but the process has not been completed.

Christensen Ranch

   

Clarkson Hill

 

 

Irigaray

Irigaray CPP

Permitting for the majority of the ISR areas is still required.

Jab/West Jab

 

Permit application submitted in 2008 but withdrawn.

Ludeman

   

Moore Ranch

   

Nine Mile

 

Near existing residential development. Land surface includes residential subdivision and is a risk factor for project permitting.

Red Rim

 

 

Reno Creek

North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas

Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas

 

 

3-12
March 2023

 

The environmental liability for the Project falls under jurisdiction of the WDEQ/LQD, which regulates the Permit to Mine and the Source and Byproduct Materials License. Portions of the Project that are located on federal surfaces would require an approved Plan of Operations from the BLM; this would include wildlife considerations such as greater sage-grouse, which could limit development of resources in some areas.

 

Other potential permitting requirements, depending on the status of each project area, may include:

 

 

Source and Byproduct Materials License (WDEQ/Uranium Recovery Program [under LQD]);

 

 

Wetland delineation and mitigation as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in applicable locations;

 

 

Aquifer exemption (40 CFR 144, 146) for Class III Underground Injection Control (UIC) to be issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

 

 

Air quality permits from WDEQ/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) for applicable facility construction activities;

 

 

Groundwater reclassification, if necessary, would be approved by WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WDEQ/WQD) (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11) as part of the aquifer exemption process;

 

 

EPA Subpart W pond construction permits would be required to construct holding ponds;

 

 

If water management will utilize deep disposal, a Class I UIC Permit (deep disposal well) must be approved by WDEQ/WQD (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

 

 

A Class III UIC Permit to Mine and Class III UIC Permit would be approved by WDEQ/WQD as the primary Permit to Mine to allow injection, recovery and processing of fluids (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

 

 

Class V UIC permits may be required for any site septic systems (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

 

 

Construction stormwater NPDES permits must be obtained annually for projected construction activities (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11);

 

 

Industrial stormwater NPDES permits would be required in CPP and satellite areas (Wyoming Statutes Title 35-11); and

 

 

Groundwater appropriations would be obtained from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office prior to the installation of water supply wells and ISR wellfields.

 

 

3.3

Property Risk Factors

 

A variety of property risk factors exist but are not unique to the specific project areas. Many uranium deposits occur in relatively compact special areas. Large horizontal well pads or wind turbine pads sited on top of mineralization could limit the ability to access resources. Oil and gas development or wind turbines are common in Wyoming. Examples of property risk factors are included in the following list, with descriptions of each risk:

 

 

Commercial oilfield waste disposal facilities (COWDFs) and/or lined ponds

 

 

o

COWDFs or other lined ponds may limit surface access and could impact optimal placement of wellfields. It is the opinion of the QP that COWDFs and other lined ponds present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

 

3-13
March 2023

 

 

Commercial wind power

 

 

o

Commercial wind power could limit surface accessibility and impact optimal placement of wellfields. There are project areas where the average annual wind speed at 80 meters is suitable for commercial wind development. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low to moderate risk that commercial wind power could limit development of resources.

 

 

Industrial wells impacting aquifers

 

 

o

Industrial wells could impact available water in target aquifers but will not impact the resources. It is the opinion of the QP that industrial wells present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

 

 

Oil and gas horizontal pads and development

 

 

o

Aquifer dewatering due to shallow water supply wells to produce water used in oil and gas operations could impact target aquifers. Large horizontal wellpads could limit surface accessibility and placement of wellfields. A site-specific discussion is provided below:

 

 

AllemandRoss – This project area is spaced for horizontal development with some historical production. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Barge – This project area is spaced for horizontal development with some active drilling and minor horizontal production. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access. The QP was unable to complete a site visit due to surface access limitations. Since the QP was unable to observe the project area and confirm unobstructed access to mineral trends, additional risk to resource access could be present due to oil and gas development.

 

 

Charlie – The project area is not spaced for horizontal development, although minor historical conventional production from the Shannon and Parkman formations has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low to moderate risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Christensen Ranch – The project area is not spaced for horizontal development, although minor historical conventional production from the Shannon Formation has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low to moderate risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Clarkson Hill – This project area is not spaced for horizontal development and no historical production or exploration has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Irigaray – A portion of the project area is spaced for horizontal development and some historical development has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low to moderate risk of impact to the resource access due to the federally controlled surface land in the southern portion of the mineralized resource area.

 

 

Jab/West Jab – This project area is not spaced for horizontal pads. There has been little exploration and no production. Hydrocarbons are likely present in the Lewis, Mesaverde and Ericson formations. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low risk of impacts to resource access.

 

3-14
March 2023

 

 

Ludeman – The project area is spaced for horizontal development; however, little production has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Moore Ranch – This project area is spaced for horizontal development with some historical production. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Nine Mile – This project area is not spaced for horizontal development and no historical production or exploration has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Red Rim - This project area is not spaced for horizontal development and no historical production or exploration has occurred. It is the opinion of the QP that there is low risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Reno Creek – This project area has historical production as well as additional oil and gas wells that are permitted or waiting on permits. It is the opinion of the QP that there is moderate to high risk of impact to resource access.

 

 

Surface Development

 

 

o

Where surface ownership of a project area is held by a large number of private entities, there may be challenges to obtaining sufficient surface use agreements (SUAs) for a project, or there may be opposition to a project where it could impact surface use such as residential use.

 

 

Nine Mile – There are currently multiple landowners, including agricultural operators, land development companies and residential property owners. Surface ownership has been subdivided for residential development in T35N R79W Sections 9, 10, 14, 22, 26, 27 and 34. The multiple property owners and residential land use creates potential risk of not being able to obtain sufficient SUAs for the project and for opposition to a Wyoming Permit to Mine.

 

3.4

Royalties (Confidential)

 

Due to the confidentiality of royalties in private agreements, these data are not included in the TRS. Royalties will be provided upon request.

 

 

 

 

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

 

3-15
March 2023

 

4.0

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

 

4.1

Physical Setting

 

4.1.1

Powder River Basin

 

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas are located in the PRB in the counties shown in Table 1‑1. These project areas are in the southern portion of the PRB and generally lie near the synclinal axis of the basin. The exception is the Nine Mile project area, which is near the Casper Arch. The Casper Arch marks the southwestern boundary of the PRB.

 

The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (U.S. EPA, 2013), a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes. The project areas are characterized as rolling prairie and dissected river breaks. Regional structural features include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east. At the northernmost project areas in the PRB, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.

 

Topography in the area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams that dissect the area. Elevations range from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.

 

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

 

The project areas in the PRB are located in a semi-arid or steppe climate. The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers. The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool. Temperature extremes range from roughly -25 °F in the winter to 100 °F in the summer. Typically, the “last freeze” occurs during late May, and the “first freeze” occurs in mid- to late September (Curtis and Grimes, 2004).

 

Yearly precipitation averages about 13 inches. The region is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events. Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year) but provides much less moisture than rain events (Curtis and Grimes, 2004).

 

4.1.2

Greater Green River Basin

 

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the GGRB in the counties shown in Table 1-1. The project areas are in the northeast portion of the GGRB. The GGRB is a structural basin that encompasses nearly 21,000 square miles in southwest Wyoming and northwest Colorado. Regional structural features include the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south.

 

4-1
March 2023

 

The topography at the Jab/West Jab project area ranges from flat plains to gentle slopes that are dissected by southerly-flowing ephemeral washes. Elevations in the area range from approximately 6,900 to 7,400 ft above mean sea level. Topography at the Red Rim project area includes the Red Rim, a prominent low-lying ridge with a southwest/northeast orientation, and Separation Creek, which generally forms the southern boundary of the project area. Elevations range from approximately 6,000 to slightly over 7,000 ft above mean sea level.

 

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion (U.S. EPA, 2013) and are characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe. This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands. Vegetation on the Jab/West Jab project area mostly consists of sagebrush, but includes some native perennial grasses, cushion plants, cacti, perennial forbs and lichens. The Red Rim project area is rangeland with vegetation consisting primarily of sagebrush and grasses.

 

Yearly precipitation in the area is approximately 8 to 12 inches (Curtis and Grimes, 2004). Precipitation is predominantly in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100 °F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.

 

4.1.3

Wind River Basin

 

The Clarkson Hill project area is in the WRB in Natrona County, Wyoming. Clarkson Hill is located near the southern and eastern margin of the WRB just west of the Casper Arch, which separates the PRB and WRB. The Clarkson Hill project area is located in a broad synclinal valley northeast of the North Granite Mountain Fault. The project area extends from the base to the top of a small mesa known as Clarkson Hill.

 

Clarkson Hill is located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion (U.S. EPA, 2013), which is characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe. This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands.

 

The top of the mesa is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 6,200 ft above mean sea level. The mesa has approximately 200 ft of vertical relief with some relatively steep slopes, in excess of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The currently defined area of mineralization is at the base and along the slope of the mesa.

 

The most common native vegetation is sagebrush and prairie grasses and, to a lesser extent, rabbitbrush. No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area. Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north-facing slopes. Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt. The North Platte River, some four to five miles south of the project area, is perennial and is one of the major river systems in Wyoming.

 

The climate at the Clarkson Hill project area is continental semi-arid, with annual precipitation of 8-12 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100 ºF, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.

 

4-2
March 2023

 

4.2

Accessibility and Local Resources

 

Since the Project includes multiple assets in seven Wyoming counties, there are multiple accessibility and resource options for the various project areas. All of the project areas are accessible and capable of operating year-round given appropriate maintenance of project roads.

 

Workforce personnel will commute daily from nearby small communities or the larger population centers noted for each property below. The communities included in the Project area have a long history of oil and gas development and uranium and coal mining. The major population centers have adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Project. The major population centers of Gillette, Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs have adequate oilfield and mining service companies, heavy equipment sales and rentals, drilling and pump contractors, construction contractors and industrial supply companies to serve the Project.

 

The PRB project areas in Johnson and Campbell counties include Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek. The nearest community is Wright, which is approximately 9 to 32 miles from the project areas. Wright is a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59. Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport. Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the project areas via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50. The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, approximately 20 to 30 miles southwest of the project areas on Wyoming Highway 387. A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway (BNSF), used primarily for transporting coal, is located between 11 and 34 miles east of the project areas and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.

 

The PRB project areas in Converse County include Allemand-Ross, Barge and Ludeman. These project areas are near the communities of Glenrock and Douglas. They can be accessed from Interstate 25 via Wyoming Highway 95 from Glenrock, Wyoming Highway 93 from Douglas, or Wyoming Highway 59 from Douglas. The Converse County project areas are approximately 8 to 30 miles from Glenrock. Glenrock is an incorporated town with a population of 2,420 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) adjacent to Interstate 25. Douglas is an incorporated town with a population of 6,386 also along Interstate 25. Casper is a major population center with a population of 59,038 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) and a regional airport. Casper is southwest or west of these project areas and can be accessed by state highways to Interstate 25. The same north-south BNSF rail line that runs parallel to Wyoming Highway 59 is eight miles east of the Barge project area and 20 miles east of the Allemand-Ross project area. An east-west railway owned by BNSF is in close proximity to the Ludeman project area, to the south near Interstate 25.

 

The PRB Nine Mile project area is located in Natrona County near Casper. The Nine Mile project area is bisected by Interstate 25 and is accessible from the Salt Creek Highway, which parallels Interstate 25, and from County Road 705. Casper is located 1.5 miles south of the Nine Mile project area. The east-west railway owned by BNSF is approximately five miles south of the project area.

