10-K 1 efr-20171231x10k.htm 10-K Document


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017
OR
[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ___________________ to ___________________
Commission file number: 001-36204
image0a01.jpg
ENERGY FUELS INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
Ontario, Canada
98-1067994
(State of other jurisdiction of incorporation or
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
organization)
 
 
 
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
 
Lakewood, Colorado
80228
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
(Zip Code)
(303) 389-4130
(Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code)
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
Title of Each Class
 
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Shares, no par value
 
NYSE American, Toronto Stock Exchange
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes [   ]        No [X]
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes [   ]        No [X]
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.





Yes [X]        No [   ]
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 229.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes [X]       No [   ]
Indicate by checkmark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to the Form 10-K. [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company”, and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer [   ]        Accelerated Filer [X]        Non-Accelerated Filer [   ]        Smaller Reporting Company [   ]
Emerging Growth Company [X]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
Yes [   ]        No [X]
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $101,781,932
The number of common shares of the Registrant outstanding as of March 8, 2018 was 75,676,406.


DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Certain information required for Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference to the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.





ENERGY FUELS INC.
FORM 10-K
For the Year Ended December 31, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBPARTS
 
 
 
ITEM I: CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
3
 
ITEM II: CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS CONCERNING DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESOURCES
6
 
ITEM III: GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
8
 PART I
 
 
 
11
 
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
24
 
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
36
 
ITEM 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES
37
 
ITEM 2A. OVERVIEW
38
 
ITEM 2B. SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESERVES AND RESOURCES
40
 
ITEM 2C. THE NICHOLS RANCH PROJECT
44
 
ITEM 2D. THE ALTA MESA PROJECT
54
 
ITEM 2E. THE WHITE MESA MILL
62
 
ITEM 2F. THE CANYON MINE
67
 
ITEM 2G. THE ROCA HONDA PROJECT
74
 
ITEM 2H. THE SHEEP MOUNTAIN PROJECT
80
 
ITEM 2I. THE HENRY MOUNTAINS COMPLEX
87
 
ITEM 2J. THE LA SAL PROJECT
93
 
ITEM 2K. THE DANEROS PROJECT
100
 
ITEM 2L. NON-MATERIAL MINERAL PROPERTIES
106
 
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
113
 
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE
114
 PART II
 
 
 
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
115
 
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
118
 
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
120
 
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
131
 
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
133
 
ITEM 8A. REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
134
 
ITEM 8B. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
136
 
ITEM 8C. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
137
 
ITEM 8D. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
138
 
ITEM 8E. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
140
 
ITEM 8F. NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017
142
 
ITEM 8F(i). THE COMPANY AND DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
142
 
ITEM 8F(ii). BASIS OF PRESENTATION
142
 
ITEM 8F(iii). SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
142
 
ITEM 8F(iv). ACQUISITION OF THE ALTA MESA ISR PROJECT
148

1



 
ITEM 8F(v). ACQUISITION OF URANERZ ENERGY CORPORATION
149
 
ITEM 8F(vi). RECEIVABLES
150
 
ITEM 8F(vii). INVENTORIES
150
 
ITEM 8F(viii). INTANGIBLE ASSETS
150
 
ITEM 8F(ix). PLANT AND EQUIPMENT AND MINERAL PROPERTIES
151
 
ITEM 8F(x). IMPAIRMENTS
151
 
ITEM 8F(xi). ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTED CASH
152
 
ITEM 8F(xii). LOANS AND BORROWINGS
153
 
ITEM 8F(xiii). CAPITAL STOCK
154
 
ITEM 8F(xiv). BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
156
 
ITEM 8F(xv). SHARE-BASED PAYMENTS
156
 
ITEM 8F(xvi). INCOME TAXES
160
 
ITEM 8F(xvii). SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
162
 
ITEM 8F(xviii). COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
163
 
ITEM 8F(xix). SEGMENT INFORMATION
164
 
ITEM 8F(xx). UNAUDITED SUPPLEMENTARY QUARTERLY INFORMATION
165
 
ITEM 8F(xxi). FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING
165
 
ITEM 8F(xxii). RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
168
 
ITEM 8F(xxiii). SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
168
 
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
168
 
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
169
 
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
170
 PART III
 
 
 
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
171
 
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
171
 
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
171
 
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
171
 
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
171
 PART IV
 
 
 
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
171
 
ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY
176
 SIGNATURES
 
177



2



CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report and the exhibits attached hereto (the “Annual Report”) contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable US and Canadian securities laws. Such forward-looking statements concern Energy Fuels Inc.’s (the “Company” or “Energy Fuels”) anticipated results and progress of the Company’s operations in future periods, planned exploration, and, if warranted, development of its properties, plans related to its business, and other matters that may occur in the future. These statements relate to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management.
Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, schedules, assumptions, future events, or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as “expects” or “does not expect,” “is expected,” “anticipates” or “does not anticipate,” “plans,” “estimates” or “intends,” or stating that certain actions, events or results “may,” “could,” “would,” “might,” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made. Energy Fuels believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct, and such forward-looking statements included in, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report should not be unduly relied upon. This information speaks only as of the date of this Annual Report.
Readers are cautioned that it would be unreasonable to rely on any such forward-looking statements and information as creating any legal rights, and that the statements and information are not guarantees and may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and that actual results are likely to differ (and may differ materially) and objectives and strategies may differ or change from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements or information as a result of various factors. Such risks and uncertainties include risks generally encountered in the exploration, development, operation, and closure of mineral properties and processing facilities. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation:
risks associated with mineral reserve and resource estimates, including the risk of errors in assumptions or methodologies;
risks associated with estimating mineral extraction and recovery, forecasting future price levels necessary to support mineral extraction and recovery, and the Company’s ability to increase mineral extraction and recovery in response to any increases in commodity prices or other market conditions;
uncertainties and liabilities inherent to conventional mineral extraction and recovery and/or in-situ uranium recovery operations;
geological, technical and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, less than expected recoveries, ground control problems, process upsets, and equipment malfunctions;
risks associated with the depletion of existing mineral resources through mining or extraction, without replacement with comparable resources;
risks associated with identifying and obtaining adequate quantities of alternate feed materials and other feed sources required for operation of the White Mesa Mill;
risks associated with labor costs, labor disturbances, and unavailability of skilled labor;
risks associated with the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in the Company’s production processes;
risks associated with environmental compliance and permitting, including those created by changes in environmental legislation and regulation, and delays in obtaining permits and licenses that could impact expected mineral extraction and recovery levels and costs;
actions taken by regulatory authorities with respect to mineral extraction and recovery activities;
risks associated with the Company’s dependence on third parties in the provision of transportation and other critical services;
risks associated with the ability of the Company to extend or renew land tenure, including mineral leases and surface use agreements, on favorable terms or at all;
risks associated with the ability of the Company to negotiate access rights on certain properties on favorable terms or at all;
the adequacy of the Company's insurance coverage;
uncertainty as to reclamation and decommissioning liabilities;

3



the ability of the Company’s bonding companies to require increases in the collateral required to secure reclamation obligations;
the potential for, and outcome of, litigation and other legal proceedings, including potential injunctions pending the outcome of such litigation and proceedings;
the ability of the Company to meet its obligations to its creditors;
risks associated with paying off indebtedness at its maturity;
risks associated with the Company’s relationships with its business and joint venture partners;
failure to obtain industry partner, government, and other third party consents and approvals, when required;
competition for, among other things, capital, mineral properties, and skilled personnel;
failure to complete proposed acquisitions and incorrect assessments of the value of completed acquisitions;
risks posed by fluctuations in share price levels, exchange rates and interest rates, and general economic conditions;
risks inherent in the Company’s and industry analysts’ forecasts or predictions of future uranium and vanadium price levels;
fluctuations in the market prices of uranium, vanadium and copper, which are cyclical and subject to substantial price fluctuations;
risks associated with the Company's existing long-term sales contracts expiring following the Company's 2018 deliveries, and all uranium sales after 2018 being required to be made at spot prices, unless the Company is able to enter into new long-term contracts at satisfactory prices in the future;
failure to obtain suitable uranium sales terms at satisfactory prices in the future, including spot and term sale contracts;
risks associated with asset impairment as a result of market conditions;
risks associated with lack of access to markets and the ability to access capital;
the market price of Energy Fuels’ securities;
public resistance to nuclear energy or uranium extraction and recovery;
risks associated with inaccurate or nonobjective media coverage of the Company's activities and the impact such coverage may have on the public, the market for the Company's securities, government relations, permitting activities and legal challenges, as well as the costs to the Company of responding to such coverage;
uranium industry competition, international trade restrictions and the impacts on world commodity prices of foreign state subsidized production;
risks associated with the Company's involvement in industry petitions for trade remedies, including the costs of pursuing such remedies and the potential for negative responses or repercussions from various interest groups, consumers of uranium and participants in other phases of the nuclear fuel cycle;
risks related to higher than expected costs related to our Nichols Ranch Project and Canyon Project;
risks related to our ability to recover copper from our Canyon Project ores;
risks related to securities regulations;
risks related to stock price and volume volatility;
risks related to our ability to maintain our listing on the NYSE American and Toronto Stock Exchanges;
risks related to our ability to maintain our inclusion in various stock indices;
risks related to dilution of currently outstanding shares, from additional share issuances, depletion of assets or otherwise;
risks related to our lack of dividends;
risks related to recent market events;
risks related to our issuance of additional common shares under our At-the-Market ("ATM") program or otherwise to provide adequate liquidity in depressed commodity market circumstances;
risks related to acquisition and integration issues;
risks related to defects in title to our mineral properties;
risks related to our outstanding debt; and
risks related to our securities.
This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect our forward-looking statements. Some of the important risks and uncertainties that could affect forward-looking statements are described further under the section headings: Item 1. Description of the Business; Item 1A. Risk Factors; and Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Annual Report. Although we have attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially

4



from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, believed, estimated, or expected. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. Except as required by law, we disclaim any obligation to subsequently revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events. Statements relating to “Mineral Reserves” or “Mineral Resources” are deemed to be forward-looking statements, as they involve the implied assessment, based on certain estimates and assumptions that the Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources described may be profitably extracted in the future.
We qualify all the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report by the foregoing cautionary statements.

5



CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS CONCERNING
DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESOURCES
The Company is a U.S. Domestic Issuer for SEC purposes, most of its shareholders are U.S. residents and its primary trading market is the NYSE American. However, because the Company is also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange ("TSX"), this Annual Report contains certain disclosure that satisfies the additional requirements of Canadian securities laws, which differ from the requirements of United States’ securities laws. Unless otherwise indicated, all reserve and resource estimates included in this Annual Report, and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, have been prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) classification system. NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators (the “CSA”) which establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects.
Canadian standards, including NI 43-101, differ significantly from the requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and reserve and resource information contained herein, or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report, and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by companies reporting under only United States standards. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term “resource” does not equate to the term “reserve” under SEC Industry Guide 7. Under United States standards, mineralization may not be classified as a “reserve” unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. Under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards, a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study is required to report reserves; the three-year historical average price, to the extent possible, is used in any reserve or cash flow analysis to designate reserves; and the primary environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate governmental authority.
The SEC’s disclosure standards under Industry Guide 7 normally do not permit the inclusion of information concerning “Measured Mineral Resources”, “Indicated Mineral Resources” or “Inferred Mineral Resources” or other descriptions of the amount of mineralization in mineral deposits that do not constitute “reserves” by United States standards in documents filed with the SEC. United States investors should also understand that “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an “Inferred Mineral Resource” will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimated “Inferred Mineral Resources” may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an “Inferred Mineral Resource” exists or is economically or legally mineable.
Disclosure of “contained pounds” or “contained ounces” in a resource estimate is permitted and typical disclosure under Canadian regulations; however, the SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute “reserves” by SEC standards as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. The requirements of NI 43-101 for identification of “reserves” are also not the same as those of the SEC, and reserves reported by the Company in compliance with NI 43-101 may not qualify as “reserves” under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards. Accordingly, information concerning mineral deposits set forth herein may not be comparable to information made public by companies that report in accordance with United States standards.
Although the Company's primary trading market is the NYSE American, most of the Company's shareholders are U.S. residents, the Company is a U.S. domestic Issuer for SEC purposes, and the Company is required to report its financial results under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), as a company incorporated in Canada and also listed on the TSX, unless otherwise indicated, in order to comply with both Canadian and U.S. requirements, Energy Fuels estimates and reports our mineral resources and mineral reserves according to the definitions set forth in NI 43-101. All reserves that are reported in this Form 10-K are estimated in accordance with the definitions set forth in NI 43-101. The Company does not have any reserves which conform to SEC Industry Guide 7 for reporting in the U.S. The definitions for each reporting standard are presented below with supplementary explanation and descriptions of the parallels and differences.
CIM and NI 43-101 Definitions:
Feasibility Study: A “feasibility study” is a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project that includes appropriately detailed assessments of applicable modifying factors, together with any other relevant operational factors and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is reasonably justified (economically minable). The results of the study may reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project. The confidence level of the study will be higher than that of a pre-feasibility study.

6



Indicated Mineral Resource1: An “indicated mineral resource” is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation. An indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to a measured mineral resource and may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.
Inferred Mineral Resource:2 An “inferred mineral resource” is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological and grade or quality continuity. An inferred mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an indicated mineral resource and must not be converted to a mineral reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to "indicated mineral resources" with continued exploration.
Measured Mineral Resource:3 A “measured mineral resource” is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of modifying factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling, and testing and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation. A measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than that applied to either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource. It may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.
Mineral Reserve:4 A “mineral reserve” is the economically mineable part of a measured and/or indicated mineral resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses which may occur when the mineral is mined or is extracted and is defined by studies at pre-feasibility or feasibility level as appropriate that include application of modifying factors. Such studies demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction could reasonably be justified. The reference point at which mineral reserves are defined, usually the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant, must be stated. It is important that, in all situations where the reference point is different, such as for a saleable product, a clarifying statement is included to ensure that the reader is fully informed as to what is being reported. The public disclosure of a mineral reserve must be demonstrated by a pre-feasibility study or feasibility study.
Mineral Resource:5 A “mineral resource” is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade or quality, continuity and other geological characteristics of a mineral resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling.
Modifying Factors: “Modifying factors” are considerations used to convert mineral resources to mineral reserves. These include, but are not restricted to, mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmental factors.
Pre-Feasibility Study: A “pre-feasibility study” is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a preferred mining method, in the case of underground mining, or the pit configuration, in the case of an open pit, is established and an effective method of mineral processing is determined. It includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions on the modifying factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors which are sufficient for a qualified person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the mineral resource may be converted to a mineral reserve at the time of reporting. A pre-feasibility study is at a lower confidence level than a feasibility study.
Probable Mineral Reserve:6 A “probable mineral reserve” is the economically mineable part of an indicated, and in some circumstances, a measured mineral resource. The confidence in the modifying factors applied to a probable mineral reserve is lower than that applied to a proven mineral reserve.
Proven Mineral Reserve:7 A “proven mineral reserve” is the economically minable part of a measured mineral resource. A proven mineral reserve implies a high degree of confidence in the modifying factors.
______________________________________
1 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize the designation of a deposit as an “Indicated Mineral Resource.”
2 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize the designation of a deposit as an “Inferred Mineral Resource.”
3 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize the designation of a deposit as a “Measured Mineral Resource.”
4 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize “reserves” calculated in accordance with NI 43-101.
5 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize the designation of a deposit as a “Mineral Resource.”
6 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize “reserves” calculated in accordance with NI 43-101. SEC Industry Guide 7 requires a final or “bankable” feasibility study for the designation of a deposit as a “reserve” that must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic

7



extraction is justified. Further, all necessary permits must have been filed with the appropriate regulatory authorities including the primary environmental analysis or report.
Qualified Person:8 A “qualified person” is an individual who: (a) is an engineer or geoscientist with a university degree, or equivalent accreditation, in an area of geoscience or engineering, relating to mineral exploration or mining; (b) has at least five years of experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation, or mineral project assessment, or any combination of these, that is relevant to his or her professional degree or area of practice; (c) has experience relevant to the subject matter of the mineral project and technical report; (d) is in good standing with a professional association; and (e) in the case of a professional association in a non-Canadian jurisdiction, has a membership designation that (i) requires attainment of a position of responsibility in his or her profession that requires the exercise of independent judgment; and (ii) requires (A) a favorable confidential peer evaluation of the individual’s character, professional judgment, experience, and ethical fitness; or (B) a recommendation for membership by at least two peers, and demonstrated prominence or expertise in the field of mineral exploration or mining.
SEC Industry Guide 7 Definitions:
Exploration Stage: Includes all issuers engaged in the search for mineral deposits (reserves) which are not in either the development or production stage.
Development Stage: Includes all issuers engaged in the preparation of an established commercially mineable deposit (reserves) for its extraction which are not yet in the production stage.
Probable (Indicated) Reserves: Reserves for which quantity and grade and/or quality are computed from information similar to that used for proven (measured) reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for proven reserves, is high enough to assume continuity between points of observation.
Production Stage: Includes all issuers engaged in the exploitation of a mineral deposit (reserve).
Proven (Measured) Reserves: Reserves for which (a) quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, working, or drill holes; grade and/or quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling and (b) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are spaced so closely and the geological character is so well defined that size, shape, depth, and mineral content of reserves are well established.
Reserve: That part of a mineral deposit which could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the time of the reserve determination.
Note: as the Company does not have any mineral reserves within the meaning of SEC Industry Guide 7, it is considered to be in an Exploration Stage, regardless of its uranium recovery activities.
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
The following defined technical terms are used in this Annual Report:
Assay: The testing of a metal or ore to determine its ingredients and quality.
Breccia: A rock in which angular fragments are surrounded by a mass of fine-grained materials.
Copper: A red-brown metal, the chemical element of atomic number 29.
Cut-off or cut-off grade: When determining economically viable mineral reserves, the lowest grade of mineralized material that can be mined economically. When determining mineral resources, the lowest grade of mineralized material included in the resource estimate.
eU3O8: This term refers to equivalent U3O8 grade derived by gamma logging of drill holes.
EA: Environmental Assessment prepared under NEPA for a mineral project.
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement prepared under NEPA for a mineral project.

______________________________________
7 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not recognize “reserves” calculated in accordance with NI 43-101. SEC Industry Guide 7 requires a final or “bankable” feasibility study for the designation of a deposit as a “reserve” that must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is justified. Further, all necessary permits must have been filed with the appropriate regulatory authorities including the primary environmental analysis or report.
8 SEC Industry Guide 7 does not require designation of a qualified person.

8



Extraction: The process of physically extracting mineralized material from the ground. Exploration continues during the extraction process and, in many cases, mineralized material is expanded during the life of the extraction activities as the exploration potential of the deposit is realized.
Formation: A distinct layer of sedimentary or volcanic rock of similar composition.
Grade: Quantity or percentage of metal per unit weight of host rock.
Host Rock: The rock containing a mineral or an ore body.
In-situ recovery ("ISR"): The recovery, by chemical means, of the uranium component of a deposit without the physical extraction of uranium-bearing material from the ground. ISR utilizes injection of appropriate oxidizing chemicals into a uranium-bearing sandstone deposit by injection wells, with the uranium-bearing solution being removed by extraction wells; also referred to as “solution mining.”
Mineral: A naturally formed chemical element or compound having a definite chemical composition and, usually, a characteristic crystal form.
Mineralization: A natural occurrence, in rocks or soil, of one or more metal yielding minerals.
Mineralized material: Material that contains mineralization (e.g., uranium, vanadium and/or copper) and that is not included in an SEC Reserve as it does not meet all of the criteria for adequate demonstration of economic or legal extraction.
National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”): The National Instrument regarding Canadian standards of disclosure for mineral projects.
NEPA: The United States National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
Open pit: Surface mineral extraction in which the mineralized material is extracted from a pit or quarry.
Ore: Mineral bearing rock that can be mined, processed and concentrated profitably under current or immediately foreseeable economic conditions. Under SEC Industry Guide 7, a company may only refer to reserves (as that term is defined in SEC Industry Guide 7) as “ore.”
Ore body: A mostly solid and fairly continuous mass of in-ground mineralization estimated to be economically mineable.
Outcrop: That part of a geologic formation or structure that appears at the surface of the Earth.
PEA: A Preliminary Economic Assessment performed in accordance with NI 43-101. A Preliminary Economic Assessment is a study, other than a pre-feasibility study or feasibility study, which includes an economic analysis of the potential viability of mineral resources.
PO: Plan of Operations for a mineral project prepared in accordance with applicable United States Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service regulations.
Reclamation: The process by which lands disturbed as a result of mineral extraction activities are modified to support beneficial land use. Reclamation activity may include the removal of buildings, equipment, machinery, and other physical remnants of mining activities, closure of tailings storage facilities, leach pads, and other features, and contouring, covering and re-vegetation of waste rock, and other disturbed areas.
RoD or Record of Decision: The final approval issued by the United States Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service for a PO.
SEC Industry Guide 7: U.S. reporting guidelines that apply to registrants engaged, or to be engaged, in significant mining operations.
Uranium: a heavy, naturally radioactive, metallic element of atomic number 92. Uranium in its pure form is a heavy metal. Its two principal isotopes are U-238 and U-235, of which U-235 is the necessary component for the nuclear fuel cycle. However, “uranium” used in this Annual Report refers to triuranium octoxide, also called “U3O8” and the primary component of “yellowcake,” and is produced from uranium deposits. It is the most actively traded uranium-related commodity.

9



Uranium concentrate: a yellowish to yellow-brownish powder obtained from the chemical processing of uranium-bearing material. Uranium concentrate typically contains 70% to 90% U3O8 by weight. Uranium concentrate is also referred to as “yellowcake.”
% U3O8 Eq: equivalent uranium grade calculated by combining uranium content and copper content by taking into account commodity price and recovery factors.
V2O5: Vanadium pentoxide, or the form of vanadium typically produced at the White Mesa Mill, also called “blackflake.”
Yellowcake: Another name for Uranium Concentrate.