 

4-3
March 2023

 

The GGRB Jab/West Jab project area is located in Sweetwater and Fremont counties. The Jab/West Jab project area can be accessed from State Highway 287 via Bairoil Road (County Road 22) from Bairoil. The project area is approximately 22 miles west of Bairoil, a small, incorporated town with a population of 68 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). The project area is approximately 50 air miles northwest of Rawlins, an incorporated community with a population of 8,221 on Interstate 80. Casper can be accessed from state highways via Bairoil. A major east-west railway (the Union Pacific) lies approximately 40 air miles south of the Jab/West Jab project area in Wamsutter, near Interstate 80.

 

The GGRB Red Rim project area is located in Carbon County and can be accessed from Interstate 80 via Daley and Hadsell roads, or from Rawlins via Carbon County Road 605. The Red Rim project area is approximately 18 miles southwest of Rawlins. Rock Springs, an incorporated city with a population of 23,526 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020), is located on Interstate 80 approximately 100 miles from the project area. The Union Pacific railway lies approximately seven miles north of the project area, near Interstate 80.

 

The WRB Clarkson Hill project area is located in Natrona County, approximately 19 miles southwest of Casper. The project area is accessible from either Highway 220 or from the Oregon Trail Road, a Natrona County improved gravel road. From Highway 220, the site is approximately four miles northwest of the junction of the highway with Natrona County Road 318. From the Oregon Trail Road, the site is approximately three miles to the southeast. Site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private landowners for ingress/egress. The communities of Alcova and Bessemer Bend are located 10 and 13 miles away, respectively, and have limited services. The east-west BNSF railway in Casper is approximately 25 miles northeast of the project area.

 

4.3

Availability of Infrastructure

 

Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as Gillette, Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs. Specialized equipment for the wellfields or the Irigaray CPP will likely need to be acquired from outside the state.

 

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

 

As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all of the project areas with the exception of Red Rim have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

 

At the Allemand-Ross project area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the project area. The Allemand-Ross project area is adjacent to all-weather roadways, which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. Electrical power lines extend into and across the project area.

 

Near the Barge project area, historical uranium operations in the late 1970s and early 1980s brought access and electrical power to the area, which remain. Water supply needs to be reestablished in the Barge project area. The Barge project area is adjacent to all-weather roadways, which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product.

 

Development of the Charlie project area will require power and water supply. Infrastructure in the immediate vicinity includes an electrical substation and coal-bed methane gas plant. Water may be provided by wells. There is also a 14.4 kVa electrical supply operated by the Sheridan-Johnson Rural Electrical Association, approximately two miles from the project. Since the Charlie project area is surrounded by the Christensen Ranch project area, the two project areas may share infrastructure.

 

4-4
March 2023

 

The Christensen Ranch project area is equipped with a satellite ion exchange (IX) plant with 6,500 gpm installed capacity, a groundwater restoration plant with 1,000 gpm capacity, two wastewater disposal wells and four lined evaporation ponds.

 

No infrastructure has been developed at the Clarkson Hill project area. ISR development will require power and water supply. A utility corridor exists along the Oregon Trail Road, including power and gas transmission lines. The principal access roads to the project area are maintained and year-round access is possible. Water supply could be obtained from locally permitted and constructed wells or from surface water sources including the Platte River, which is located approximately three miles east of the project area.

 

The Irigaray CPP is a fully operational and licensed ISR processing plant for resin elution, precipitation, filtration and drying and packaging of U3O8. The Irigaray CPP has a capacity of 1.3 million lbs U3O8 per year, which is expandable to 2.5 million lbs U3O8 per year. A second elution system is also at the Irigaray CPP for toll processing. The Irigaray CPP is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal. Loaded resin from each of the “spoke” project areas described in Chapter 3.1 would be transported to the Irigaray CPP “hub” for final concentrate production.

 

Limited infrastructure is available within the Jab/West Jab project area. A water supply well was permitted and installed during development drilling. The project area is within 6 to 10 miles of a county road, electrical power and natural gas transmission lines. Nearby infrastructure will be beneficial to future development. The county roads will facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and products.

 

The Ludeman project area has been used historically for livestock grazing. Nearby uranium operations have occurred historically. Non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the project area. The proximity of the Ludeman project area to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. High voltage transmission lines from the Dave Johnston Power Plant pass within the project area.

 

At the Moore Ranch project area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the project area. The Moore Ranch project area is adjacent to paved, public roadways, which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product. Electrical power lines extend into and across the project area.

 

Infrastructure is present within and/or proximate to the Nine Mile project area. ISR development will require power and water supply. Infrastructure, including power lines and water wells, was established for past pilot ISR mining operations and currently exists for nearby residents in the Homa Hills area. Water supply may be provided by locally permitted and constructed wells.

 

Aside from existing access roads, no infrastructure has been developed at the Red Rim project area. ISR development will require better access roads, power and a water supply. The Red Rim project area previously had single phase line power and a water supply developed for exploration. Water may be developed from locally permitted and constructed wells.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

4-5
March 2023

 

5.0

HISTORY

 

Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open-pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized since the 1960s to locate deeper uranium mineralization and progress geologic models.

 

Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GGRB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposits in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were discovered using radiometric surveys. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) used shallow exploration to further evaluate the deposits. As in the PRB, drilling for deeper deposits began in the 1960s, and exploration since that time has consisted primarily of drilling.

 

Uranium exploration of the WRB began in 1953 with scintillation counter surveys of the Eocene Wind River Formation in the Gas Hills area (Gregory, 2019). In the mid-1950s, USGS, on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), studied uranium occurrence and potential in the Clarkson Hill area (Rich, 1962). Near surface uranium mineralization in the Wind River Formation was explored in the 1950s with shallow excavations. Later drilling defined deeper mineralization within the Fort Union Formation near the contact with the Lance Formation.

 

Ownership, control and operation of the project areas has varied greatly since the 1960s. Table 5-1 summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. Table 5-1 also summarizes historical drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period.

 

 

 

 

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

 

5-1
March 2023

 

 

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Allemand-Ross

1967-1970

Kerr-McGee Nuclear (Kerr-McGee), Homestake Mining Corp (Homestake), Teton Exploration (Teton)

Early uranium exploration completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross project area. Exploration was typically for shallower mineralization (<1,000 ft).

~100

Exploration of shallow mineralization (<1,000 ft)

1971-1984

Conoco

Conoco staked lode mining claims in 1969. In 1970, Conoco entered an agreement with National Resources Corporation (National Resources) to earn in on the Allemand-Ranch land holdings. National Resources’ interests were acquired by Pioneer Nuclear in 1972 and the joint venture partnership was maintained until 1975. In 1979, Conoco formed an association with Power Reactor & Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC). Conoco continued to operate the drilling program. Conoco closed its mineral department in 1984.

~1,180

Delineation of a significant amount of the mineralization within the Allemand-Ross project area

1984-1988

PNC

PNC assumed control of the Allemand-Ross project area and continued exploration.

~50

Additional exploration completed by PNC

Early 1990s

PNC

Mineral rights were allowed to lapse due to further declining uranium market conditions.

N/A

Lost mineral rights

Early 2000s-2005

High Plains Uranium (HPU) and Energy Metals Corporation (EMC)

Claims and leases were acquired during the uranium market upswing. HPU held most claims and leases, with EMC holding the remainder of the Allemand-Ross project area.

N/A

Mineral rights acquired

2007

EMC

EMC acquired HPU. The properties were consolidated.

N/A

Properties consolidated

Late 2007-2021

Uranium One Americas, Inc. (Uranium One)

Uranium One acquired EMC. Uranium One proceeded to conduct verification and resource enhancement drilling. Most drilling was completed between 2008 and 2010.

~300

Additional exploration completed within project areas with average depths ranging from 1,118 to 1,546 ft

2021

UEC

Allemand-Ross project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-2
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Barge

1969

Mono Power Company (Mono) and Rocky Mountain Energy Company (RME)

Under a joint venture, Mono and RME conducted the initial exploration program through drilling. Upon successful exploration, the Bear Creek Uranium Company was formed under general partnership between Mono and RME.

Unspecified and included in the total estimate

Successful exploration led to joint venture and mill construction

1975-1982

Bear Creek Uranium Company

A mill was constructed in 1975. Open-pit mining operations conducted from 1977 until 1982. Mining claims were dropped after 1982.

~6,880

4.7 million tons of material from open-pit mining processed at the Bear Creek mill

2006

EMC

EMC located the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.

N/A

Lapsed mineral leases acquired

2007-2021

Uranium One

Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Barge project area.

N/A

No exploration completed; right to mine secured

2021

UEC

Barge project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership

 

 

 

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

 

5-3
March 2023

 

 

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Charlie

1966

Preston Oil Co. (Preston)

Awarded the state lease for 720 acres.

None

Right to mine secured

1966-1974

Inexco Oil (Inexco)

Inexco assigned lease from Preston in 1966 and conducted exploration drilling program in 1969 and 1970.

215

Delineation of mineralized areas

1974

Uranerz USA (Uranerz)

Inexco formed a joint venture with Uranerz who became the operator. Over the next 2 years, Uranerz expanded the drilling program including core drilling.

715

Delineation of mineralized areas

Not specified

Cotter

Cotter acquired the property and evaluated both conventional open-pit and ISR mining methods. Cotter obtained a surface mining permit in 1979. A 200 ft deep test pit was excavated in 1981 in a small mineralization area. The pit was subsequently reclaimed, but the state surface mining permit remains active.

Not specified

Falling uranium prices in the 1980s halted

further development

1994

Cotter and Power Resources Incorporated (PRI)

PRI entered a joint venture agreement with Cotter and completed a feasibility study for development as an ISR mine (PRI, 1995). Completed additional drilling in 1994.

Not specified

The feasibility study was positive; however, the project did not proceed, and the joint venture agreement expired

2014-2018

Cotter

In 2014, Cotter sought to convert the permit to ISR mining; however, that process has not been completed.

None

Unknown

2018-2021

Anfield Energy Inc. (Anfield)

Anfield acquired the project from Cotter.

None

Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources

2021

UEC

UEC acquired the project from Anfield.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-4
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

 

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Christensen Ranch

1967-1979

Independent Operators

Assembled as a large land package by independent operators.

~4,860

Right to mine secured; preliminary delineation of mineralized areas

1979-1981

Arizona Public Services (APS), parent company of Malapai Resource Company (Malapai)

APS became a 50% partner in 1979.

~2,220

Delineation of mineralized areas

1981-1990

Malapai

Malapai assumed sole ownership by acquiring the interests of Wold and Western Nuclear Corporation (WNC). Malapai purchased the Irigaray property from Westinghouse Electric Corp. in 1987, and Christensen Ranch was licensed for operations under the Irigaray NRC and WDEQ license/permit in 1988. Uranium production by ISR was started by Malapai in 1989 but was placed on standby in 1990.

~1,460

Delineation of mineralized areas; began ISR production

1990-1993

Total Minerals Corporation (TOMIN) and Électricité de France (EDF)

EDF acquired Irigaray and Christensen Ranch from Malapai in 1990. TOMIN acted as project operator for EDF under the Joint Participation Agreement. TOMIN restarted ISR operations in 1991.

~2,270

Delineation of mineralized areas; restarted ISR production

1993-2010

COGEMA and EDF

In 1993, COGEMA (French nuclear company, now Orono) acquired the assets of TOMIN and changed the name of the operating entity to COGEMA Mining, Inc. EDF was still owner of 29%, COGEMA Mining, as operator, owned 71% of the Joint Participation.

~3,690

3.70 million lbs of U3O8 produced from 1989 through 2000

2000-2010

COGEMA and EDF

Groundwater restoration of Mine Units 2 through 6 completed. Project on standby 2006 through 2010, at which time COGEMA and EDF sold the project to Uranium One.