10



PART I
ITEM 1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
General Development of the Business
Corporate Structure
The Company's corporate offices are in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area, and all of its assets and employees are in the western United States, and are owned and operated by the Company's subsidiary, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., and its affiliates.
The Company is an Ontario corporation. It was incorporated on June 24, 1987 in the Province of Alberta under the name “368408 Alberta Inc.” In October 1987, 368408 Alberta Inc. changed its name to “Trevco Oil & Gas Ltd.” In May 1990, Trevco Oil & Gas Ltd. changed its name to “Trev Corp.” In August 1994, Trev Corp. changed its name to “Orogrande Resources Inc.” In April 2001, Orogrande Resources Inc. changed its name to “Volcanic Metals Exploration Inc.” On September 2, 2005, the Company was continued under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario). On March 26, 2006, Volcanic Metals Exploration Inc. acquired 100% of the outstanding shares of “Energy Fuels Resources Corporation.” On May 26, 2006, Volcanic Metals Exploration Inc. changed its name to “Energy Fuels Inc.” On November 5, 2013, the Company amended its Articles to consolidate its issued and outstanding common shares on the basis of one post-consolidation common share for every 50 pre-consolidation Common Shares.
The Company conducts its operations through its U.S. subsidiaries, which have their principal place of business and corporate office at 225 Union Blvd., Suite 600, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, USA. The Company’s website address is www.energyfuels.com. The registered office of Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. is at 225 Union Blvd., Suite 600, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, USA, and the registered office of the Company is located at 82 Richmond Street East; Suite 308 Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1P1, Canada.
The primary trading market for Energy Fuels’ common shares (the “Common Shares”) is the NYSE American under the trading symbol “UUUU,” and the Company’s common shares are also listed on the TSX under the trading symbol “EFR.” Energy Fuels is a U.S. domestic issuer for SEC reporting purposes and, in addition, is a reporting issuer in all of the Canadian provinces. Certain warrants issued by the Company are listed on the NYSE American under the symbol "UUUU-WT." and are also listed on the TSX under the symbol "EFR.WT". Options on Energy Fuels’ common shares are traded on The Chicago Board Options Exchange. The Designated Primary Market Maker for the options is Group One Trading, LP. KCG Americas LLC is the Company’s Market Maker on the NYSE American. In addition, Energy Fuels’ Cdn $20.9 million aggregate amount of convertible debentures are listed on the TSX under the symbol “EFR.DB.”
The Company conducts its uranium extraction, recovery, and sales business, and owns its properties, through a number of subsidiaries. A diagram depicting the organizational structure of the Company and its active subsidiaries, including the name, country of incorporation, and proportion of ownership interest, is included as Exhibit 21.1 to this Annual Report. All of the Company’s U.S. assets are held directly or indirectly through the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries Energy Fuels Holdings Corp. (“EF Holdings”) and Strathmore Minerals Corp. (“Strathmore”). EF Holdings and Strathmore hold all or a portion of their uranium extraction, recovery, permitting, evaluation and exploration assets through a number of additional subsidiaries, as detailed below. Energy Fuels also owns a number of inactive subsidiaries which have no material assets or liabilities and do not engage in any material business activities.
All of the Company's properties are operated by Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (“EFUSA”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of EF Holdings.
In addition, the Company holds 9,439,857 shares of Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (TSXV:VUI; OTCQX:VEGYF) currently representing an approximate 16.5% equity interest in that company, and 14,250,000 common shares of enCore Energy Corp. (TSXV:UE) currently representing an approximate 12.8% equity interest in that company.
Business Overview
Energy Fuels is engaged in conventional and in situ recovery (“ISR”) uranium extraction and recovery, along with the exploration, permitting, and evaluation of uranium properties in the United States. Its corporate offices are in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area, and all of its assets and employees are in the western United States. Energy Fuels owns the Nichols Ranch Uranium Recovery Facility in Wyoming (the “Nichols Ranch Project”), which is one of the newest uranium recovery facilities operating in the United States, and the Alta Mesa Project in Texas (the "Alta Mesa Project"), which is a fully-permitted ISR production facility currently on care and maintenance. In addition, Energy Fuels owns the White Mesa Mill in Utah (the “White Mesa Mill” or “Mill”), which is the only conventional uranium recovery facility operating in the United States. The Company also owns uranium and uranium/vanadium properties and projects in various stages of exploration, permitting, and evaluation, as well as fully-permitted uranium and uranium/vanadium projects, and a uranium/copper project, on standby. The White Mesa Mill can also recover vanadium as a by-product of mineralized material produced from certain of its projects in Colorado and Utah, and is

11



evaluating recovering copper as a by-product from a uranium/copper project in Arizona. In addition, Energy Fuels recovers uranium from other uranium-bearing materials not derived from conventional material, referred to as “alternate feed materials,” at its White Mesa Mill.
ISR Operations
The Company conducts its ISR activities through its Nichols Ranch Project in northeast Wyoming, which it acquired in June 2015 through its acquisition of Uranerz Energy Corporation (“Uranerz”), and its Alta Mesa Project in south Texas, which it acquired in June 2016 through its acquisition of Mesteña Uranium, LLC (“Mesteña), which is now named EFR Alta Mesa LLC ("EFR Alta Mesa").
The Nichols Ranch Project includes: (i) a licensed and operating ISR processing facility (the “Nichols Ranch Plant”); (ii) licensed and operating ISR wellfields (the “Nichols Ranch Wellfields”); (iii) additional licensed ISR wellfields planned for future production (the “Jane Dough Property”), and; (iv) a licensed satellite ISR uranium project (the “Hank Project”), which will include an ISR processing plant (the “Hank Satellite Plant”) that, when constructed, will produce loaded-resin, and associated planned wellfields (the “Hank Property”). See “The Nichols Ranch ISR Project” under Item 2 below. Also through the acquisition of Uranerz, the Company acquired the Reno Creek property (the “Reno Creek Property”), West North Butte property (the “West North Butte Property”), and the North Rolling Pin property (the “North Rolling Pin Property”), as well as the Arkose Mining Venture (the “Arkose Mining Venture”), which is a joint venture of Wyoming ISR properties held 81% by Energy Fuels. The Company is currently under contract to sell the Reno Creek Property to Uranium Energy Corp. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties - Other ISR Projects” under Item 2 below.
The Nichols Ranch Project is an operating ISR facility that recovers uranium through a series of injection and recovery wells. Using groundwater fortified with oxygen and sodium bicarbonate, uranium is dissolved within a deposit. The groundwater is then collected in a series of recovery wells and pumped to the Nichols Ranch Plant. The Nichols Ranch Plant creates a yellowcake slurry that is transported by truck to the White Mesa Mill, where it is dried and packaged into drums that are shipped to uranium conversion facilities.
Construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant, other than the elution, drying and packaging circuits, was completed in 2013, and it commenced uranium recovery activities in the second quarter of 2014. In September of 2015, the Company commenced construction of an elution circuit at the Nichols Ranch Plant, which was completed and began operations in February 2016. During 2017, a total of 259,000 pounds of U3O8 were recovered from the Nichols Ranch Project.
The Alta Mesa Project is a fully licensed, permitted and constructed ISR processing facility that has an operating capacity of 1.5 million pounds of uranium per year and comprises 195,501 contiguous acres of land. The Alta Mesa Project is currently on standby and ready to resume production as market conditions warrant; Alta Mesa is expected to be able to reach commercial production levels with limited required capital within approximately twelve months of a production decision. See “The Alta Mesa Project” under Item 2 below.
Conventional Operations
The Company conducts its conventional uranium extraction and recovery activities through its White Mesa Mill, which is the only operating conventional uranium and vanadium processing facility in the United States. The White Mesa Mill, located near Blanding Utah, is centrally located such that it can be fed by a number of the Company’s uranium, uranium/vanadium and uranium/copper projects in Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, as well as by ore purchases or toll milling arrangements with third parties in the region as market conditions warrant.
The White Mesa Mill is a 2,000 ton per day uranium recovery facility, which can also process vanadium as a by-product of mineralized material extracted from certain uranium/vanadium properties, and is evaluating recovering copper as a by-product from a uranium/copper project in Arizona. In addition, the Mill can recycle other uranium-bearing materials not derived from conventional ore, referred to as "alternate feed materials", for the recovery of uranium, alone or in combination with other metals.
The White Mesa Mill has historically operated on a campaign basis, whereby mineral processing occurs as mill feed, contract requirements, and market conditions warrant. Over the years, the Company’s own, and third-party owned, conventional uranium properties in Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico have been both active and on standby, from time-to-time, in response to changing market conditions. From 2007 through 2014, running on a campaign basis, the White Mesa Mill recovered on average over 1 million pounds of  U3O8 per year from conventional sources, including its La Sal Project, Daneros Project, and Tony M property in Utah; its Arizona 1 and Pinenut Projects in Arizona; and alternate feed materials. During 2015, the Mill recovered a total of 296,000 lbs. of U3O8, of which 25,000 pounds were recovered from conventional materials and the remainder from processing alternate feed materials (including 72,000 pounds for the account of a third party). During 2016, the Mill recovered a total of 680,000 lbs. of U3O8, of which 433,000 pounds were recovered from conventional materials from the Company's Pinenut Project and 248,000 pounds from processing alternate feed materials. During 2017, the Mill recovered 310,000 pounds from

12



processing pond solutions and 1,000,000 pounds from processing alternate feed materials, of which a total of 360,000 pounds were for the Company's account and 950,000 pounds were for the account of third parties.
The Company’s Pinenut Project, where mineral extraction activities occurred until September 2015, is now depleted, and reclamation activities have commenced. The Company continues to receive and process alternate feed materials at the White Mesa Mill. At the Company’s permitted Canyon Project, an underground drilling project has been completed, and a new shaft was completed in the first quarter of 2018. The timing to extract and process mineralized material from the Canyon Project will be based on market conditions, available financing, and sales requirements. All of the Company’s other conventional properties and projects are currently in the permitting process or on standby pending improvements in market conditions. No third party conventional properties are active at this time.
The Company also owns the Sheep Mountain Project (the “Sheep Mountain Project”), which is a conventional uranium extraction project located in Wyoming. Due to its distance from the White Mesa Mill, the Sheep Mountain Project is not expected to be a source of feed material for the Mill. The Sheep Mountain Project consists of permitted open pit and underground extraction components (the “Sheep Mountain Extraction Operation”) and a planned processing facility to process extracted mineralized material (the “Sheep Mountain Processing Operation”), which has not yet been permitted.
The Company’s principal conventional properties include the following:
the White Mesa Mill, a 2,000 ton per day uranium and vanadium processing facility, which is also evaluating recovering copper as a by-product from the Company's Canyon Project, located near Blanding, Utah, held through the Company’s subsidiary EFR White Mesa LLC. See “The White Mesa Mill” under Item 2 below;
the Arizona Strip uranium properties located in north central Arizona, including: the Canyon Project, which is a fully-permitted uranium/copper project with all surface facilities and a new shaft in place (see “The Canyon Project” under Item 2 below); the Wate project (the “Wate Project”), which is a uranium deposit in the permitting stage; the Arizona 1 project (the “Arizona 1 Project”), which is a fully-permitted uranium project on standby; and the EZ properties (“EZ Properties”), which are uranium deposits in the exploration and evaluation stage. All of the Company’s Arizona Strip properties are held by the Company’s subsidiary EFR Arizona Strip LLC, with the exception of the Wate Project, which is held by the Company’s subsidiary Wate Mining Company LLC. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other Conventional Projects – Arizona Strip” under Item 2 below;
the Roca Honda uranium project (the “Roca Honda Project”), which is located near the town of Grants, New Mexico, held by the Company’s subsidiaries Strathmore Resources (US), Ltd., and Roca Honda Resources LLC. See “The Roca Honda Project” under Item 2 below;
the Sheep Mountain Project, which is a uranium project located near Jeffrey City, Wyoming, including permitted open pit and underground components held by the Company’s subsidiary Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc. See “The Sheep Mountain Project” under Item 2 below;
the Henry Mountains complex of uranium projects (the “Henry Mountains Complex”), located in south central Utah near the town of Ticaboo, which is comprised of the Tony M property (the “Tony M Property”) and the Bullfrog property (the “Bullfrog Property”), and which are held by the Company’s subsidiary EFR Henry Mountains LLC. See “The Henry Mountains Complex” under Item 2 below;
the La Sal complex of uranium and uranium/vanadium projects (the “La Sal Project”) (see “The La Sal Project” under Item 2 below), the Whirlwind uranium/vanadium project (the “Whirlwind Project”), and the Sage Plain uranium/vanadium project (the “Sage Plain Project”), all of which are located near the Colorado/Utah border (the “Colorado Plateau”) and, in addition to nearby exploration properties, are held by the Company’s subsidiary EFR Colorado Plateau LLC. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other Conventional Projects – Colorado Plateau” under Item 2 below;
the Daneros uranium project (the “Daneros Project”) located in the White Canyon district in southeastern Utah, which is held by the Company’s subsidiary EFR White Canyon Corp. See “The Daneros Project” under Item 2 below; and
a number of non-core uranium properties, which the Company is evaluating for sale or abandonment, which are held in various of the Company’s subsidiaries. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties” under Item 2 below.
Mineral Exploration
Energy Fuels holds a number of exploration properties in the Colorado Plateau, White Canyon, Grants, Arizona Strip, and Powder River Basin Districts. Energy Fuels has conducted intermittent exploration drilling on numerous projects in the period from February 2007 through December 2013. Several of those projects have been abandoned or sold. No exploration drilling was performed in 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties” under Item 2 below.
Development of the Business -- Major Transactions over the Past Five Years
Over the past five years, the Company has completed the following major transactions:

13



In October 2013, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of Strathmore Minerals Corp. Under that transaction, the Company acquired a 60% interest in the Roca Honda Project as well as the Company’s 100% interests in other properties and assets, some of which have since been sold. The Roca Honda Project was formerly held in a joint venture until the Company acquired full ownership of the project in May 2016 when it purchased Sumitomo Corporation's 40% interest in the project. (see “The Roca Honda Project – History” under Item 2 below). The Roca Honda Project and the remaining assets acquired in October 2013 are held in the Company’s subsidiary, Strathmore Resources (US), Ltd.
In two transactions in 2014, the Company sold its interest in the Pinon Ridge uranium/vanadium mill project, which is located in western Colorado, that the Company had previously planned to develop, along with a number of other non-core uranium properties;
In June 2015, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of Uranerz. Under that transaction, the Company acquired the Nichols Ranch Project, the Hank Project, the Reno Creek Property, the West North Butte Property, the North Rolling Pin Property, the Company’s interest in the Arkose Mining Venture, uranium sales contracts, and other assets, as well as the shares of Uranerz, which holds those assets;
In two separate transactions in February and November of 2015, the Company acquired 100% ownership of the Wate Project through the acquisition of Wate Mining Company LLC;
In June 2016, the Company acquired EFR Alta Mesa and its primary asset, the Alta Mesa Project;
In November 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement to sell its non-core Reno Creek Property to Uranium Energy Corp. (see 2017 Corporate Developments, below); and
In November 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement to acquire and extinguish royalties on its Nichols Ranch Project as well as acquire and hold royalties on nearby operating and permitting ISR uranium projects owned by Cameco Corporation (see 2017 Corporate Developments, below).
2017 Corporate Developments
On May 17, 2017, the Board appointed Messrs. Benjamin Eshleman III and Robert W. Kirkwood to serve as Directors of the Company pursuant to the Board's power to increase the size of the Board by up to one-third in number between annual meetings of shareholders. Messrs. Glenn Catchpole and Ron Hochstein did not stand for re-election as Directors at the Company's Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, and therefore ceased to be Directors effective May 17, 2017.
Effective June 12, 2017, Ames Brown resigned as a Director of the Company.
Effective July 1, 2017, the Company appointed Mark S. Chalmers as President and Chief Operating Officer.
On November 2, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement to sell its non-core Reno Creek Property to Uranium Energy Corp. ("UEC") for $5.39 million, including $2.94 million of cash and $2.45 million shares of UEC that will be priced upon the closing of the transaction. The Company expects this transaction to be completed in Q1-2018.
On November 13, 2017, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement with Excalibur Industries to acquire and extinguish royalties on its Nichols Ranch Project as well as acquire and hold royalties on nearby operating and permitted ISR uranium projects owned by Cameco for approximately $3.5 million, subject to certain adjustments. This consideration will be payable in common shares at closing, which will be priced based on the volume-weighted average price ("VWAP") of Energy Fuels' shares on the NYSE American for the five most recent trading days ending on the last trading day prior to closing. Through the transaction, the Company will acquire a 6% - 8% sliding-scale gross proceeds production royalty on Energy Fuels' Nichols Ranch Project. This royalty also applies to other properties owned by the Company nearby. After closing, the Company expects to extinguish these royalties. Energy Fuels is also acquiring the 4% gross proceeds production royalty on Cameco's North Butte/Brown Ranch Project ("North Butte"), the Ruby Ranch Project, and the Greasewood property. North Butte is a fully permitted and operational project that has been operated by Cameco as a satellite to their Smith Ranch-Highland ISR Project since 2013. This transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2018.
On December 29, 2017, the Company amended its existing Controlled Equity Offering Sales Agreement with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (“Cantor”), to extend its ability to sell from time to time at its discretion, through Cantor as agent, common shares by way of an “at-the-market” offering (the “ATM”). Sales of the shares, if any, would occur by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions or block trades, with sales only being made on the NYSE American at market prices. Any decision to undertake sales of common shares pursuant to the ATM would be at the Company’s sole discretion. No common shares will be offered or sold through the ATM on the TSX. In connection with the ATM, the Company filed a prospectus supplement to its U.S. registration statement on Form S-3 (the “Registration Statement”), qualifying for distribution up to $30 million in common shares under the extended ATM.
Company Strategy
Energy Fuels intends to continue to strengthen its position as a leading uranium extraction and recovery company in the United States. Through the operating White Mesa Mill, the operating Nichols Ranch Project, the standby Alta Mesa Project, our large

14



uranium resource base, and existing conventional projects on standby, under construction, and in permitting, the Company’s strategy is to remain a unique and valuable call option on increases in the price of uranium, with significant scalability in improved market conditions. The Company is also pursuing revenue-generating opportunities at its White Mesa Mill through potential vanadium recovery and land clean-up work. The Company currently intends to maintain its ISR and conventional uranium recovery capabilities, its uranium resource base, and its scalability. However, continued weakness in uranium prices; an inability to generate sufficient revenues from alternate feed materials, potential land cleanup work and vanadium opportunities; and/or cash needs may dictate that the Company engage in further measures to maintain the value of this option.
As a result of the foregoing, we intend to maintain the value of the Company as a call option on increases in the price of uranium, while conserving cash, by engaging in the following activities:
Produce from existing wellfields (wellfields #1 through #9) at Nichols Ranch and defer further wellfield development at Nichols Ranch until uranium prices improve;

Continue alternate feed processing and recovery of uranium from uranium dissolved in the Mill’s ponds, as well as pursue additional alternate feed materials and other sources of feed for the Mill, including potential vanadium recovery and material generated from land cleanup work;

Complete installation of the sump at the Canyon Project in the first quarter of 2018, after which time all field activities will have been completed. The Company plans to continue to carry out engineering, procurement and construction management activities in 2018;

Continue evaluating the possibility of recovering copper at the White Mesa Mill as a by-product from the Canyon Project and pursue any permitting actions that may be required;

Continue to maintain standby projects and facilities (including the Canyon Project, Alta Mesa Project, the La Sal Project and the Daneros Project) in a state of readiness for the purpose of restarting mining activities, as market conditions may warrant. At this time, all of the Company’s conventional projects are expected to remain on standby until market conditions warrant restarting mining activities, or are in the evaluation or permitting process;

Continue permitting activities for the Roca Honda Project through the end of 2018;

Continue to pursue an appropriate trade remedy that properly recognizes the value of uranium produced in the U.S., as proposed in the Petition (see Subsequent Events, below);

Continue to evaluate the sale or abandonment of non-core assets that the Company does not believe contribute to shareholder value in order to reduce costs and/or receive sales proceeds; and

Continue to pursue additional cost cutting measures.
Subsequent Events
On January 16, 2018, the Company and Ur-Energy (the "Petitioners") announced that they had jointly filed a Petition (the "Petition") for Relief with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("DOC") under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (as amended) from Imports of Uranium Products that Threaten U.S. National Security. The Petition describes how uranium and nuclear fuel from state-owned and state-subsidized enterprises in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and China potentially represent a threat to U.S. national security. The Petition seeks remedies which will set a quota to limit imports of uranium into the U.S., effectively reserving 25% of the U.S. nuclear market for U.S. uranium production. Additionally, the Petition suggests implementation of a requirement for U.S. federal utilities and agencies to buy U.S. uranium in accordance with the President's Buy American Policy. The remedies proposed by the Petitioners are expected to strengthen the U.S. uranium mining industry, bolster national defense, and improve supply diversification for U.S. utilities and their customers. It should be noted, however, that there can be no certainty of the outcome of the investigation or the recommendation of the Secretary, and therefore the outcome of this process is uncertain.

On January 31, 2018, Stephen P. Antony retired from his position as Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Company, and on February 1, 2018 Mark S. Chalmers was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Company.

On February 14, 2018, Mr. W. Paul Goranson, the former Executive Vice President, Operations, was appointed as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, reporting to the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mr. Matthew

15



Tarnowski, the former Controller of the Company, was appointed as Chief Accounting Officer and Controller of the Company, reporting to the Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

On March 1, 2018, Daniel G. Zang resigned from his position as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and on March 2, 2018, Mr. David C. Frydenlund, the former Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the Company, was appointed as Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the Company, reporting to the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

On March 8, 2018, the Board appointed Barbara A. Filas as a Director of the Company effective March 12, 2018, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Ames Brown from the Board.
Uranium Sales
The Company has four existing contracts, which require deliveries of 650,000 pounds of U3O8 in 2018. Of this, a total of 400,000 pounds of U3O8 is required to be sourced from the Company’s uranium recovery operations, while Energy Fuels has the option to fulfill the remaining 250,000 pounds of U3O8 from the Company’s uranium recovery operations and/or open market purchases. At December 31, 2017, the Company had approximately 615,000 pounds of finished goods inventory from the Company’s uranium recovery operations.
In 2018, the Company expects to have sufficient existing inventory or uranium recovery to meet all of its commitments to sell 650,000 pounds of uranium under its existing contracts.
Of the 650,000 pounds of expected sales in 2018, 50,000 pounds are being sold at $24.75 per pound, 400,000 pounds are being sold at a fixed price of $61.30 per pound, and 200,000 pounds are being sold at a 0.5% discount to spot prices in effect at the times of delivery. Additional selective spot sales may be made in 2018 as necessary to generate cash for operations.
Overview of Uranium Market
The primary commercial use of uranium is to fuel nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity. All of the uranium extracted from Energy Fuels’ projects is expected to be used for this purpose.
According to the World Nuclear Association (“WNA”), as of January 2018, there are currently 447 operable nuclear reactors world-wide, which required approximately 169 million pounds of U3O8 fuel in 2017 at full operation. Worldwide there are currently 58 new reactors under construction with an additional 157 reactors on order or in the planning stage, and another 351 which have been proposed.
According to data from TradeTech LLC (“TradeTech”), the world continues to require more uranium than it produces from primary extraction, largely due to increasing uranium demands in Asia. The gap between demand and primary supply is filled by stockpiled inventories and secondary supplies.
According to the WNA, the United States currently has 99 operating reactors, two reactors under construction, and another 35 reactors on order, planned or proposed. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute ("NEI"), the United States produced approximately 19.7% of its electricity from nuclear technology and avoided 554 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2016. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (“EIA”), U.S. utilities purchased approximately 56.5 million pounds of U3O8 in 2016. However, in 2016 the U.S. only produced approximately 2.9 million pounds of U3O8. As a result, in 2016, the U.S. fulfilled only about 5% of its demand from domestic primary mine production. According to published EIA data, the U.S. produced 2.42 million pounds of U3O8 in 2017, including 1.47 million pounds of mine production and 0.95 million pounds of previously mined production that was reprocessed at the Company’s White Mesa Mill.
Uranium is not traded on an open market or organized commodity exchange such as the London Metal Exchange, although the New York Mercantile Exchange provides financially-settled uranium futures contracts. Typically, buyers and sellers negotiate transactions privately and directly. Spot uranium transactions typically involve deliveries that occur immediately and up to 12 months in the future. Term uranium transactions typically involve deliveries that occur more than 12 months in the future, with long-term transactions involving delivery terms of at least three years. Uranium prices, both spot and term, are published by two independent market consulting firms, TradeTech and The Ux Consulting Company (“Ux”), on a weekly and monthly basis. Other brokers, including Numerco Ltd., Uranium Markets LLC, and Evolution Markets Inc., also publish daily broker average uranium prices.
The spot and term prices of uranium are influenced by a number of global factors. For example, both the spot and term prices of uranium were negatively impacted by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in March 2011. The events at Fukushima created heightened concerns regarding the safety of nuclear plants and led to both temporary and permanent closures of nuclear plants around the world. The Fukushima incident has created downward pressure on uranium prices over the past seven years,