Not specified

188,000 lbs of U3O8 produced during restoration

2010-2021

Uranium One/Uranium One USA, Inc.

Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 installed and operated. Ramp up in 2011, ramp down in 2013 (all wellfield development ceased), low production mode 2014 through 2018, production ends 2018 and is placed on care and maintenance.

Not specified

2.6 million lbs of U3O8 produced

2021

UEC

Christensen Ranch project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-5
March 2023

 

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Clarkson Hill

1959

Utah Construction and Mining

Conducted uranium exploration drilling.

Not specified

Unknown

1968

Minerals Exploration Company (MEC) and Nuclear Reserves Inc.

MEC performed exploratory drilling between 1968 and 1981. In 1969, MEC and Nuclear Reserves Inc. entered into a joint venture. MEC held the property through the mid-1980s, when they dropped the claims due to declining uranium prices.

250

Delineation of mineralized areas; falling uranium prices in the 1980s halted

further development

2005-2008

EMC

EMC performed initial staking of 14 claims and compiled relevant data for the property. EMC optioned the project to Artha Resources Corporation (Artha), who conducted limited verification drilling during 2008. The project reverted from Artha to EMC.

5

Unknown

2008-2016

Uranium One, Inc.

EMC was acquired by Uranium One, Inc. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One, Inc. became Uranium One.

None

Ownership transition

2016-2021

Anfield

Anfield purchased Clarkson Hill project from Uranium One.

None

Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources

2021

UEC

UEC acquire the project from Anfield.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

 

 

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

 

5-6
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Irigaray

1969-1975

Homestake

Original controller of project area.

~1,340

Right to mine secured; preliminary delineation of mineralized areas

1975-1987

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse)

Acquired property from Homestake. The project was licensed for ISR production in 1978 and was operated by Wyoming Mineral Corporation (WMC), a subsidiary of Westinghouse. Operations ceased in 1982 due to market trends.

~470

Delineation of mineralized areas; began ISR production

1987-1990

Malapai

Acquired property from Westinghouse.

None

Ownership transition

1990-1993

TOMIN and EDF

Acquired property from Malapai. TOMIN acted as project operator.

None

Ownership transition

1993-2010

COGEMA/ Areva

Replaced TOMIN as project operator in partnership with EDF. COGEMA acquired interests from TOMIN.

~20

0.74 million lbs of U3O8 produced from 1978 through 2000

2010-2021

Uranium One

Dried many millions of pounds from Christensen and through toll milling.

N/A

Decommissioned Irigaray wellfields

2021

UEC

Irigaray project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

 

 

 

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

 

5-7
March 2023

 

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Jab

Unspecified

Silverbell Industries

Originator of the Jab project area.

Not specified

Project area initially developed

1972-1985

Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)

Delineated an area of shallow oxidized mineralization and completed feasibility studies for open-pit mining. The plan was not executed, and a mining permit was prepared for the WDEQ/LQD. The permit was withdrawn due to the declining uranium market in 1982.

~1,830

Delineation of shallow oxidized material

1985-2000

Yellowstone Fuels

Property held until a decline in the uranium market in 2000. No data developed by Yellowstone Fuels were available for evaluation.

No data available

Project area held but not substantially developed

West Jab

Unspecified

AMAX Petroleum Company

Originator of the West Jab project area.

Not specified

Project area initially developed

1975-1983

WNC

WNC drilled the West Jab project area until 1983, when uranium markets had dropped. WNC terminated claim. AMAX Petroleum Company regained control until the claims were dropped.

~1,020

Exploration completed by WNC

Jab/West Jab

2006

EMC

Identified the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.

N/A

Secured right to mine

2007-2021

Uranium One

Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Jab/West Jab project area.

20

Confirmation drilling; right to mine secured

2021

UEC

Jab/West Jab project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-8
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Ludeman

1960s-1970s

Cordero Mining

Numerous companies including Teton, PRI, Uranium Resources, Inc. and Malapai (a subsidiary of APS) explored in the project area.

~5,420

Explored for uranium roll-front mineralization and delineated deposits in the project area

1980

UNC and partner Teton

Constructed and operated the Leuenberger ISR pilot test facility for 12 months. Groundwater restoration was completed following production and a commercial permit to mine was granted. Due to a decline in the market, the permitted mine was not placed into commercial operation and the permit expired.

N/A

Produced 12,800 lbs of U3O8 from the pilot facility

1981

Uranium Resources, Inc.

Constructed and operated the North Platte ISR Project on a portion of the Ludeman project area. The pilot test facility produced for 5 months during 1982.

N/A

Produced 1,515 lbs of U3O8 from the pilot facility

1980s

Malapai

Permitted the Peterson Project for pilot operations, but it was never operated.

N/A

Facility was never operated

1985-Early 1990s

Central Electrical Generating Board of England (known as PRI)

Nedco and Union Pacific properties were consolidated into the Teton Leuenberger Project. PRI purchased the property and added to the acreage through the purchase of adjacent claim blocks owned by Kerr-McGee.

N/A

Ownership transition and growth in acreage through acquisitions

Late 1990s

PRI

Leuenberger properties were released due to declining market trends. Some claims reverted to previous owners.

N/A

Decrease in claims and the project area

Early to Mid- 2000s

HPU and EMC

HPU held most claims and leases in the Ludeman project area. EMC held the remaining claims in the project area.

N/A

Claims and leases increased in the project area

2007

EMC

EMC acquired HPU.

N/A

Consolidation through acquisition

Late 2007-2021

Uranium One

Uranium One acquired EMC in late 2007 and continued exploration of the project area from 2007 through 2012. The primary goals of drilling included exploration to establish continuity of regional ore trends, development drilling to determine the lateral extents of the ore body, stratigraphic investigation, confirmation of the location and nature of mineralization and collection of cores for leach testing and analysis of uranium, mineralogy, trace metals, disequilibrium, permeability, porosity and density. Acquired the WDEQ/LQD mine permit and NRC license.

~2,180

Continued exploration of project area; additional holes included boreholes, core holes and monitor wells

2021

UEC

Ludeman project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-9
MArch 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Moore Ranch

1971-1983

Conoco and Kerr-McGee

Conoco and Kerr-McGee operated as a joint venture. Of the joint venture, Conoco controlled 50% and served as the operator.

~2,700 rotary drill holes

~130 core holes

Discovery and delineation of mineralized areas; permitting and licensing of a proposed uranium processing facility known as Sand Rock Mill completed through the WDEQ/LQD and the NRC

1983-1989

Wold Nuclear Company (Wold) and Kerr-McGee

Conoco sold interests to Wold in 1983. Kerr-McGee retained the rights with Wold. Assessment drilling was conducted.

None

Retained mining claims; Mining claim assessment drilling

1989-1992

Rio Algom Mining Corp. (Rio Algom)

Rio Algom acquired the project in 1989. Rio Algom conducted mining claim assessment drilling to retain mining claims through 1992, which was the last year to allow mining claim assessment drilling.

21 rotary drill holes

Retained mining claims; mining claim assessment drilling

1992-2002

Rio Algom

Claim maintenance paid directly to the BLM. No further drilling conducted.

None

Mining claims retained through payment

2002-2003

PRI

Rio Algom acquired by PRI.

None

Ownership transition

2004-2007

EMC

EMC acquired most of the mining claims and state leases.

N/A

Secured right to mine

2007-2021

Uranium One

Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Moore Ranch project area. Uranium One completed verification and resource enhancement drilling, coring, baseline monitor wells and pump test wells. The Moore Ranch project area was fully permitted by WDEQ/LQD in 2011 and the NRC in 2013.

~800

Exploration efforts focused on developing and upgrading mineral resources

2021

UEC

Moore Ranch project area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-10
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Nine Mile

Early 1950s

Independent operator

An internal report from 1969 states a Mr. Vickers reportedly discovered surficial mineralization and mined approximately 100 tons U3O8 at an average grade of 0.30%. Uranium was shipped to the AEC buying station at Edgemont, South Dakota.

None

Exploration and production of 100 tons U3O8

1972

RME

RME acquired interest in the project in 1972 and conducted extensive drilling through 1978. Pilot-scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50 ft radius. The first three patterns used sulfuric acid as the primary lixiviant and the fourth sodium carbonate-bicarbonate as the primary lixiviant. The U.S. Bureau of Mines assisted RME in conducting the pilot testing and documented the results in a publication titled “Case History of a Pilot-Scale Acidic In Situ Uranium Leaching Experiment” (Nigbor et al., 1982). RME controlled the project until the late 1980s, when the mineral interests were dropped due to declining uranium prices.

1,100

Exploration and pilot-scale ISR mining

2005 and 2006

EMC

EMC located unpatented mining lode claims and secured mineral leases and surface agreements within the area formerly held by RME. EMC conducted exploratory drilling and compiled previous data and maps for the project.

45

Secured right to mine

2008

Uranium One

EMC was acquired by Uranium One, Inc. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One, Inc. became Uranium One.

None

Ownership transition

2016

Anfield

Anfield purchased Nine Mile project from Uranium One.

None

Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources

2021

UEC

UEC acquired the project from Anfield.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-11
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Red Rim

1970-1973

Kerr McGee and UCC

Both companies located claims in the vicinity and conducted exploration and drilling programs. The claims were dropped by 1973.

Not specified

Exploration reported to have encountered alteration and mineralization at depth

1974

Timberline Minerals and Wold

Both companies located claims in the vicinity.

None

Secured federal mining claims

1976

UCC

UCC leased the Timberline Minerals property and entered a joint venture agreement with RME, a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad, for the alternate sections of railroad grant lands in the area. UCC relinquished its mineral interests at Red Rim in 1986, and the mining claims reverted to Timberline Minerals, which subsequently dropped the claims.

138

Conducted an exploration and drilling program; of 138 drill holes on the current project area, 42 are barren or contain trace mineralization and the remaining 96 are mineralized

2004-2007

EMC

Located 49 unpatented mining lode claims that comprise the current project area.

None

Secured federal mining claims

2007-2016

Uranium One

Uranium One, Inc. acquired EMC. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One, Inc. became Uranium One.

59

Conducted exploration drilling in 2009-2010

2016-2021

Anfield

Anfield purchased the Red Rim project from Uranium One.

None

Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources

2021

UEC

UEC acquired the project from Anfield.

N/A

Ownership transition

 

5-12
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Reno Creek  North Reno Creek

Late 1960s

RME

Drilled exploration holes within and around North Reno Creek resource area.

~5,800

Delineated ~10 miles of roll-front deposits

Mid 1970s

RME, Mono and Halliburton Services

Partnership formed to develop North Reno Creek resource area using ISR methods.

N/A

Acquisition of project area

1992

Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc./International Uranium Corporation

Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. acquired RME's North Reno Creek resource area and later became International Uranium Corporation.

>300

Acquisition of project area

2001

Rio Algom

Rio Algom acquired International Uranium Corporation's property.

N/A

Acquisition of project area

2001-2003

PRI

PRI acquired North Reno Creek resource area and dropped claims in 2003.

N/A

Acquisition of project area and mining claims dropped

2004

Strathmore Minerals Corporation and American Uranium Corporation

Re-staked and filed new mining claims on approximately 16,000 acres.

N/A

Refiled mining claims and secured right to mine

2007

AUC, LLC

Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. AUC drilled in the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas between 2010 and 2012.

176

Acquisition of project area and secured permits and authorizations

2017

UEC

Consolidated ownership of multiple resource areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources.

N/A

Consolidation of ownership; auditing of project resources

Reno Creek  Southwest Reno Creek

 

American Nuclear Corporation and Tennessee Valley Authority JV

Controlled Southwest Reno Creek resource area and drilled exploration holes.