16



which is still being felt today. In contrast, China is pursuing an aggressive nuclear program, with 38 units now operating, 20 new units under construction, 39 units which are planned, and 143 units that have been proposed, according to January 2018 WNA data.
Historically, most nuclear utilities have sought to purchase a portion of their uranium needs through mid- and long-term supply contracts, while other portions are bought on the spot market. Like sellers, buyers seek to balance the security of supply with the opportunity to take advantage of lower prices caused by volatility in prices. For this reason, both buyers and sellers track current spot and term prices for uranium carefully, make considered projections as to future prices, and negotiate with one another on transactions which each deems favorable to their respective interests.
The graph below shows the monthly spot (blue line) and long-term (red line) uranium price from August 1969 until February 2018 as reported by TradeTech (not adjusted for inflation):
excelgraph1.jpg
To give a more recent perspective, the graph below shows the monthly spot (blue line) and long-term (red line) uranium price from January 2013 until February 2018 as reported by TradeTech (not adjusted for inflation):
excelgraph2.jpg
According to monthly price data from TradeTech, uranium prices during 2017 were up $3.50, or 17% for the year. Monthly spot prices began the year at $20.25 per pound of U3O8 on December 31, 2016 and ended the year at $23.75 per pound, reaching a high of $24.50 per pound for the month of January 2017 and a low of $19.95 per pound for the month of May 2017. According to Trade Tech, the spot price was $22.25 per pound on March 2, 2018. TradeTech price data also indicated that long-term U3O8 prices began 2017 at $30.00 per pound and ended 2017 at $31.00 per pound. The high long-term price for 2017 was $35.00 per pound for February, March, and April, and the low long-term price was $30.00 per pound for September and October. The long-term price at February 28, 2018 was $29.00 per pound. The Company believes the weak uranium markets are the result of excess uranium supplies caused by large quantities of secondary uranium extraction and excess inventories, the availability of low-priced spot material, the delayed restart of Japanese reactors, insufficient production cut-backs especially from state-owned and state-subsidized uranium and uranium fuel entities, premature reactor closures, and continued weak uranium demand.

17



Uranium Market Outlook and Uranium Marketing Strategy
World demand for clean, reliable, and affordable baseload electricity is growing. As a result of the expected growth of nuclear energy, the Company believes the long-term fundamentals of the uranium industry remain positive. The Company believes prices must rise to higher levels to support the new primary production that will be required to meet the increasing demand we expect to see as more nuclear units are constructed around the world. According to TradeTech, world uranium requirements continue to exceed primary mine production, with the gap being bridged by secondary supplies and excess uranium inventories in various forms that have already been mined. In addition, it is the Company's belief that additional mine production cutbacks will be required to bring the market into balance in the short and medium terms. However, a large portion of global uranium production is state-owned and state-subsidized, and therefore not subject to normal market fundamentals. It is for this reason that the Company and Ur-Energy submitted the Petition to the U.S. Department of Commerce to initiate an investigation into the effects of uranium imports on U.S. national security. The Petitioners have proposed a quota system that limits uranium and uranium fuel imports, effectively reserving 25% of the U.S. nuclear market for U.S. uranium producers. At the current time, less than 5% of U.S. reactor demand is met by new production from U.S. uranium mines. The Company has believed for several years that uranium prices, and long-term contracting levels in particular, will need to rise to levels that are sufficient to incentivize new mine production. However, it is the Company's belief that non free-market forces have delayed this recovery. The Petition is intended to help address this situation.
The Company believes prices likely hit a bottom in 2016, and despite considerable market uncertainty in 2017, the lows of 2016 were not repeated in 2017. In January 2017, it was announced that Kazakhstan would reduce 2017 uranium production by 10% (5 million+ lbs.) after several years of production increases. In November 2017, Cameco announced that it was temporarily suspending production from its McArthur River/Key Lake project for 10 months, which is among the largest and lowest cost uranium production facilities in the world. According to Royal Bank of Canada, this is expected to remove 17-18 million pounds of uranium production during 2018. If the suspension is extended, even more uranium will be removed from the market. In addition, in December 2017, Kazakhstan's state-owned uranium mining enterprise, Kazatomprom, announced further production cuts amounting to a total of 28.6 million pounds of uranium during 2018-2020. Although subsequent announcements by Kazakh government officials have put some doubt into the true scale of these cutbacks, it is the Company's belief that cuts to production in Kazakhstan will occur but not at the levels stated in the December 2017 announcement. On a longer-term basis, according to data from TradeTech and the WNA, Chinese utilities continue to aggressively build new reactors. In addition to China, according to the WNA, there are large numbers of new reactors under construction and in various stages of planning around the world.
In the short- and medium-terms, market challenges remain. The world continues to be oversupplied with uranium, mainly due to large quantities of secondary and other inelastic uranium supplies (including enricher underfeeding and state-owned and state-subsidized uranium and nuclear fuel production), high levels of excess inventories, insufficient producer cut-backs, premature reactor shutdowns, delays in new reactor construction, two large new mines coming into production (Cigar Lake and Husab), and decreased demand due to Japanese reactors remaining offline for longer than expected. Though it should be noted that Husab continues to experience start-up delays and its 2.2 million lbs. of uranium production in 2017 did not meet TradeTech's forecast of 4 million lbs. In addition, conflicting announcements on the scale of Kazakh production cuts in 2018-2020 and the filing of the Petition by the Company and Ur-Energy may be causing some market participants to take a wait-and-see approach in the short-term. There remains a great deal of uncertainty in uranium prices regarding the timing and level of the recovery, as fundamental, political, technical, and other factors could cause prices to be significantly above or below currently expected ranges.
Nevertheless, according to data from Trade Tech, global utilities have nearly 600 million lbs. of uncovered uranium requirements through 2025, which the Company expects will increase levels of market activity at some point in the future.
The Company’s marketing strategy is to seek a base of earnings and cash flow through sales of a portion of its uranium into term contracts, to the extent such contracts are available at satisfactory prices. To gain exposure to increasing uranium prices, the Company seeks to sell a portion of its planned uranium extraction into contracts with market-related formulas, if available at satisfactory prices, and through future spot and term sales. Further exposure to increasing uranium prices can be generated through the Company’s ability to bring additional uranium extraction online in the future in response to increasing prices, which can be sold on a market-related or fixed basis at then prevailing prices.
During 2017, the pricing on all of the Company’s contracts, other than the spot contract referenced above, were at their floors or at prices fixed by the contract. During 2017, the Company sold 520,000 pounds of U3O8 at a weighted- average price of $47.05 per pound. This included 320,000 pounds of sales under contracts at a weighted average price of $62.72 per pound and 200,000 pounds into contracts based on spot market prices at a weighted average price of $21.99 per pound.
In 2018, the Company expects to sell a total of 650,000 pounds of U3O8 into its four existing contracts at pricing expected to average approximately $48.00 per pound based on the fixed prices contained in three of the contracts and current forecasts of spot prices and price inflation in the other contract. In Q1-2018 the Company amended its remaining long-term contracts with one customer, so that all remaining deliveries of 400,000 lbs. under the contracts will occur in April 2018 at a fixed price of $61.30

18



per pound; including moving 200,000 lbs. of deliveries originally scheduled for 2019 and 2020 up to April 2018. The Company also has a contract for the delivery of 50,000 lbs. in Q1-2018 at a fixed price of $24.75 per pound and a contract for the delivery of 200,000 lbs. in 2018 with pricing at a 0.5% discount to the spot price at the time of delivery. Additional selective spot sales may be made in 2018 as necessary to generate cash for operations. As a result of these amendments, the Company will have no further long-term contractual obligations following its 2018 deliveries. All uranium sales after 2018 will therefore be at spot prices and unhedged, unless the Company enters into new long-term contracts at satisfactory prices in the future.
The Vanadium Market
The White Mesa Mill has historically recovered vanadium as a by-product of uranium from certain of its properties on the Colorado Plateau, most notably from the La Sal Project, as well as from properties owned by third-parties on the Colorado Plateau through toll milling and similar arrangements, when the price of vanadium has been high enough to justify its recovery. The Mill’s most recent vanadium recovery occurred in 2013 when it recovered 1.5 million pounds of vanadium.
Vanadium is a metallic element that, when converted into ferrovanadium ("FeV") (an alloy of vanadium and iron), is used primarily as an additive to strengthen and harden steel. According to market consultant Roskill, over 90% of FeV is used in the steel industry. In addition, vanadium continues to see interest in energy storage technologies, including vanadium redox flow batteries. China is the largest global producer of vanadium, accounting for roughly 44% of production in 2016 with additional production coming from Russia, South Africa, and Brazil (Roskill). Vanadium (as V2O5) prices were up sharply in 2017, beginning the year at $5.03 per pound, and ending the year at $9.75 per pound, reaching a high of $11.13 per pound in September 2017 (Metal Bulletin information received from the U.S. DOE). Vanadium prices are currently at $14.25 per pound.
According to Roskill, prices have risen primarily as a result of tightening supplies in China, including the shutdown of vanadium producing facilities for environmental reasons. In addition, the closure of the Evraz Highveld facility in South Africa has added to market tightness (Roskill). On the demand side, increasingly stringent building requirements, particularly in China, are requiring the use of rebar that contains vanadium (Roskill).
In the past, Energy Fuels has sold its vanadium both as V2O5 and as ferrovanadium (“FeV”) through spot sales to industry end-users and trading companies. No vanadium has been recovered or sold by the Company since 2013. The Company is currently evaluating certain opportunities in the vanadium space, including the potential to recover vanadium dissolved in the ponds at the White Mesa Mill, re-opening mines that contain vanadium resources, and/or recovering vanadium from non-ore sources.
The Copper Market
The White Mesa Mill has not produced copper. Due to the discovery of significant quantities of copper mineralization at the Canyon Project, the Company is investigating potential alternatives for recovering copper as a byproduct of uranium recovery at the White Mesa Mill.
Copper is a malleable and ductile metallic element that has a number of industrial uses, including as a conductor of heat and electricity, as a building material, in industrial machinery, and as a component of certain metal alloys. According to the International Copper Study Group ("ICSG"), an intergovernmental organization that operates as the international commodity board for copper, the major product categories of the copper trade are: copper concentrates, copper blister and anode, refined copper cathode and ingots, copper scrap, copper semis, and a small amount of copper powders and compounds. Copper is mainly shipped by producers to fabricators as cathode, wire rod, billet, cake (slab), or ingot. Two of the key components of the copper market are the spot price (settlement price for a transaction today) and the future price. A futures or option contract defines the price of the delivery, the quantity of the product, the delivery date(s), and delivery location(s) and other aspects. Three main commodity exchanges provide the facilities to trade copper: the London Metal Exchange (LME), Commodity Exchange Division of the New York Mercantile Exchange (COMEX/NYMEX), and the Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE).
According to the United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), the top global primary copper producers in 2016 were Chile, Peru, China, the United States, and Australia. In 2016, the U.S. had 24 mines that recovered copper with the top copper producing states being Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Montana. In addition in 2016, the U.S. had three primary smelters, three electrolytic and four fire refineries, and fifteen electrowinning facilities that operated. According to Mining.com, the top copper producing companies globally are Codelco, Freeport-McMoRan, Glencore International, BHP Billiton, and Southern Copper. In addition to primary mining, recycling is also a significant source of copper, and recycled copper is indistinguishable from primary copper (ICSG). According to Investopedia, the price of copper is driven by a number of factors including strength and weakness in the U.S. dollar, oil prices, global demand, including China, the cost of production, labor relations, natural disasters/phenomena, and geopolitical events. The spot price of copper rose by approximately 28% during 2017 (London Metal Exchange). According to Goldman Sachs, the price of copper rose in 2017 primarily due to currency effects, global growth, and demand factors. Copper prices are currently at $3.08 per pound.
Competition

19



The uranium industry is highly competitive. The Company competes with mining and exploration companies for uranium sales, the acquisition of uranium mineral properties, and the procurement of equipment, materials and personnel necessary to explore, develop, and extract uranium from such properties. There is competition for a limited number of uranium acquisition opportunities, including competition with other companies having substantially greater financial resources, staff and facilities than the Company. As a result, the Company may encounter challenges in acquiring attractive properties, and exploring and advancing properties currently in the Company’s portfolio. In addition, Energy Fuels competes with other uranium recovery companies, along with traders, brokers, financial institutions, converters, enrichers, and other market actors, including some that are state-owned and state-subsidized, for uranium sales. Due to the Company’s limited capital and personnel and the relative size of its operations, the Company may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to some other companies with regard to exploration and, if warranted, development of mining properties and securing uranium sales. The Company believes that competition for acquiring mineral prospects and completing uranium sales will continue to be intense in the future.
The availability of funds for exploration, evaluation, permitting and construction of uranium projects is limited, and the Company may find it difficult to compete with larger and more established uranium exploration and production companies for capital. The Company’s inability to continue exploration, advancement, and the acquisition of new properties due to lack of funding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s future operations and financial position.
Government Regulation
The Company’s properties and facilities are subject to extensive laws and regulations which are overseen and enforced by multiple federal, state and local authorities. These laws govern exploration, construction, extraction, recovery, processing, exports, various taxes, labor standards, occupational health and safety, waste disposal, protection and remediation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, toxic and hazardous substances, and other matters. Uranium minerals exploration, extraction, recovery, and processing are also subject to risks and liabilities associated with the perceived potential for pollution of the environment and disposal of waste products occurring as a result of such activities.
Compliance with these laws and regulations may impose substantial costs on the Company and will subject the Company to significant potential liabilities. Changes in these regulations could require the Company to expend significant resources to comply with new laws or regulations or changes to current requirements and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business operations.
Environmental Regulations
Exploration, development, and extraction activities are subject to certain environmental regulations which may prevent or delay the continuance of our activities. In general, our exploration, evaluation, and extraction activities are subject to certain federal and state laws and regulations relating to environmental quality and pollution control. Such laws and regulations increase the costs of these activities and may prevent or delay the commencement or continuance of a given operation. Specifically, we are subject to legislation regarding emissions into the environment, water discharges, and storage and disposition of hazardous wastes. In addition, legislation has been enacted which requires facility sites to be reclaimed in accordance with such legislation. Compliance with these laws and regulations has not had a material effect on our operations or financial condition to date.
Uranium milling in the U.S. is primarily regulated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the “NRC”) pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Its primary function is to ensure the protection of employees, the public, and the environment from radioactive materials, and it also regulates most aspects of the uranium recovery process. The NRC regulations pertaining to uranium recovery facilities are codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
On August 16, 2004, the State of Utah became an Agreement State for the regulation of uranium mills. This means that the primary regulator for the White Mesa Mill is now the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality (“UDEQ”) rather than the NRC. At that time, the Mill’s NRC Source Material License was transferred to the State of Utah and became a Radioactive Materials License, which was recently renewed in January 2018. The State of Utah incorporates, through its own regulations or by reference, all aspects of Title 10 pertaining to uranium recovery facilities. When the State of Utah became an Agreement State, it required that a Groundwater Discharge Permit (“GWDP”) be put in place for the White Mesa Mill. The GWDP is required for all similar facilities in the State of Utah, and specifically tailors the implementation of the state groundwater regulations to the Mill site. The State of Utah requires that every operating uranium mill have a GWDP, regardless of whether or not the facility discharges to groundwater. The GWDP for the Mill was finalized and implemented in March 2005 and recently renewed in January 2018. The White Mesa Mill also maintains a permit approval for air emissions with the UDEQ, Division of Air Quality.

20



Conventional uranium extraction is subject to regulation by a number of agencies including: (1) local county and municipal government agencies; (2) the applicable state divisions responsible for mining and protecting the environment within Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming; (3) the BLM and the United States Forest Service (the “USFS”) on public lands under their jurisdiction; (4) the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”); (5) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) for radon emissions from underground mines; and (6) other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, and DOE), where certain conditions exist. In addition, a uranium processing facility at the Sheep Mountain Project will be subject to regulation under the NRC, as a uranium processing facility and for permanent disposal of the resulting tailings.
The provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and its regulations that are applicable to uranium milling also apply to our ISR facilities in Wyoming and Texas. The Nichols Ranch Project and the Alta Mesa Project each have a Source Material license. The Nichols Ranch Source Material License was issued by the NRC. However, because Texas is an Agreement State, the Alta Mesa Source Material License was issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. ISR facilities are also regulated by the State of Wyoming and State of Texas, respectively, and the EPA under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition, ISR wellfields require an Underground Injection Control Permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as administered by the EPA. ISR operations are subject to regulations by the U.S. Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), rather than MSHA.
Reclamation bonds or the equivalent have been posted for each of the Company’s material properties that have structures or facilities.
Energy Fuels is required to have export licenses issued by the NRC for its uranium exports. Such licenses are obtained by the Company as required.
Land Tenure
The Company’s land holdings are held either by leases from the fee simple owners (private parties or the State) or unpatented mining claims located on property owned and managed by the U.S. Federal Government. Annual fees must be paid to maintain unpatented mining claims, but work expenditures are not required. Holders of unpatented mining claims are generally granted surface access to conduct mineral exploration and extraction activities. However, additional permits and plans are generally required prior to conducting exploration or mining activities on such claims.
On July 9, 2009, BLM issued a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal (“2009 Notice”) under which it proposed that a total of approximately one million acres of public lands around the Grand Canyon National Park be withdrawn from location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872 (the “Mining Law”), subject to valid existing rights. In the 2009 Notice, BLM stated that the purpose of the withdrawal, if determined to be appropriate, would be to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from any adverse effects of locatable hardrock mineral exploration and mining. The 2009 Notice segregated the lands from location and entry under the mining laws for up to two years to allow time for various studies and analyses, including appropriate NEPA analysis. In order to allow more time for BLM to complete its NEPA analysis, the U.S. Department of the Interior (the “DOI”) published Public Land Order 7773 on June 21, 2011, which effected a six-month emergency withdrawal of the area. The emergency withdrawal prevented the lands from being open to location and entry under the Mining Law upon expiration of the two-year segregation while the DOI completed the decision–making process on the proposed withdrawal. The emergency withdrawal was effective July 21, 2011 to January 20, 2012. During the two-year segregation and six month emergency withdrawal, the BLM, along with its cooperating agencies, completed various studies and analyses of resources in the withdrawal area, including an EIS under NEPA. These studies and analyses were undertaken to provide the basis for the final decision regarding whether or not to proceed with the proposed withdrawal or to select an alternative action. Based on this analysis, on January 9, 2012, the DOI announced its final decision to withdraw from location and entry under the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, the total of approximately one million acres of lands originally proposed in the 2009 Notice (the “Withdrawn Lands”), for a 20-year period. Lawsuits challenging this decision were filed by various industry groups and interested parties.
No new mining claims may be filed on the Withdrawn Lands and no new Plans of Operations may be approved, other than Plans of Operations on mining claims that were valid at the time of withdrawal and that remain valid at the time of plan approval. Whether or not a mining claim is valid must be determined by a mineral examination conducted by BLM or USFS, as applicable. The mineral examination, which involves an economic evaluation of a project, must demonstrate the existence of a locatable mineral resource and that the mineral resource constitutes the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.

21



All of the Company’s properties located on the Arizona Strip, with the exception of its Wate property and certain exploration properties held by the Company’s subsidiary, Arizona Strip Partners LLC, are located within the Withdrawn Lands. A mineral examination on the Company’s EZ Project will need to be completed by BLM, in conjunction with its review of the Company’s proposed Plan of Operations for that project. Mineral examinations were not required for the Company’s Arizona 1 and Pinenut projects, which had previously approved Plans of Operations and were recently active. Although the Company’s Canyon Project also has an approved Plan of Operation, and a mineral examination is not required, the USFS performed a mineral examination on that project in 2012 and concluded that the Canyon Project’s claims constitute valid existing rights. The USFS also concluded that no additional approvals are required on the Canyon Project.
The Company believes that all of its material projects within the Withdrawn Lands are on valid mining claims that will each withstand a mineral examination. However, market conditions may postpone or prevent the performance of mineral examinations on certain properties and, if a mineral examination is performed on a property, there can be no guarantee that the mineral examination would not result in one of more of the Company’s mining claims being considered invalid, which could prevent a project from proceeding.
Further, there have been efforts to create a National Monument on the Withdrawn Lands, and additional lands, near the Grand Canyon National Park. These efforts have included proposed legislation which was introduced in Congress and lobbying of the President of the United States to create a National Monument utilizing his executive powers under the Antiquities Act of 1906. However, in December 2016, President Obama decided not to grant monument status to the 1.7 million acres proposed for inclusion.
In addition, President Obama designated the Bears Ears National Monument by executive order in December of 2016, which comprised 1.35 million acres of land in San Juan County, Utah. The designated land included a portion of the County road which the Company relies on for access to its Daneros Project as well as abutted a portion of the property boundary of the White Mesa Mill and encompassed two water sampling sites the Company monitors for the Mill. In December, 2017, President Trump issued a Proclamation that amended President Obama’s 2016 Proclamation and reduced the monument to two parcels encompassing a total of 201,876 acres, releasing 1.15 million acres. That Proclamation has been challenged in Federal Court. The closest boundaries of the reduced monument to any of the Company’s operations are respectively approximately 6 miles from the White Mesa Mill and approximately 15 miles from the Daneros Project. It is possible that the Daneros Project and/or the White Mesa Mill could become subject to additional requirements, restrictions and costs if the original designation is upheld in Court.
Employees
As of the date of this Annual Report, the Company and its subsidiaries have approximately 117 full-time employees. We operate in established mining areas where we have found sufficient available personnel for our business plans.
Available Information
Detailed information about us is or will be contained in our annual reports on Form 10-K, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other reports, and amendments to those reports, that we file with or furnish to the SEC. Prior to January 1, 2016, we were a foreign private issuer subject to limited periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), so we did not file Forms 10-K or 10-Q prior to January 2016. These reports, filed after January 1, 2016, are now available free of charge on our website, www.energyfuels.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with or furnish such reports to the SEC. However, our website and any contents thereof should not be considered to be incorporated by reference into this document. We will furnish copies of such reports free of charge upon written request to our Investor Relations department. You can contact our Investor Relations department at:
Energy Fuels Inc.
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado, 80228
Tel: 303.974.2140
Fax: 303.974.2141
Toll Free: 1.888.864.2125
E-mail: investorinfo@energyfuels.com
Additionally, our Code of Ethics, Audit Committee Charter, and certain Company policies are available on our website. We will furnish copies of such information free of charge upon written request to our Investor Relations department.