~700

Delineation of mineralized areas

2007

AUC, LLC

Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. AUC drilled in the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas between 2010 and 2012.

770

Secured permits and required authorizations

2017

UEC

Consolidated ownership of multiple resource areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources.

N/A

Consolidation of ownership; auditing of project resources

 

5-13
March 2023

 

Table 5-1:         Past Operations Summary (Continued)

Year

Company

Operations/Activity

Amount

(No. of Drill holes)

Results of Work

Reno Creek  Bing, Moore and Pine Tree

1960s

Utah International Mining Company

Exploration on Moore and Pine Tree resource areas.

N/A

Delineation of mineralized areas

Late 1970s

Pathfinder Mines, Inc.

Utah International Mining Company became Pathfinder Mines, Inc. and continued exploration on Moore and Pine Tree resource areas.

>1,560

Delineation of mineralized areas

1980s

RME

Obtained ownership of Moore resource area, continued exploration drilling until the 1990s.

>400

Acquired project area; delineation of mineralized areas

1960s

Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company

Exploration of Bing resource area, drilled exploration holes and conducted limited hydrologic testing in the 1970s.

177

Delineation of mineralized areas through drilling and hydrologic testing

2007

AUC, LLC

Consolidated the resource areas under one owner.

98

Consolidated ownership; conducted exploration drilling at Moore resource area

2017

UEC

Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.

N/A

Auditing of Project resources

 

 

 

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

 

5-16
March 2023

 

6.0

GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT

 

6.1

Regional Geology

 

6.1.1

Powder River Basin

 

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas reside in the PRB. The PRB extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline, with the basin axis located to the west of the project areas. The PRB is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains and Casper Arch to the west, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south. The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.

 

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek project areas target mineralization in formations depicted in Figure 6-1, a generalized upper stratigraphic column of the PRB. The Nine Mile project area mineralization is deeper, and a stratigraphic column and cross section for that project area is shown in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-3 shows locations of cross sections for the remaining project areas in the PRB, and Figure 6-3a and 6-3b contain the associated cross sections (McKeel et al., 1973; Flores et al., 2010).

 

Cretaceous bedrock is exposed at the surface around the margins of the PRB. In the southwestern portion of the PRB, the surficial Cretaceous formations in order of decreasing age are the Cody Shale, Mesa Verde Formation, Fox Hills Sandstone and Lewis Shale and the Lance Formation (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). A summary description of the Cretaceous geology is provided in Love and Christiansen (1985). The Cody Shale is a dull gray shale, gray siltstone and fine-grained gray sandstone. The Mesa Verde is light colored massive to thin-bedded sandstone, gray sandy shale and coal beds. In the southwestern portion of the PRB, reduction-oxidation roll-front uranium deposits occur in the Teapot Sandstone member of the Mesa Verde Formation. Mineralization in the Teapot Sandstone occurs in vanadium-rich roll-fronts in marginal marine sandstone, as heavy mineral accumulations in beach sands (“black sands”), in conglomeratic zones with carbonaceous debris and lignitic shale, and associated with limonite-stained zones of arkosic sandstone (Gregory et al., 2010). The Fox Hills Sandstone is light colored sandstone and gray sandy shale containing marine fossils. The Lewis Shale is gray marine shale containing many gray and brown lenticular concretion-rich sandstone beds. The late Cretaceous Lance Formation is brown and gray sandstone and shale with thin coal and carbonaceous shale beds.

 

Within the PRB, Tertiary geology includes the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, which conformably overlies the Lance Formation and is a fluvial-sedimentary stratigraphic unit that consists of fine to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone interbedded with siltstone, mudstone and carbonaceous materials. In some areas of the PRB, the Fort Union Formation is divided into two members, identified as the Upper and Lower members of the Fort Union Formation. However, Flores (2004) divides the Fort Union into three members: the Tullock, Lebo and Tongue River members (oldest to youngest). The Tullock Member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale. The Lebo Member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds. The Tongue River Member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds. This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick (Flores, 2004). The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft (Conoco, 1981; Sharp and Gibbons, 1964).

 

6-1

March 2023


 

Fort Union Formation uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands. These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones. The zones of mineralization formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964).

 

The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB. However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center. The relative amount of coarse, permeable clastics increases near the top of Fort Union, and the overlying Wasatch Formation contains numerous beds of sandstone that can sometimes be correlated over wide areas. The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal (Flores and Bader, 1999). However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson coals in other parts of the PRB. This contact is approximated on the PRB cross sections, which can be viewed on Figures 6-3a and 6-3b (Denson et al., 1978; Flores et al., 2010). The locations of these cross sections are shown on Figure 6-3.

 

The Wasatch Formation occurs at the surface across much of the PRB. The Wasatch is a fluvial sedimentary unit that consists of a series of silt to very coarse-grained gradational intervals in arkosic sandstone. The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB. Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50 to 100 ft thick sandstone lens. On a regional scale, mineralization is localized and controlled by facies changes within this sandstone, including thinning of the sandstone unit, decrease in grain size and increase in clay and organic material content. The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from 1 to 2.5 degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB (Conoco, 1980; Sharp and Gibbons, 1964).

 

The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the basin by erosion. Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB. The White River Formation consists of clayey sandstone, claystone, a boulder conglomerate and tuffaceous sediments (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964), which may be the primary source rock for uranium in the southern part of the PRB as a whole (Conoco, 1980; Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys. Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.

 

 

 

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

 

6-2

March 2023


 

Figure 61:         Upper PRB Stratigraphic Column

 

ex_495574img012.jpg

 

6-3

March 2023


 

f01.jpg

 

6-4

March 2023


 

Figure 63:         PRB Projects Cross-Section Location Map

ex_495574img014.jpg

6-5

March 2023


 

Figure 63a:         PRB Projects Cross-Sections B-B and C-C

ex_495574img015.jpg

6-6

March 2023


 

Figure 63b:         PRB Projects Cross-Sections C-C and D-D

ex_495574img016.jpg

 

 

6-7

March 2023


 

6.1.2

Greater Green River Basin

 

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located in the GGRB. The Jab/West Jab project area is in the Great Divide Basin (GDB) portion of the GGRB, and the Red Rim project area is in the Washakie Basin (WB) portion of the GGRB. Together the GDB and WB compromise the eastern portion of the GGRB. These basins contain up to 25,000 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks. Figure 6-4 is a generalized stratigraphic column of the GGRB. Figure 6-5 shows a cross section location map for the Jab/West Jab project area, and the cross section is shown on Figure 6-5a. Figure 6-6 shows a cross section location map for the Red Rim project area, and Figure 6-6a shows the cross section.

 

During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down-warped basins. As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains, and older formations were altered during the same time. In the northern regions of the GGRB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. To the southwest, the GGRB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation. These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GGRB (Dribus and Nanna, 1982). The Paleocene Fort Union Formation underlies the Wasatch or Battle Springs Formation depending on position within the basin. Uranium deposits in the GDB/WB predominantly occur in roll-front redox deposits but also desert evaporite (Gregory et al., 2010). Roll-front deposits occur in the Battle Spring, Wasatch and Fort Union formations.

 

The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of a west to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains, by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones. The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits. Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time. The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation. The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits.

 

The Fort Union Formation is exposed at the surface around the boundary of the GDB. The Fort Union Formation is described as an interbedded sequence of white, gray, tan, buff and brown sandstone, gray to black shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, local conglomerate beds and (usually) thin coal beds (Gregory et al., 2010). It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation.

 

The Lance Formation is described as a gray to buff fine-grained to very fine-grained silty sandstone interbedded with drab to light-green to gray locally carbonaceous siltstone and thin conglomeratic lenses locally (Gregory et al., 2010). The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member. The Red Rim Member is a prominent sandstone package named for its color as it crops out south of Interstate 80 on the eastern rim of the WB (Lynds and Carroll, 2015).

 

6-8

March 2023


 

Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow. These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units. Faulting also created structural and permeability control (Wallis, 2005).

 

6.1.3

Wind River Basin

 

The Clarkson Hill project area is located near the southern and eastern margin of the WRB just west of the Casper Arch, which separates the PRB and WRB. The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south. The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic. Figure 6-7 is a generalized stratigraphic column of the WRB. Figure 6-8 shows a cross section location map for the Clarkson Hill project area, and the cross section is shown on Figure 6-8a.

 

Both the Wind River and Fort Union formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium. The primary source of sediments for the Wind River and Fort Union formations in the eastern WRB was the ancestral Granite Mountains along the southern boundary of the basin. The Granite Mountains were formed during the Laramide Orogeny, a period of extensive mountain building that began at the end of the Mesozoic Era and continued into the early Cenozoic Era. Subsequent erosion of the Granite Mountain highlands coupled with the down-warping of adjacent basins, such as the WRB and PRB, combined to accumulate thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits.

 

The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale. Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation. The White River Formation also consists of sandstones, siltstone and shale; however, along with fluvial deposition of the sands and clays, substantial volumes of windblown volcanic ash (tuffs) were also deposited. This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits. Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union formations.

 

 

 

 

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

 

6-9

March 2023


 

Figure 64:         GGRB Stratigraphy and Sedimentary Relationships

 

ex_495574img017.jpg

 

 

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

 

6-10

March 2023


 

Figure 65:         Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

 

f02.jpg

 

6-11

March 2023


 

Figure 65a:         Jab/West Jab Project Area Cross-Section

 

f03.jpg

 

6-12

March 2023


 

Figure 66:         Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

f04.jpg

 

6-13

March 2023


 

Figure 66a:         Red Rim Project Area Cross-Section

ex_495574img021.jpg

6-14

March 2023


 

Figure 67:         Wind River Basin Stratigraphic Column

 

ex_495574img022.jpg

Source: Rich, 1962

6-15

March 2023


 

Figure 68:         Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section Location Map

ex_495574img023.jpg

 

 

6-16

March 2023


 
Figure 68a:         Clarkson Hill Project Area Cross-Section
 
f05.jpg

 

6-17

March 2023


 

6.2

Local Geology

 

6.2.1

Powder River Basin

 

The Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek project areas target mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation. Mineralization at the Allemand-Ross and Ludeman project areas occurs in the Paleocene Fort Union Formation. The Barge project area mineralization is in both the Wasatch Formation and the Fort Union Formation. Mineralization at the Nine Mile project area occurs in the Cretaceous Mesa Verde Formation.

 

Wasatch Formation-hosted Mineralization

 

Mineralization in the project areas occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine to coarse-grained, with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite (Utah International, 1971).

 

Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates (Utah International, 1971).

 

At the Barge project area, the “A sand” unit in the Wasatch Formation is the shallowest of four mineralized sand units. The remaining mineralized sand units are in the Fort Union Formation and are discussed below. The A sand mineralized trend is located in the northern portion of the Barge project area and is approximately 4,500 ft long.

 

At the Charlie Project, the Wasatch Formation sand units have been subdivided into eight separate sub-roll-fronts within the overall mineralized horizon (PRI, 1995). The sands have been designated locally as A through G in descending order. The majority of the currently defined mineral resource falls within the A through D sands, which have a combined thickness of approximately 80 to 100 ft. While mineralization is present in the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands. Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored.

 

Mineral resources at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas are within the fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. The sands have been designated K1 through K4 in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 to 100 ft within the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas. They coalesce within portions of the project areas and form massive sequences of roughly 250 ft in thickness. The K1 through K4 sands host uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.

 

These sands are typically cross-bedded, graded sequences fining upward from very coarse-grained at the base to fine-grained at the top, representing sedimentary cycles from 5 to 20 ft thick. Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body ranging in thickness from less than 75 ft to over 200 ft. The Felix Coal seams and the Badger Coal seam are largely laterally continuous and provide important correlation points across the project. Mineralization at the Bing, Moore, North Reno Creek and South Reno Creek resource areas occurs below the Felix Coal seams. At the Pine Tree resource area, the Felix Coal seams are not present and mineralization is also present in shallower deposits.

 

6-18

March 2023


 

Geology at Moore Ranch is similar to the geology at the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and includes the Felix and Badger coals. The “70 Sand” mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 ft below the Felix Coal at an average depth of 180 ft below ground surface and is 40 to 120 ft thick.

 

Fort Union Formation-hosted Mineralization

 

The host rocks for the uranium ore deposits in the project areas are the arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation. These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers (Lemmers and Smith, 1981).

 

The arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation are gray to red, clay-rich, cross-bedded, cherty and poorly sorted, with grain sizes in individual beds ranging from fine to very coarse with coarse being the average. Minor to very abundant pyrite and carbonaceous material are present in most of the unaltered (unoxidized) channel deposits. The finer grained rocks range from medium gray siltstones to dark gray carbonaceous claystones. Structure contours indicate a gentle dip to the northeast at an average of one degree (Lemmers and Smith, 1981).

 

At the Allemand-Ross project area, the Fort Union Formation is divided into three members, with mineralized sands in the Lebo Member. However, in certain areas at the edge of the PRB, the contacts between members become uncertain and the Fort Union is broken up into two members, the Upper and Lower Fort Union Formation (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). Mineralization at the Allemand-Ross project area is in five sandstone units, designated as the 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 sands in ascending order. The thicknesses of the individual sand units range from less than 10 ft to over 150 ft.

 

In the Barge project area, three units of the Fort Union Formation host mineralization. These units have been designated the U, M and L sands in descending order. The thickness of these units varies from 55 to 75 ft. The 10 trends in the U, M and L sands at the Barge project area range in length from 2,400 to over 10,000 ft.

 

Mineralization at the Ludeman project area occurs in the Lower Member of the Fort Union Formation, which correlates to Lebo Member mineralization at the Allemand-Ross project area (WWC, 2019b; WWC 2019c). The primary hosts for mineralization are, in ascending order, the 70, 80 and 90 sands. These sands vary in thickness across the Ludeman project area and can be over 150 ft thick. The underlying 40 and 50 sands contain lesser amounts of resources and have not been as fully explored.

 

Mesa Verde Formation-hosted Mineralization

 

At the Nine Mile project area, uranium mineralization occurs within the upper portions of the Mesa Verde Formation, which is overlain by the Lewis Shale and underlain by the Cody Shale. Locally the Mesa Verde Formation is subdivided into the Teapot Sandstone and Nine Mile Facies (Atherley et al., 1981). The Teapot Sandstone is sub-arkosic, medium to fine-grained, angular to sub-angular and moderate to well sorted (Nigbor et al., 1982).

 

6-19

March 2023


 

Mineralization at the Nine Mile project area occurs in both the Upper and Lower sands of the Teapot Sandstone. The combined thickness of the Upper Teapot and Lower Teapot ranges from 50 to 100 ft. Both sand units are laterally extensive across the project area. Uranium mineralization is of the roll-front type with an average thickness of nine ft. The principal uranium mineral is uraninite (UO2) with minor amounts of coffinite a uranium silicate. The principal reductant appears to be carbonaceous material and lignites interspersed in zones of mineralization (Nigbor et al., 1982).

 

6.2.2

Greater Green River Basin

 

Mineralization at the Jab/West Jab project area occurs in the Battle Spring Formation, and mineralization at the Red Rim project area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.

 

Battle Spring Formation-hosted Mineralization

 

The Battle Spring Formation was deposited by a large alluvial fan system and consists of very fine to very coarse-grained arkosic sandstones with interbedded thick shales, mudstones and localized conglomerates. The Battle Spring Formation is relatively flat in the Jab/West Jab project areas.

 

Within the Jab project area, mineralization occurs as trend that is approximately 10,000 ft long and 100 to over 1,000 ft wide. Mineralization is within a single sandstone unit and ranges in thickness from less than 1 to over 40 ft. The Jab project area contains the Silverbell and RD areas, which are divided by a high-angle normal fault with approximately 80 ft of displacement. The Silverbell portion of the mineralization is on the down-thrown side of the fault, and the RD portion of the mineralization is on the up-thrown side of the fault.

 

At the West Jab project area, mineralization occurs along a trend that is approximately 7,100 ft long and 50 to over 200 ft wide. Most of the mineralization occurs within a single unit; however, in the northeast portion of the project, there is also mineralization in a lower sand unit (BRS, 2019b). Mineralized thickness at the West Jab project area ranges from less than 1 to over 25 ft.

 

Fort Union Formation-hosted Mineralization

 

The Fort Union Formation is a medium to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone that generally grades upward. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by the Eocene Wasatch Formation. North of Separation Creek, the basal portion of the Fort Union Formation is a prominent ridge-forming unit that is composed of dominantly arkosic sandstone that is often altered. South of Separation Creek, the formation becomes less resistant, is composed of sub-arkosic to quartzose, and is generally not altered. The two commonly cited sources of uranium for the Red Rim are the Granite Mountains and leaching of Oligocene and Miocene volcanics.

 

Uranium deposits at the Red Rim project area occur as roll-fronts in a single sand unit within the lower Fort Union Formation, near the contact with the Lance Formation. The host sandstone unit has been designated the #3 sand, and ranges in thickness from approximately 60 to 120 ft. Mineralized thickness ranges from 1 to 23.5 ft.

 

6-20

March 2023


 

6.2.3

Wind River Basin

 

Mineralization at the Clarkson Hill project area occurs in the Fort Union Formation. Mineralization has also been reported in the overlying Wind River Formation, but exploration has not characterized this mineralization.

 

Fort Union Formation-hosted Mineralization

 

The Paleocene Fort Union Formation is a terrestrial sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The primary source of Fort Union Formation sediments was the ancestral Granite Mountains west and south of the Clarkson Hill project area. At the project area, the Fort Union Formation is approximately 75 to 150 ft thick.

 

At the Clarkson Hill project area, mineralization occurs at multiple depths within the Fort Union Formation. Mineralized thickness ranges from less than 5 to over 20 ft, and the mineralized trend is approximately 5,500 ft long.

 

6.3

Mineralization and Deposit Type

 

Uranium mineralization at all of the project areas is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones within large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flow. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails,” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach (Davis, 1969; Rackley, 1972).

 

 

 

 

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

 

6-21

March 2023


 

7.0

EXPLORATION

 

7.1

Drilling Programs

 

Drilling was conducted by conventional rotary methods using a variety of bit diameters and configurations. Drilling programs generally followed industry standards where cuttings are collected at regular intervals and examined by an on-site geologist to record lithology and geochemical alteration (redox state). Holes are then probed using gamma ray, spontaneous potential and single point resistance or other logging methods to aid in grade estimation and lithologic correlation.

 

Cores were also collected from a limited number of holes throughout the project areas. Cores were collected at the drill by a geologist, boxed and labeled as appropriate and transported to a secure facility. Cores were then logged and scanned with radiation detection devices, and samples were identified and marked. Core samples were then sent to laboratories for testing for disequilibrium, metallurgy and hydrogeological parameters.

 

Since acquiring the properties, UEC has performed no exploration and has relied entirely on legacy data for the updated mineral resource estimates and project planning. Table 7-1 summarizes the historical exploration programs that have been conducted at the project areas. Figures 7-1 through 7-5 depict the drill holes at each project area.

 

Considering the number of drill holes and associated data, the QP did not review all of the drilling information for the project areas. Rather, the QP reviewed select logs from each of the project areas and evaluated the quality and nature of the work done by previous owners. In the opinion of the QP, previous exploration work by multiple operators/owners was conducted using industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted.

 

 

 

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

 

7-1

March 2023


 

Table 7-1:         Project Area Drilling Programs Summary

 


Project Area

 

Number of
Drill holes

 

Number of
Core Holes

 

Year Range

Total Drill
Footage

(ft)

Allemand-Ross

1,642

35

1967 – 2010

2,183,387

Barge

6,875

(1)

1969 – 1985

N/A(2)

Charlie

1,319

16

1972 - 1994

N/A(2)

Christensen Ranch

14,499

142

1967 – 2000

7,223,715

Clarkson Hill

255

17

1968 - 2008

N/A(2)

Irigaray

1,832

(1)

1969 – 1996

688,302

Jab/West Jab

2,854

(1)

1972 – 2007

1,006,120

Ludeman

7,567

(1)

1967 – 2012

3,783,022

Jab/West Jab

2,854

(1)

1972 – 2007

1,006,120

Moore Ranch

3,503

134

1971 - 2011

1,162,202

Nine Mile

1,145

26

1972 - 2006

N/A(2)

Red Rim

138

(1)

1976 - 1981

N/A(2)

Reno Creek

10,151

42

1968 – 2013

N/A(2)

Notes:

1.         Core holes included in drill hole count.

2.         The total drill footage completed in this project area is not available.

 

 

 

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

 

7-2

March 2023


 

Figure 7-1:         Drill Hole Map for the Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Project Areas

 

f06.jpg
 

7-3

March 2023


 

Figure 72:         Drill Hole Map for the Allemand-Ross, Barge and Ludeman Project Areas

 

f07.jpg

 

7-4

March 2023


 

Figure 73:         Drill Hole Map for the Clarkson Hill and Nine Mile Project Areas

ex_495574img027.jpg

 

 

7-5

March 2023


 

Figure 74:         Drill Hole Map for the Jab/West Jab Project Area

 

f08.jpg

 

7-6

March 2023


 

Figure 7-5:         Drill Hole Map for the Red Rim Project Area

 

f09.jpg

 

7-7

March 2023


 

7.2

Hydrogeologic Information

 

The hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the project areas include surface water and groundwater investigations, aquifer property investigations and groundwater modeling.

 

Surface water and groundwater investigations have been conducted with respect to water quality and surface water flow characteristics. These investigations were conducted as part of general site investigations and to satisfy regulatory requirements for baseline site characterization. Water quality testing has consisted of sampling wells, stream channels and impoundments within and near the project areas. At some projects, samples were collected regularly throughout the year according to state and federal regulatory requirements for baseline sampling plans. At other projects, limited sampling was conducted for general investigative purposes. Sampling programs conducted as part of baseline characterization for permitting must follow standard procedures for sample security and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), including chain-of-custody forms and appropriate duplicate and blank samples.

 

The dominant method for determining hydraulic properties of the aquifers in the project areas is in-situ testing using aquifer pump tests. Aquifer pump tests conducted included single and multi-well tests, where a well is pumped at a specific flow rate and the drawdown or response in neighboring wells is observed. The observations are analyzed to estimate parameters such as the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer. Aquifer pump test results allow in-situ characterization of the production zone aquifer to demonstrate sufficient geologic confinement and transmissivity for ISR operations. Aquifer pump testing has historically and is currently the industry standard for characterization of groundwater flow parameters. In some cases, lab physical testing of core samples for permeability and porosity was also conducted. Procedures related to core sampling and testing are discussed in Chapter 8.1 of this TRS.

 

The QP was unable to review all of the data associated with hydrogeologic investigations at the project areas due to the quantity of data. In addition, some of the data were not available for the review. It is the opinion of the QP that previous hydrogeologic studies were generally conducted using industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted. Historical mining in areas not previously evaluated for hydrogeologic conditions would suggest that physical characteristics of the host formations are conducive to ISR.