22




ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Our failure to successfully address any of the risks and uncertainties described below could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or results of operations, and the trading price of our Common Shares may fluctuate widely. We cannot assure you that we will successfully address these risks or other unknown risks that may affect our business.
The following information pertains to the outlook and conditions currently known to Energy Fuels that could have a material impact on the financial condition of Energy Fuels. Other factors may arise in the future that are currently not foreseen by management of Energy Fuels that may present additional risks in the future. Current and prospective security holders of Energy Fuels should carefully consider these risk factors.
We are subject to the risks normally encountered by Companies in the mineral extraction industry.
We are subject to the risks normally encountered by companies in the mineral extraction industry, such as:
the discovery of unusual, or unexpected geological formations;
accidental fires, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other natural disasters;
unplanned power outages and water shortages;
controlling water and other similar mining hazards;
operating labor disruptions and labor disputes;
the ability to obtain suitable or adequate machinery, equipment, or labor;
our liability for potential pollution or other hazards; and
other known and unknown risks involved in the conduct of exploration, development, and operation of mines, extraction and recovery facilities, and mills, along with the market for uranium.
The development of mineral properties is affected by many factors, including, but not limited to: the cost of operations; variations in the grade of mineralized material; fluctuations in metal markets; costs of extraction and processing equipment; availability of equipment and labor; labor costs and possible labor strikes; government regulations, including without limitation, regulations relating to taxes, royalties, allowable extraction or production, importing and exporting of minerals; foreign exchange; employment; worker safety; transportation; and environmental protection.
Our results of operations are significantly affected by the market price of uranium, vanadium and copper, which are cyclical and subject to substantial price fluctuations.
Our earnings and operating cash flow are and will be particularly sensitive to the long and short term changes in the market price of uranium, vanadium and copper. Among other factors, these prices also affect the value of our resources, reserves, and inventories, as well as the market price of our Common Shares.
Market prices are affected by numerous factors beyond our control. With respect to uranium, such factors include, among others: demand for nuclear power; political and economic conditions in uranium producing and consuming countries; public and political response to a nuclear incident; reprocessing of used reactor fuel, the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails and the enricher practice of underfeeding; sales of excess civilian and military inventories (including from the dismantling of nuclear weapons; the premature decommissioning of nuclear power plants; and from the build-up of Japanese utility uranium inventories as a result of the Fukushima incident) by governments and industry participants; uranium supply, including the supply from other secondary sources; and production levels and costs of production. With respect to vanadium, such factors include, among others: demand for steel; the potential for vanadium to be used in advanced battery technologies; political and economic conditions in vanadium producing and consuming countries; world production levels; and costs of production.
With respect to copper, such factors include, among others: emerging market demand and urbanization in countries such as China, with associated increases in construction activity; the strength of the homebuilding industry, generally; the use of substitutes, such as aluminum for power cables, electrical equipment, automobile radiators and cooling tubes; supply disruptions, such as labor disputes at major producing mines or natural disasters; and oil prices, which can impact the cost of energy required to recover copper.
Other factors relating to the price of uranium, vanadium and copper include: levels of supply and demand for a broad range of industrial products; substitution of new or different products in critical applications for our existing products; expectations with respect to the rate of inflation; the relative strength of the US dollar and of certain other currencies; interest rates; global or regional political or economic crises; regional and global economic conditions; and sales of uranium, vanadium and copper by holders in response to such factors. If prices are below our cash costs of extraction or recovery and remain at such levels for any sustained period, we may determine that it is not economically feasible to continue commercial extraction or recovery at any or all of our projects or other facilities and may also be required to look for alternatives other than cash flow to maintain our liquidity until

23



prices recover. Our expected levels of uranium recovery and business activity are dependent on our expectation and the industry’s expectations of uranium, vanadium and copper prices, which may not be realized or may change. In the event we conclude that a significant deterioration in expected future uranium prices has occurred, we will assess whether an impairment allowance is necessary which, if required, could be material.
The recent fluctuations in the price of many commodities is an example of a situation over which we have no control and which could materially adversely affect us in a manner for which we may not be able to compensate. There can be no assurance that the price of any minerals recovered from our properties will be such that any deposits can be operated at a profit.
Our profitability is directly related to the market price of uranium, vanadium and copper recovered. We may from time to time undertake commodity and currency hedging programs, with the intention of maintaining adequate cash flows and profitability to contribute to the long term viability of the business. We anticipate selling forward in the ordinary course of business if, and when, we have sufficient assets and recovery to support forward sale arrangements, and forward sale arrangements are available on suitable terms. There are, however, risks associated with forward sale programs. If we do not have sufficient recovered product to meet our forward sale commitments, we may have to buy or borrow (for later delivery back from recovered product) sufficient product in the spot market to deliver under the forward sales contracts, possibly at higher prices than provided for in the forward sales contracts, or potentially default on such deliveries. In addition, under forward contracts, we may be forced to sell at prices that are lower than the prices that may be available on the spot market when such deliveries are completed. Although we may employ various pricing mechanisms within our sales contracts to manage our exposure to price fluctuations, there can be no assurance that such mechanisms will be successful. There can also be no assurance that we will be able to enter into term contracts for future sales of uranium, vanadium or copper at prices or in quantities that would allow us to successfully manage our exposure to price fluctuations.
Our properties do not contain mineral reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7, and many of the Company’s properties, projects, and facilities are not economic at today’s commodity prices.
Our properties do not contain any mineral reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates, above. At current uranium and vanadium prices, many of our properties, projects, and facilities are not economic for uranium, and for some properties uranium and/or vanadium, extraction, recovery, or processing. At our Canyon Project, we are currently evaluating the possibility of recovering copper as a by-product along with uranium and the impact of any recovered copper on the economics of that project at current uranium prices. We intend to continue to hold, and in certain cases advance, a number of those properties, projects, and facilities in anticipation of possible future increases in the prices of uranium and/or vanadium, as the case may be. However, there can be no assurance that uranium and/or vanadium prices will ever, or within a reasonable time period, increase to the levels required to advance those properties or, in the case of projects or facilities on standby, to resume exploration, extraction, recovery, or processing activities at those projects or facilities. Similarly, there can be no assurance that the value of any copper recovered as a by-product at the Canyon Project will be sufficient to advance that project without increases in the price of uranium and/or copper. We continue to hold such properties, projects, and facilities because we believe that uranium and/or vanadium prices are likely to rise to such levels within a reasonable time period and that the Company will be able to demonstrate a significant copper credit at the Canyon Project, and the ability to maintain scalability as commodity prices increase is a key component of our business strategy. However, as there is a cost associated with holding and in some cases maintaining on standby such properties, projects, or facilities, we continuously evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, such costs against the prospects for price increases, and may from time to time sell, drop or reclaim any such properties, projects, or facilities. We have currently identified a number of non-core properties and projects that we may sell, drop, or reclaim depending on current market conditions.
The White Mesa Mill has historically been run on a campaign basis as sufficient feed materials are available, and there can be no assurance that sufficient mill feed will be available in the future to sustain future campaigns.
The White Mesa Mill has historically operated on a campaign basis, whereby mineral processing occurs as mill feed, cash needs, contract requirements, and/or market conditions may warrant. Each milling campaign is subject to receipt of sufficient mill feed that would allow us to operate the Mill on a profitable basis and/or recover a portion of its standby costs.
At current uranium and vanadium prices, all of our permitted conventional properties are on standby and our other conventional properties are either in the evaluation and permitting phase or inactive. Further, at these commodity prices, no third party conventional properties are operating to provide mill feed. In times of depressed commodity prices, when conventional mine production is on standby, the Mill has relied primarily on processing alternate feed materials. The Mill continuously seeks to identify and secure additional alternate feed materials and other sources of mill feed, such as materials from the clean-up of abandoned uranium mine sites. However, there can be no assurance that sufficient conventional ores, alternate feed materials and/or other sources of mill feed will be available in the future that would allow us to operate the White Mesa Mill on a profitable basis and/or recover a portion of the Mill’s standby costs at any time.

24



We have entered into term sales contracts for a portion of our recovered uranium, and there can be no guarantee that we will be able to extend the terms of those contracts or enter into new term sales contracts in the future on suitable terms and conditions.
The Company has entered into term sales contracts for a portion of our recovered uranium, which have historically resulted in uranium sales at prices in excess of spot prices. Those contracts have fixed delivery terms, and all of the Company’s existing long-term sales contracts will expire following the Company’s April 1, 2018 deliveries. As a result, all uranium sales after April 1, 2018 will be required to be made at spot prices and will be unhedged, unless the Company enters into new long-term contracts at satisfactory prices in the future. There can be no guarantee that the Company will be able to enter into long-term contracts for the delivery of a sufficient amount of uranium at satisfactory prices in the future. The failure to enter into new term sales contracts on suitable terms, would be expected to adversely impact our operations and mining activity decisions, and resulting cash flows and income.
We are subject to global economic risks.
In the event of a general economic downturn or a recession, there can be no assurance that our business, financial condition, and results of operations would not be materially adversely affected. During the past several years, the global economy faced a number of challenges. During the global financial crisis of 2007-8 economic problems in the United States and Eurozone caused deterioration in the global economy, as numerous commercial and financial enterprises either went into bankruptcy or creditor protection or had to be rescued by governmental authorities. Access to public financing was negatively impacted by sub-prime mortgage defaults in the United States, the liquidity crisis affecting the asset-backed commercial paper and collateralized debt obligation markets, and massive investment losses by banks with resultant recapitalization efforts. These types of challenges can impact commodity prices, including uranium, vanadium and copper, as well as currencies and global debt and stock markets.
These types of challenges may impact our ability to obtain equity, debt, or other financing on terms commercially reasonable to us, or at all. Additionally, these types of factors, as well as other related factors, may cause decreases in asset values that are deemed to be other than temporary, which may result in impairment losses. If these types of challenges occur, or if there is a material deterioration in general business and economic conditions, our operations could be adversely impacted and the trading price of our securities could be adversely affected.
The price of our Common Shares is subject to volatility.
Securities of mining companies have experienced substantial volatility and downward pressure in the recent past, often based on factors unrelated to the financial performance or prospects of the companies involved. These factors include macroeconomic conditions in North America and globally, and market perceptions of the attractiveness of particular industries. The price of our securities is also likely to be significantly affected by short-term changes in uranium, vanadium and copper prices, changes in industry forecasts of uranium, vanadium and copper prices, other mineral prices including oil and natural gas, currency exchange fluctuation, or in our financial condition or results of operations as reflected in our periodic earnings reports. Other factors unrelated to our performance that may have an effect on the price of our securities include the following: the extent of research coverage available to investors concerning our business may be limited if investment banks with research capabilities do not follow our securities; lessening in trading volume and general market interest in our securities may affect an investor's ability to trade significant numbers of our securities; the size of our public float and the exclusion from market indices may limit the ability of some institutions to invest in our securities; and a substantial decline in the price of our securities that persists for a significant period of time could cause our securities to be delisted from an exchange, further reducing market liquidity. Our exclusion from certain market indices may reduce market liquidity or the price of our securities. If an active market for our securities does not continue, the liquidity of an investor's investment may be limited and the price of our securities may decline. If an active market does not exist, investors may lose their entire investment. As a result of any of these factors, the market price of our securities at any given point in time may not accurately reflect our long-term value. Securities class-action litigation often has been brought against companies in periods of volatility in the market price of their securities, and following major corporate transactions or mergers and acquisitions. We may in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and damages and divert management's attention and resources.
Exploration, development, extraction, mining, recovery and milling of minerals, and the transportation and handling of the products recovered, are subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations.
These regulations govern, among other things; acquisition of the property or mineral interests; maintenance of claims; tenure; expropriation; prospecting; exploration; development; construction; extraction and mining; recovery, processing, milling and production; price controls; exports; imports; taxes and royalties; labor standards; occupational health; waste disposal; toxic substances; water use; land use; Native American consultations and accommodations; environmental protection and remediation; endangered and protected species; mine, mill and other facility decommissioning and reclamation; mine safety; transportation safety and emergency response; and other matters. Compliance with such laws and regulations has increased the costs of exploring, drilling, developing, constructing, operating and closing of our mines, mills, plants and other extraction, recovery and processing