 

The level of hydrogeologic investigation conducted for the individual project areas generally correlates to the overall progress of the Project, as it relates to regulatory permitting and approval. Extensive hydrogeologic testing is required to obtain state and federal permits for ISR operations. UEC’s project areas included in this TRS are in varying stages of development. Some project areas such as Christensen Ranch have been developed and have had significant production, while other project areas such as Barge have not yet been permitted. Table 7-2 classifies the extent of hydrogeologic investigations that have been conducted in each project area. For additional details on the hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the project areas, please refer to the applicable permit documents for each project area, which are available from WDEQ.

 

7-8

March 2023


 

Table 7-2:         Extent of Project Area Hydrogeologic Investigations

 

Project Area

Surface Water Investigation

Groundwater Investigation

Aquifer Hydraulic Property Investigations

Groundwater Modeling

Notes

Allemand-Ross

Low

Medium

Medium

Low

The Allemand-Ross project area has not been permitted, although some historical and recent groundwater investigations have been conducted. The investigations include water quality analysis and aquifer testing.

Barge

Low

Low

Low

Low

The Barge project area has not been permitted for uranium recovery; therefore, limited hydrogeologic investigation has been conducted. The QP believes formations will support ISR based on nearby projects and operations.

Charlie

High

High

High

High

The Charlie project area has been extensively investigated. Analyses include single well and multiple well aquifer pump tests, groundwater models and water quality testing conducted in support of permitting actions and for mine planning.

Christensen Ranch

High

High

High

High

The Christensen Ranch project area is fully permitted and has been extensively investigated. Analyses include historical and recent aquifer pump tests, groundwater models and water quality testing conducted in support of state and federal permitting actions and for mine planning.

Clarkson Hill

Low

Low

Low

Low

The Clarkson Hill project area has not been permitted for uranium recovery, and no recent surface water or hydrogeologic investigations have been conducted. The QP believes investigation of the host formation hydrogeologic conditions is needed to support an economic analysis of ISR mining.

Irigaray

Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

Although a majority of the resources in the Irigaray project area are not permitted, historical groundwater investigations including aquifer pump testing and groundwater modeling have been conducted. Limited investigation has been conducted with respect to classifying surface water and groundwater quality outside of the permitted area.

Jab/West Jab

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

The Jab project area was included in a previous uranium recovery permitting action that was submitted in 2008 but then withdrawn. As part of the permitting action, considerable hydrogeologic investigation was conducted, including water quality and aquifer pump testing. Comprehensive hydrogeologic investigations at the West Jab project area have not been conducted, although some historical groundwater investigations occurred in the 1980s.

 

 

7-9

March 2023


 

Table 7-2:         Extent of Project Area Hydrogeologic Investigations (Continued)

 

Project Area

Surface Water Investigation

Groundwater Investigation

Aquifer Hydraulic Property Investigations

Groundwater Modeling

Notes

Ludeman

High

High

High

Medium

The Ludeman project area is fully permitted and has been extensively investigated. Analyses include historical and recent aquifer pump tests, groundwater modeling and water quality testing conducted in support of state and federal permitting actions and for mine planning.

Moore Ranch

High

High

High

High

The Moore Ranch project area is fully permitted and has been extensively investigated. Analyses include historical and recent aquifer pump tests, groundwater models and water quality analysis conducted in support of state and federal permitting actions and for mine planning.

Nine Mile

Low

Medium

Medium

Low

Hydrogeologic data for the Nine Mile project area, including permeability and groundwater velocity, were collected by RME and reported in Nigbor et al., 1982; however, the methods and number of aquifer tests are not reported. Pilot-scale ISR mining by RME and U.S. Bureau of Mines at the Nine Mile project area showed the formation has hydrogeologic properties amenable to ISR mining.

Red Rim

Low

Low

Low

Low

The Red Rim project area has not been permitted for uranium recovery, and no surface water or hydrogeologic investigations have been conducted. The QP believes investigation of the host formation hydrogeologic conditions is needed to support an economic analysis of ISR mining.

Reno Creek

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

Most of the North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas have been extensively investigated as part of previous permitting actions. The Bing, Moore and Pine Tree resource areas have not been permitted and, therefore, have not been as thoroughly investigated, although aquifer pump tests have been conducted in these areas. Testing to date is adequate to characterize the project area for regulatory and high-level operational purposes. Pilot-scale R&D ISR mining showed the formation has hydrogeologic properties amenable to ISR mining.

 

7-10

March 2023


 

7.3

Geotechnical Information

 

Project areas where geotechnical investigations have been conducted include Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman and Reno Creek. Investigations generally included shallow borings to determine soil properties and depth to groundwater for designs of plant building foundations and holding ponds. Additional details of the investigation at the Reno Creek project area are included in the TRS prepared for the Reno Creek Project (WWC, 2022). Details of investigations conducted at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas are included in the permit documents for the Willow Creek Project. These documents are available from the WDEQ. Geotechnical investigations will be conducted at the other project areas prior to construction of satellite plants, holding ponds and other associated infrastructure.

 

The QP noted that the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray facilities have already been constructed, and to the QP’s knowledge, these facilities are currently functioning without issue. The QP reviewed the geotechnical investigation conducted at the Reno Creek project area. In the opinion of the QP, the methodology of these investigations is appropriate, and the results are reasonable and acceptable.

 

7.4

Exploration Target

 

7.4.1

Charlie Project Area

 

An exploration target was estimated for several of the sand units at the Charlie project area. Exploration targets were defined for the E, F and G sand units. These units are deeper and were not as extensively drilled as the upper sand units A through D. While mineralization is present in drilling for the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands. Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored. Within the E sand there are areas where the drill data reflect sufficient thickness, grade and continuity to estimate indicated and inferred mineral resources as discussed in Chapter 11.

 

Methods

 

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

 

Specific parameters used included:

 

 

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

 

 

A width across the redox front of 50 ft was assumed for both the low and high cases.

 

 

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

 

Exploration Target Estimate

 

Exploration target estimates at the Charlie project area are shown in Table 7-3.

 

7-11

March 2023


 

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

 

7.4.2

Jab/West Jab

 

The exploration target was estimated for several of the trends at the Jab/West Jab project area. The mineral outline in the Jab area is mapped with sufficient data to provide an estimate of the exploration target. Table 7-3 contains the results from this estimate. These estimates were derived from drill holes with mineral intercept data where the spacing was too sparse to classify the resource. In the future, increased drilling in this area could upgrade this target resource to a classified resource.

 

Methods

 

the exploration target for the Jab/West Jab project area was derived from drill holes that were spaced too far apart (800+ ft) to be considered inferred. Resources were estimated based on actual exploration results, on the basis of substantial geological evidence, by projecting mineralization along the defined redox front using the nearest available data points in areas of limited sampling data. The available data were sufficient to estimate the exploration target but not sufficient to verify geological and grade continuity to a level of confidence that would support the classification of the resource.

 

Exploration Target Estimate

 

The exploration target estimates at the Jab/West Jab project area are shown in Table 7-3.

 

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

 

Table 7-3:         Project Exploration Target

 

Exploration Target

GT Cutoff

Approximate
Average Grade
% eU
3O8

Approximate
Ore Tons

(000s)

Approximate eU3O8

(lbs)

Charlie

Exploration Target

N/A

0.090 – 0.151

232 - 282

417,000 – 850,000

Charlie Project Area Exploration Target Total Estimate

232 - 282

417,000  850,000

Jab

Exploration Target

0.25

0.034

205

138,000

West Jab

Exploration Target

0.25

0.091

110

200,000

Jab/West Jab Project Area Exploration Target

Total Estimate

315

338,000

 

7-12

March 2023


 

8.0

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

 

8.1

Typical and Standard Industry Methods

 

UEC has not carried out any sampling on the Project. Mineral resource estimates are based on historical drill hole data that were acquired by UEC. UEC has no direct knowledge of the sample preparation, analyses and security for this work and has relied on information provided in previous reporting. Based on the QP’s review of the Project data and previous reporting, it is the QP’s opinion that exploration was conducted and documented in accordance with industry standards in place at the time the work was performed. Details on sample preparation, analysis and security are not available for all the work previously performed. Mineral resource estimates are based on data from drill hole gamma ray logs and laboratory assay of core samples. The QP has verified these data as described in Chapter 9.

 

UEC has QA/QC procedures to guide drilling, logging, sampling, analytical testing, sample handling and storage. UEC has followed these procedures as they relate to handling and storing previously collected data.

 

The sample preparation, analyses and security procedures typically used in previous Project work are described below, along with UEC’s procedures for sample and data handling and storage.

 

Downhole Geophysical Logging

 

Geophysical logging was routinely conducted for drill holes on the Project. Geophysical logs typically collected data for gamma ray, single-point resistance, spontaneous potential and drill hole deviation. Natural gamma logs provide an indirect measurement of uranium content by logging gamma radiation in counts per second (CPS) at 0.1 ft intervals. CPS are then converted to equivalent U3O8 (eU3O8). The conversion requires an algorithm and several correction factors that are applied to the CPS value. The correction factors include a k-factor, dead time factor and water factor. K-factors and dead times vary from probe to probe and can also vary in each probe over time. Industry standards include regular recalibration of gamma ray probes at a U.S. Department of Energy test pit. The nearest test pit locations are Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado.

 

Downhole deviation surveys were also routinely conducted in drill holes and provide true depth, azimuth and distance from collar location. Industry standards include evaluating deviation and applying true depth corrections, if necessary. No true depth corrections were required for the Project.

 

Drill hole locations were surveyed using traditional or GPS methods, depending on when the work was performed. All recent drill hole collar locations were surveyed using Trimble GPS technology to provide easting and northing coordinates and elevations.

 

Drill hole locations and logs were provided to UEC in paper and/or digital formats. UEC transferred paper locations and logs to digital formats. Any field geologist’s lithology logs were also included for further evaluation. UEC maintains Project drill hole data on a local, secure server with physical backups.

 

8-1

March 2023


 

Core Drilling

 

Cores are typically collected at the drill by the supervising geologist, then boxed and labeled with appropriate identification. Core boxes are transported to a locked storage facility and stored securely until core samples are prepared and sent under chain-of-custody for laboratory analysis. Geophysical logging of core holes is typically performed using the same procedures as in conventional rotary drill holes.

 

In general, core sample preparation and analysis followed standard industry practices. These practices included: measurement and detailed geologic descriptions, evaluation using hand-held scintillometer, correlation with down hole geophysical logs, bagging and sealing to prevent oxidation, and boxing to maintain core integrity.

 

Core samples from the Project were analyzed by multiple independent laboratories including Core Laboratories in Denver, Colorado and Houston, Texas; Energy Laboratories in Casper, Wyoming; J.E. Litz and Associates of Golden, Colorado; Weatherford Laboratories (now Stratum Reservoir) of Casper, Wyoming; Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. (now Pace Analytical Services, LLC) of Sheridan, Wyoming; and Skyline Laboratories of Wheatridge, Colorado.

 

Equilibrium Studies

 

The great majority of the data available for estimating mineral resources is radiometric logging data from which the uranium content is interpreted. Radiometric equilibrium conditions may affect the grade and spatial location of uranium in the mineralization. Generally, the equilibrium ratio of chemical U3O8 (c) to radiometric eU3O8 (e) is assumed to be one, i.e., equilibrium is assumed. Equilibrium occurs when the relationship of uranium to its naturally occurring radioactive progeny is in balance. Oxygenated groundwater moving through a deposit can disperse uranium down the groundwater gradient, leaving most of the progeny in place. The dispersed uranium will be in a favorable state of disequilibrium (c/e greater than one), while the depleted area will be in an unfavorable state (c/e less than one). The effect of disequilibrium can vary within a deposit and has been shown to be variable from the oxidized to the reduced side of the roll-fronts.

 

Previous reports for six of the project areas determined that data were adequate to evaluate equilibrium conditions. All of these evaluations concluded that the project areas exhibited radiometric equilibrium. Data for the remaining project areas were not adequate to evaluate radiometric equilibrium conditions.

 

Lithologic Logs

 

Standard industry practice is to collect drill cutting samples from all drill holes, typically at five ft depth intervals. These samples are documented by a field geologist, who prepares a lithologic log for the drill hole. Lithologic logs are not used directly in the preparation of mineral resource estimates, but they are valuable for confirming geophysical log interpretation and for identifying redox conditions based on sample color. Identifying redox conditions in the host formation is critical for the interpretation and mapping of roll-fronts.

 

8-2

March 2023


 

Groundwater Quality Testing

 

The pre-operational baseline collection period utilized guidance from WDEQ/LQD Guideline 4, WDEQ/WQD Guideline 8 and NRC Regulatory Guides 4.14 and 4.15 to ensure proper QA/QC procedures were implemented during all sampling efforts.

 

All samples were sent to labs where testing was conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

 

Key QA/QC procedures utilized included:

 

 

establishing monitoring locations and frequency of sampling efforts in accordance with applicable WDEQ and NRC rules and regulations;

 

 

ensuring all field parameters were stabilized for three consecutive readings prior to sample collection as required when low-flow sampling techniques are used (WDEQ/LQD Guideline 4, Reference Document 10);

 

 

adhering to all sample preservation and handling requirements;

 

 

establishing a documented chain-of-custody program;

 

 

collecting random duplicate samples as required;

 

 

collecting field blank samples as required; and

 

 

maintaining current field equipment calibration schedules as required by the manufacturer.

 

8.2

QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

 

In the opinion of the QP:

 

 

drill programs included downhole gamma ray, spontaneous potential and single point resistance logs. Industry-standard practice is that gamma ray probes are calibrated at a U.S. Department of Energy test pit and are checked routinely in a local bore hole as a QC measure. Uranium grades (eU3O8) are based entirely on probe data and are considered to have adequate QC. Both the probe use and QC measures are in line with uranium industry-standard operating procedures;

 

 

sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for core hole drill programs are in line with industry-standard methods for roll-front uranium deposits, but the data are used only for disequilibrium studies;

 

 

digital database construction and security are adequate. The physical database is properly organized and secure; and

 

 

data ware subject to validation and checks that are considered appropriate and consistent with industry standards.

 

The QP did not review all procedures conducted for sample preparation, analysis and security for each sample due to the quantity of the associated data. In the opinion of the QP, previous operators/owners used industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was conducted. The QP is of the opinion that the quality of the uranium analytical data is sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation without limitations on mineral resource confidence categories.

 

8-3

March 2023


 

9.0    DATA VERIFICATION

 

9.1

Summary

 

The following is a summary of all data verification efforts for each project area discussed in this TRS.

 

Allemand-Ross

 

 

Data used for the resource estimate at the Allemand-Ross project area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs and historical reports developed by Conoco intent on developing the property as a production center. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

WWC prepared an independent Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) Technical Report on resources for this project area in April 2019 (WWC, 2019c). The current resource estimate is based on that report.

 

Barge

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project was prepared in April 2019 by BRS, Inc. (2019a). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

 

Charlie

 

 

Data used for the resource estimate at the Charlie project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

 

 

An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in April 2019 (BRS, 2019c), and a Preliminary Economic Assessment was prepared in September 2019 (BRS, 2019d) by BRS, Inc. The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of these reports and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

 

9-1

March 2023


 

Christensen Ranch and Irigaray

 

 

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

 

 

Both the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas have been successfully mined since 1978 and are currently on care and maintenance. Past production from both project areas confirms the presence of significant mineral resources that were estimated using similar methods.

 

 

A study was conducted in 1982 that compared the chemical assays of 77 historical core holes drilled on the property with radiometric data that had been reinterpreted. Conclusions of the study indicate that the total grade thicknesses (GTs) are well within the margin of error expected in such calculations, but that radiometric interpretations showed a bias. The original estimates underestimated the in-place grades and overestimated the in-place thicknesses of mineralized zones. It was concluded that these biases effectively offset one another (Scott Wilson Mining, 2010).

 

 

Another study was conducted in 1994 with prompt fission neutron (PFN) logging equipment to determine equilibrium and the extent of remobilized uranium in a producing wellfield. Core samples were also collected and chemically assayed to check the accuracy of the PFN logging and further determine disequilibrium. The study found that the PFN logging determined the same vertical and horizontal mineralization limits as the gamma logs. Core hole chemical assays were also compared with historical gamma logs, and the results indicated reasonably good correlations between the two (Scott Wilson Mining, 2010).

 

 

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

 

Clarkson Hill

 

 

Data used for the resource estimate at the Clarkson Hill project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

 

 

An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project was prepared in July 2017 by BRS, Inc. (2017b). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

 

Jab/West Jab

 

 

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

 

 

The QP reviewed a random sampling of 10% of the original logs and compared the GT, intercept depth and location to the mineral intercept table used in the GT contour mineral resource estimate.

 

9-2

March 2023


 

 

Confirmation drilling to validate historical data on the Jab portion of the project area was conducted by previous owners in 2006 and 2007. 20 offset holes were drilled within 10 ft of the surface location of historical holes. With respect to total GT of all 20 verification holes, the variance from historical holes was less than 1%; however, variation in individual holes was higher. The GT variation of offset holes ranged from 39% less to 142% more than the historical holes.

 

 

An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in April 2019 by BRS, Inc. (2019b). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

 

Ludeman

 

 

Data used for the resource estimate at the Ludeman project area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs, reports and digital databases. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

The Ludeman project area has been host to two successful pilot plant studies. The Luenberger Pilot was in production for 12 months from two wellfields, which recovered a combined 14,600 lbs U3O8. Recovery rates in the two wellfields were 68% and 27% of estimated in-place resources, and peak head grades were 175 ppm and 32 ppm (UNC Teton-Nedco, 1983). The North Platte Pilot was in production for five months with total recovery of 1,515 lbs of U3O8 at a recovery rate of 27% (Ortiz, 2005). Baseline investigations for a third pilot study were conducted by the APS Commission; however, actual pilot-scale production was never conducted. Laboratory leach testing noted that the overall recovery averaged 76% of estimated in-place resource (Hazen, 1984).

 

 

WWC prepared an independent NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources for this project area in April 2019 (WWC, 2019b). The current resource estimate is based on that report.

 

Moore Ranch

 

 

Data used for the resource estimate at the Moore Ranch project area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs and lithologic logs developed by Conoco, a major U.S. company, intent on developing the property as a production center. Industry-standard methods were used at the time of data collection.

 

 

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

 

9-3

March 2023


 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Since no historical core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the project area was conducted in 2006 and 2008. The cores were assayed to verify historical data, and two were used for leach testing.

 

 

WWC prepared an independent NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources for this project area in April 2019 (WWC, 2019a). The current resource estimate is based on that report.

 

Nine Mile

 

 

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

 

 

The Nine Mile project area was host to several pilot-scale ISR studies in the 1970s performed by RME, including a joint study with U.S. Bureau of Mines from 1977 to 1979. Pilot-scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50 ft radius. The testing demonstrated that uranium recovery using a sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide lixiviant was successful (Nigbor et al., 1982).

 

 

An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in March 2018 by BRS, Inc. (2018). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

 

Red Rim

 

 

Data used for the resource estimate at the Red Rim project area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.

 

 

An independent NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Technical Report Resource Estimate for the project area was prepared in March 2017 by BRS, Inc. (2017a). The QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.

 

Reno Creek

 

 

WWC prepared an independent TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project, Campbell County, WY USA,” which was current on December 31, 2021. That report details the resource estimate data verification for the Reno Creek project area (WWC, 2022).

 

9.2

Limitations

 

As noted in previous sections, all data used for mineral resource estimates is from historical drill holes and core samples that were collected by previous owners of the properties. In some instances, the data are not in the possession of UEC, and therefore were not available for review and verification by the QP. In addition, due to the sheer quantity of data associated with the project areas, the QP was unable to review all of the data.

 

9-4

March 2023


 

The QP visited all of the project areas except the Barge project area, which was inaccessible.

 

9.3

QP Opinion on Data Adequacy

 

Based on the QP’s review of the Project data and previous reporting, it is the QP’s opinion that exploration was conducted and documented in accordance with industry standards in place at the time the work was performed. The QP finds the historical and more recent exploration data and the overall data adequacy to be reasonably sufficient for applying QA/QC techniques. The QP has verified the Project data as described above. The significant delineation and production drilling conducted at the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas has repeatedly shown that the exploration methods used for the Project produce data that can be verified in a production scenario.

 

 

 

 

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

 

9-5

March 2023


 

10.0

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

 

10.1

Summary of Properties

 

UEC plans to use an ISR mineral extraction process to recover uranium from the host sandstone formations in the project areas. UEC will employ a leaching solution, lixiviant, composed of an oxidant and sodium bicarbonate, to bring the uranium to the surface through a series of injection and recovery wells.

 

The proposed mineral processing for the Project is the same as is currently being used or proposed at other ISR operations in Texas, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The components of uranium ISR are typically the following:

 

 

Wellfields to inject the lixiviant solution and recover the uranium, which is pumped to the surface by recovery wells and then to a satellite plant;

 

 

Processing in a satellite plant, which recovers dissolved uranium through an IX circuit onto resin, and transportation of the loaded resin to a CPP; and

 

 

Further processing in a CPP, which includes the following:

 

 

o

Elution Circuit to remove the uranium from the IX resins and produce a rich eluate;

 

 

o

Yellowcake circuit to precipitate the uranium as yellowcake from the rich eluate; and

 

 

o

Yellowcake dewatering, drying and packaging circuit to filter, dry and package the yellowcake for shipment.

 

UEC has not performed any metallurgical testing in the project areas since acquiring them. A summary of the mineral processing and metallurgical testing previously conducted for the project areas is included in Table 10-1.

 

Table 10-1:         Project Area Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Summary

 

Project Area

Notes

Allemand-Ross

No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Allemand-Ross project area or in-situ.

Barge

Mineralized material in the vicinity of the Barge project area was mined by open pit methods and recovered by conventional mineral processing. In addition, testing by RME of ISR at the Bear Creek mine utilized acidic lixiviant in various concentrations ranging from 5 to 12 mg/L H2SO4. The average uranium content in the effluent ranged from 50 to 80 ppm. The report recommends a lixiviant concentration of 3 mg/L H2SO4. Porosity in the sand of the Wasatch Formation was 28%. However, alkaline lixiviants commonly used in ISR were not tested (BRS, 2019a).

 

10-1

March 2023


 

Table 10-1:         Project Area Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing Summary (Continued)

 

Project Area

Notes

Charlie

In 1994, PRI entered a joint venture agreement with Charlie project area owner Cotter and completed a feasibility study for development as an ISR mine. As part of the feasibility study PRI completed a comprehensive bench scale leach test in July 1994 (PRI, 1995) which concluded that the mineralized material could be successfully leached using carbonate lixiviants similar to those used at other Wyoming ISR operations including PRI’s Highland facility. Metallurgical testing concluded that an average uranium recovery of 76.5% could be achieved with a neutral alkaline lixiviant (pH 7.4 s.u., 150 psi O2, 0.5 g/l HCO3). While the uranium: vanadium ratio of the mineralization at the Charlie project area is reported to be 1.41:1, only trace amounts of vanadium and other metals were detected in the leach solutions.

Christensen Ranch/ Irigaray

Both the Christensen Ranch and Irigaray project areas have had extensive ISR uranium production. Christensen Ranch produced some 3.7 million pounds U3O8 from 1989 until 2000 and approximately 6.5-million lbs in total. Irigaray produced some 0.74 million pounds U3O8 from 1978 until 2000. There is an existing satellite IX plant at Christensen Ranch and an existing CPP at Irigaray.

Clarkson Hill

No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Clarkson Hill project area or in-situ.

Jab/West Jab

UCC completed metallurgical testing of core samples from the Jab project area in 1981 to develop an acid leach using an on-site heap leach. Bench scale tests concluded that 95% recovery could be achieved using 35 lbs of H2SO4 per ton of mineralized material as a lixiviant with 4 lbs per ton of mineralized material NaClO3 as an oxidant. The study recommended using 85% recovery and 45 lbs per ton H2SO4 for feasibility purposes. Alkaline lixiviants commonly used in ISR were not tested. Hydrological studies completed in 1984 indicate that, except for the RD mineralized area, the geohydrological setting of the Jab/West Jab project area is suitable for ISR (BRS, 2019b).

Ludeman

No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Ludeman project area or in-situ; however, Chapter 9.1 describes two successful pilot plant studies that were conducted by previous owners.

Moore Ranch

In 2008, Uranium One contracted with Energy Laboratories of Casper, Wyoming to perform agitation leach tests on cores from the Moore Ranch project area. The tests were performed on samples from two core holes using sodium bicarbonate (2 g/L NaHCO3) as the carbonate complexing agent source and hydrogen peroxide (0.5 g/L H2O2) as the uranium oxidizing agent. The tests were conducted at ambient pressure. Uranium recoveries from the core samples were 82.1% and 87.6%, averaging 84.8% (WWC, 2019a).

Nine Mile

No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the Nine Mile project area or in-situ; however, Chapter 9.1 describes a successful pilot ISR and leachability study that was conducted by RME and the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

Red Rim

No recent mineral processing or metallurgical testing has been conducted on material from the project area or in-situ.

Reno Creek

The mineral processing and metallurgical testing completed at the Reno Creek project area is described in detail in the Reno Creek TRS, which was current as of December 31, 2021 (WWC, 2022).

 

10-2

March 2023


 

10.2

QP Opinion on Data Adequacy

 

The QP considers the metallurgical and physical test work and results to date to be adequate to support general process design and selection. Pump testing and core analysis demonstrate that the aquifers have sufficient porosity, permeability and transmissivity to support ISR operations, in the project areas where these data have been collected. Equilibrium testing demonstrates that, in general, positive equilibrium exists which indicates that uranium is present where gamma data suggest it is present and at the grade indicated by the probe data. Laboratory leach testing demonstrates that the uranium can be solubilized using a carbonate and oxygen based lixiviant where these data have been collected.

 

 

 

 

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

 

10-3

March 2023


 

11.0

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

 

11.1

Mineral Resource Assumptions and Parameters Applied to Each Project Area

 

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

 

 

Resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones; and

 

 

Resources are located below the water table.

 

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

 

The Delaunay Triangulation Method was used to estimate resources at the Reno Creek project area and is described in detail in the Reno Creek TRS (WWC, 2022). At the Charlie, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas, inferred mineral resources were estimated by projecting along an identified redox boundary or mineral trend. Mineral resources for a small portion of the Red Rim project area were estimated using a polygonal method, where GT values are applied across a defined localized polygonal area based on the distance to the nearest drill hole.

 

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the project areas are summarized in Table 11-1.

 

11.1.1

Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction

 

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

 

Uranium does not trade on the open market, and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed. UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project. This is based on: 1) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco’s combination of Ux Consulting (UxC) and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022), 2) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb.), 3) UxC’s price forecast, and 4) UEC’s understanding of market expectations. Table 11-2 contains the UxC uranium price forecast as of Q4 of 2021 (UxC, 2021).

 

11-1

March 2023


 

Table 111:         Methods, Parameters and Cutoffs by Project Area

 

Project Area

Mineral Resource Estimation Method

Disequilibrium Factor

Bulk Density (ft3/ton)

Cutoff Parameters1

       

Min. Grade

(% U3O8)

Min. Thickness (ft)

Min. GT

Allemand-Ross

GT Contour

1.0

16.0

0.02

-

0.25

Barge

GT Contour

1.0

16.0

0.02

-

0.25

Charlie

GT Contour (Indicated) Projected (Inferred)

1.0

16.0

0.02

-

0.20

Christensen Ranch

GT Contour

1.0

17.0

0.04

2

0.25

Clarkson Hill

GT Contour

1.0

16.0

0.02

2

0.20

Irigaray

GT Contour

1.0

17.0

0.04

2

0.25

Jab/West Jab

GT Contour

1.0

16.0

0.02

-

0.25

Ludeman

GT Contour

1.0

17.0

0.02

2

0.25

Moore Ranch

GT Contour

1.0

16.0

0.02

2

0.30

Nine Mile

GT Contour and

Projected (Inferred)2

1.0

16.0

0.015

-

0.25

Red Rim

GT Contour (Indicated)3 Polygonal (Indicated)4 GT Contour (Inferred)5 Projected (Inferred)6

1.0

16.0

-

-

0.25

Reno Creek

Delaunay Triangulation

1.0

17.0

0.01

1

0.20

Notes:

 

1.

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

 

2.

Mineral resources at Nine Mile that were estimated using a GT contour method were previously classified as indicated but have been reclassified as inferred due to increased risk regarding surface access.

 

3.

Inferred resources were projected along principal redox fronts with width, thickness and grade projected from the nearest data points.

 

4.

Where bracketed by drill data.

 

5.

A small area was calculated based on polygonal methods, where the polygon was limited by the property line or one-half the distance to adjacent holes with low grade mineralization.

 

6.

Where not bracketed fully by drill data.

 

7.

Some inferred mineralization was projected to extend along a defined trend.

 

11-2

March 2023


 

Table 11-2:         UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)

 

UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

UxC Low Price Midpoint

$36.00

$46.37

$48.11

$52.13

$56.47

UxC Mid Price Midpoint

$36.00

$40.02

$41.33

$42.59

$43.02

UxC High Price Midpoint

$36.00

$43.18

$44.14

$46.71

$48.39

 

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

 

 

First, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb.

 

 

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

 

 

Third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors (Murtaugh and Chia, 2021) will increase demand for uranium.

 

 

Finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last 3 years, with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021 due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.

 

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

 

11.1.2

Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates

 

Measured, indicated and inferred resources at the project areas are classified based on the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons. The specific criteria for classifying resources as measured, indicated or inferred vary by project area depending on the methodology used. Table 11-3 details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the project areas.

 

There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the project areas:

 

 

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

 

 

Second, as shown on the geologic cross sections (Figures 6-3a, 6-3b, 6-5a, 6-6a and 6‑8a), the subsurface geology within the project areas is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas.

 

 

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

 

11-3

March 2023


 

Table 11-3:         Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area

 

Project Area

Distance Between Drill Hole Locations

for Resource Classifications (ft)

 

Measured

Indicated

Inferred

Allemand-Ross

0 – 70

70 – 200

200 – 400

Barge

-

50 – 100

-

Charlie

-

Up to 4001

N/A2

Christensen Ranch 

0 - 100

100 – 300

300 – 500

Clarkson Hill

-

-

50 - 1003

Irigaray

0 - 100

100 – 300

300 – 500

Jab/West Jab

50 – 100

50 – 100

-

Ludeman

0 – 70

70 – 200

200 – 400

Moore Ranch

0 – 70

70 – 200

200 – 400

Nine Mile

-

-

50-100

Red Rim

-

N/A4

N/A2

Reno Creek

0 – 50

50 – 250

250 – 500

Notes:

 

1.

Indicated mineral resources were calculated along redox fronts. The maximum width projected was 50 ft, and the maximum projection along the redox front between drill holes was 200 ft.

 

2.

Inferred mineral resources were estimated for these areas where the location of the redox front or mineral trend could be reasonably interpreted based on drill data, without using specific drill hole spacing.

 

3.

Mineralization in drill holes with 50-100 ft spacing was classified as inferred mineral resources due to the lack of recent drilling to verify the pre-2008 drill data.

 

4.

Indicated mineral resources were calculated along defined trends, where drill data bracketed the mineral trend, without using specific drill hole spacing.

 

 

Finally, historical production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman and Reno Creek project areas. Similarly, commercial production at the Smith Highland Mine is just south of Allemand-Ross and Barge, and commercial production has been undertaken at the Lost Creek ISR Project, which is also in the Battle Spring Formation just south of the Jab/West Jab project area.

 

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

 

11.2

Site-by-Site Summaries

 

Cautionary Statement:

 

This TRS is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves, which may result in economic and technical failure and may adversely impact future profitability.

 

Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the project areas. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in Table 11-4 and estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in Table 11-5.

 

11-4

March 2023


 

Table 114:         Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary

 

Mineral Resource

GT Cutoff

Average Grade %
eU
3O8

Ore Tons
(000s)

eU3O8
(lbs)

Allemand-Ross

Measured

0.25

0.085

246

417,000

Indicated

0.25

0.066

32

42,400

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.083

278

459,400

Barge

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

0.25

0.051

4,301

4,361,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.051

4,301 

4,361,000

Charlie

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

0.2

0.123

1,255

3,100,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.2

0.123

1,255

3,100,000

Christensen Ranch

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

0.25

0.073

6,555

9,596,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.073

6,555

9,596,000

Clarkson Hill

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

N/A

N/A

0

0

Total Measured and Indicated

N/A

N/A

0

0

Irigaray

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

0.25

0.076

3,881

5,899,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.076

3,881

5,899,000

Jab/West Jab

Measured

0.25

0.072

1,621

2,335,000

Indicated

0.25

0.077

253

392,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.073

1,874

2,727,000

Ludeman

Measured

0.25

0.094

2,674

5,016,900

Indicated

0.25

0.088

2,660

4,696,900

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.091

5,334

9,713,800

Moore Ranch

Measured

0.3

0.06

2,675

3,210,000

Indicated

N/A

N/A

0

0

Total Measured and Indicated

0.3

0.06

2,675

3,210,000

 

11-5

March 2023


 

Table 114:         Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary (Continued)

 

Mineral Resource

GT
Cutoff

Average Grade % eU3O8

Ore Tons (000s)

eU3O8
(lbs)

Nine Mile

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

N/A

N/A

0

0

Total Measured and Indicated

N/A

N/A

0

0

Red Rim

Measured

N/A

N/A

0

0

Indicated

0.25

0.17

337

1,142,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.25

0.17

337

1,142,000

Reno Creek

Measured

0.2

0.043

14,990

12,920,000

Indicated

0.2

0.039

16,980

13,070,000

Total Measured and Indicated

0.2

0.041

31,970

25,990,000

Project Totals

Measured

22,206

23,898,900

Indicated

36,254

42,299,300

Total Measured and Indicated

58,460

66,198,200

Notes:

 

 

1.

Sum of measured and indicated tons and lbs may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.

 

2.

Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

 

3.

Resources are reported as of December 31, 2021.

 

4.

All reported resources occur below the static water table.

 

5.

The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.

 

6.

Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

 

7.

An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

 

 

 

 

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

 

11-6

March 2023


 

Table 115:         Project Area Inferred Resources Summary

 

Mineral Resource

GT Cutoff

Average Grade % eU3O8

Ore Tons

eU3O8

(000s)

(lbs)

Allemand-Ross

Inferred

0.25

0.098

1,275

2,496,000

Barge

Inferred

N/A

N/A

0

0

Charlie

Inferred

0.2

0.12

411

988,000

Christensen Ranch

Inferred

N/A

N/A

0

0

Clarkson Hill

Inferred

0.2

0.058

957

1,113,000

Irigaray

Inferred

0.25

0.068