25



facilities. It is possible that, in the future, the costs, delays and other effects associated with such laws and regulations may impact our decision as to whether to operate existing mines or facilities, or, with respect to exploration, development or construction properties, whether to proceed with exploration, development or construction, or that such laws and regulations may result in our incurring significant costs to remediate or decommission properties that do not comply with applicable environmental standards at such time. We expend significant financial and managerial resources to comply with such laws and regulations. We anticipate continuing to do so as the historic trend toward stricter government regulation may continue. There can be no assurance that future changes in applicable laws and regulations will not adversely affect our activities, operations or financial condition. New laws and regulations, amendments to existing laws and regulations or more stringent implementation of existing laws and regulations, including through stricter license and permit conditions, could have a material adverse impact on us, increase costs, cause a reduction in levels of, or suspension of, extraction or recovery and/or delay or prevent the construction or development of new mineral extraction properties.
Mineral extraction is subject to potential risks and liabilities associated with pollution of the environment and the disposal of waste products occurring as a result of mineral exploration, extraction, mining, recovery and production. Environmental liability may result from mining or mineral extraction activities conducted by others prior to our ownership of a property. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and permitting requirements may result in enforcement actions. These actions may result in orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities causing activities or operations to cease or be curtailed, and may include corrective measures requiring capital expenditures, installation of additional equipment or remedial actions. Companies engaged in uranium exploration operations may be required to compensate others who suffer loss or damage by reason of such activities and may have civil or criminal fines or penalties imposed for violations of applicable laws or regulations. Should we be unable to fully fund the cost of remedying an environmental problem, the Company might be required to suspend activities or operations, declare bankruptcy, or enter into interim compliance measures pending completion of the required remedy, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company. To the extent that we are subject to uninsured environmental liabilities, the payment of such liabilities would reduce otherwise available earnings and could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we do not have coverage for certain environmental losses and other risks as such coverage cannot be purchased at a commercially reasonable cost. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations requires significant expenditures and increases mine and facility, construction, development and operating costs.
Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for electricity produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to extensive government regulation and policies. The development of mineral properties and related facilities is contingent upon governmental approvals that are complex and time consuming to obtain and which, depending upon the location of the project, involve multiple governmental agencies. The duration and success of such approvals are subject to many variables outside of our control. Any significant delays in obtaining or renewing such permits or licenses in the future could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, the international marketing of uranium is subject to governmental policies and certain trade restrictions, such as those imposed by the suspension agreement between the United States and Russia. Changes in these policies and restrictions may adversely impact our business.
Public acceptance of nuclear energy and competition from other energy sources is unknown.
Growth of the uranium and nuclear industry will depend upon continued and increased acceptance of nuclear technology as an economic means of generating electricity. Because of unique political, technological and environmental factors that affect the nuclear industry, including the risk of a nuclear incident, the industry is subject to public opinion risks that could have an adverse impact on the demand for nuclear power and increase the regulation of the nuclear power industry. Nuclear energy competes with other sources of energy, including oil, natural gas, coal, hydro-electricity and renewable energy sources. These other energy sources are to some extent interchangeable with nuclear energy, particularly over the longer term. Sustained lower prices of oil, natural gas, coal and hydroelectricity may result in lower demand for uranium concentrates. Increased government regulation and technical requirements may make nuclear uneconomic, resulting in lower demand for uranium concentrates. Technical advancements and government subsidies in renewable and other alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar power, could make these forms of energy more commercially viable and put additional pressure on the demand for uranium concentrates.
Unfavorable media coverage of mining or nuclear energy could negatively affect our business.
The Company is subject to media coverage relating to mining and the production of uranium and other forms of nuclear energy, some of which can be inaccurate, un-objective or politically motivated. As a result, the Company is frequently required to address or respond to such media coverage, which can be costly and time-consuming for the Company. Such inaccurate and non-objective media coverage can also negatively impact the public’s perception of the Company’s activities, the market for the Company’s securities, government relations, permitting activities and legal challenges.



26



The uranium industry is highly competitive.
The international uranium industry, including the supply of uranium concentrates, is competitive. We market uranium in direct competition with supplies available from a relatively small number of uranium mining companies, from nationalized uranium companies, from uranium produced as a byproduct of other mining operations, from excess inventories, including inventories made available from decommissioning of nuclear weapons, from reprocessed uranium and plutonium, from used reactor fuel, and from the use of excess Russian enrichment capacity to re-enrich depleted uranium tails. A large quantity of current World production is foreign state subsidized and is inelastic, in that uranium market prices have little effect on the quantity supplied. In the case of foreign state subsidized production, uranium production is not subject to market factors and can be sold at prices that are less than the cost of production. The supply of uranium from Russia is, to some extent, impeded by a number of international trade agreements and policies. These agreements and any similar future agreements, governmental policies or trade restrictions are beyond our control and may affect the supply of uranium available in the United States and Europe.
We compete with other mining companies and individuals for capital, mineral resources and reserves, and other mining assets, which may increase the cost of acquiring suitable claims, properties and assets, and we also compete with other mining companies to attract and retain key executives, employees and consultants. In addition, there are relatively few customers for uranium. There can be no assurance that we will continue to be able to compete successfully with our competitors in acquiring such properties and assets or in attracting and retaining skilled and experienced employees.
Participation in Industry Trade Petition could have negative repercussions.
The Company has participated in the filing of a Petition for Relief with the U.S. Department of Commerce under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (as amended) From Imports of Uranium Products that Threaten U.S. National Security. The Petition describes how uranium and nuclear fuel from state-owned and state-subsidized enterprises in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and China potentially represent a threat to U.S. national security. The Petition seeks a remedy which will set a quota to limit imports of uranium into the U.S., effectively reserving 25% of the U.S. nuclear market for U.S. uranium production. Additionally, the Petition suggests implementation of a requirement for U.S. federal utilities and agencies to buy U.S. uranium in accordance with the President's Buy American Policy. Although the Company believes the proposed remedies will strengthen the U.S. uranium mining industry, bolster national defense, and improve supply diversification for U.S. utilities and their customers, there is a potential for negative responses or repercussions to the proposed remedies from various special interest groups, consumers of uranium and participants in other phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, which could have a negative impact on the Company and its operations. In addition, the costs of pursuing the Petition and such remedies could be significant. It should also be noted that there can be no certainty of the outcome of the investigation or the recommendation of the Secretary, and therefore the outcome of this process is uncertain.
We may be unable to timely pay our outstanding debt obligations, which may result in us losing some of our assets covered by mortgage and/or other security arrangements and may adversely affect our assets, results of operations, and future prospects.
We may from time to time enter into arrangements to borrow money in order to fund our operations and expansion plans, and such arrangements may include covenants that restrict our business in some way. We may also from time to time acquire properties whereby certain payment obligations owed to the seller are paid by us over time, with the seller’s sole remedy for non-payment by us being reacquisition of the property. Events may occur in the future, including events out of our control that would cause us to fail to satisfy our obligations under our existing convertible Debentures, indebtedness owed to the State of Wyoming in connection with the Nichols Ranch Project described below, and/or other debt or financing instruments. In such circumstances, or if we were to default on our obligations under the debt or financing instruments, the amounts drawn under our agreements may become due and payable before the agreed maturity date, and we may not have the financial resources to repay such amounts when due.
On November 26, 2013, our subsidiary, Uranerz entered into a Financing Agreement (the “Financing Agreement”) with Johnson County, Wyoming (the “County”) pursuant to which the County agreed to loan to Uranerz (the “Loan”) the proceeds from the sale of its $20,000,000 Taxable Industrial Development Revenue Bond, Series 2013, (the “Bond”) upon the terms and conditions set out in the Financing Agreement, for the purpose of financing the Nichols Ranch project. On November 26, 2013, in connection with the Financing Agreement and the Loan, Uranerz as mortgagor entered into a Mortgage & Security Agreement, pursuant to which Uranerz granted to the Trustee its rights and interests in the as-extracted collateral, contract rights relating directly or indirectly to the Lands (as identified in Exhibit A to the Mortgage & Security Agreement), general intangibles relating directly or indirectly to the Lands, fixtures or hereinafter located on the Lands or the Nichols Ranch ISR Plant, goods (including all inventory) and equipment, including without limitations the mineralized material and all personal property identified as owned by Uranerz in the Mortgage & Security Agreement to secure Uranerz’ obligations under the Financing Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Note. The Mortgage & Security Agreement contains restrictive covenants, including, without limitation, that obligate Uranerz not to: (i) sell, convey, mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of or encumber the Encumbered Property (as set forth in the Mortgage and Security Agreement) without first securing the written consent of the mortgagee; (ii) cancel or terminate any Post Production Contracts (as set forth in the Mortgage and Security Agreement) or consent to or accept any cancellation or

27



termination thereof; (iii) amend or otherwise modify any Post Production Contracts or give any consent, waiver or approval thereunder; (iv) waive any default under or breach of any Post Production Contracts; or (v) take any other action in connection with the Post Production Contract which would impair the value of the interest or rights of Uranerz thereunder or which would impair the interests or rights of the mortgagee. The current principal amount outstanding on the loan is $10.02 million.
If Uranerz is unable to timely satisfy its obligations under the Loan, including timely payment of the interest when due and payment of the principal amount at maturity and Uranerz is not able to successfully extend the maturity date or otherwise re-negotiate the terms of the Note, the Trustee will have rights under the Mortgage and Security Agreement to potentially seize or sell the secured properties and interests, equipment and personal property and the Nichols Ranch Plant to satisfy Uranerz’ obligations under the Loan. Any failure to timely meet Uranerz’ obligations under the Loan may adversely affect our assets, results of operations and future prospects.
Further, although most, but not all, of our reclamation obligations are bonded, and cash and other assets have been reserved to secure a portion but not all of this bonded amount, to the extent the bonded amounts are not fully collateralized, we will be required to provide additional cash to perform our reclamation obligations when they occur. In addition, the bonding companies have the right to require increases in collateral at any time, failure of which would constitute a default under the bonds. In such circumstances, we may not have the financial resources to perform such reclamation obligations or to increase such collateral when due.
Our Convertible Debentures will mature in 2020 and will be retired through either cash payment or the issuance of Common Shares.
On July 24, 2012, the Company issued Cdn$22,000,000 aggregate principal amount of convertible debentures, with Cdn.$20,870,000 currently remaining, which were amended on August 4, 2016 (the “Debentures”). The Debentures will mature on December 31, 2020 and are convertible into Common Shares of the Company at the option of the holder at a conversion price, subject to certain adjustments, of Cdn$4.15 per share at any time prior to redemption or maturity. The Debentures may be retired at maturity either through the payment of cash or the issuance of Common Shares based on then prevailing market prices, at the Company’s option. This will either result in the allocation of cash to the retirement of the Debentures, which could be used for other purposes, or the issuance of Common Shares, which would result in dilution to shareholders.
We may need additional financing in connection with the implementation of our business and strategic plans from time to time.
The exploration, construction and development of mineral properties and the ongoing operation of mines and other facilities requires a substantial amount of capital and may depend on our ability to obtain financing through joint ventures, debt financing, equity financing or other means. We may accordingly need further capital in order to take advantage of further opportunities or acquisitions. Our financial condition, general market conditions, volatile uranium and vanadium markets, volatile interest rates, legal claims against us, a significant disruption to our business or operations, or other factors may make it difficult to secure financing necessary for the expansion of mining activities or to take advantage of opportunities for acquisitions. Further, continuing volatility in the credit markets may increase costs associated with debt instruments due to increased spreads over relevant interest rate benchmarks, or may affect our ability, or the ability of third parties we seek to do business with, to access those markets. Continued volatility in equity markets, specifically including energy and commodity markets, may increase the costs associated with equity financings due to a low share price, and the potential need to offer higher discounts and other value (e.g., warrants). There is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining required financing as and when needed on acceptable terms, if at all.
We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make us less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act. We will continue to qualify as an “emerging growth company” until the earliest to occur of: (a) the last day of the fiscal year during which we had total annual gross revenues of US$1,000,000,000 or more; (b) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the first sale of our common equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), such as our Form S-8 Registration Statement filed on March 31, 2014; (c) the date on which we, during the previous 3-year period, issued more than US$1,000,000,000 in non-convertible debt; or (d) the date on which we are deemed to be a ‘large accelerated filer.’

For so long as we continue to qualify as an emerging growth company, we will be exempt from the requirement to include an auditor attestation report relating to internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in our annual reports filed under the Exchange Act, even if we do not qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” as well as certain other exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies.


28



The issuance of additional Common Shares may impact the trading price of our common shares.
In times of depressed commodity prices, such as exist at this time, the Company may be required to raise additional capital to meet its liquidity requirements, through the issuance of additional common shares under our At the Market (“ATM”) program or otherwise, and/or dispose of assets. If we raise additional funding by issuing additional equity securities or securities convertible, exercisable, or exchangeable for equity securities, such financing may substantially dilute the interests of our shareholders and reduce the value of their investment. Similar dilution could result from the sale of assets to meet liquidity requirements.
Mining operations involve a high degree of risk.
The exploration, construction, development, operation, and other activities associated with mineral projects, along with the expansion of existing recovery operations and mining activities and restarting of projects, involve significant risks, including financial, technical, and regulatory risk. Development or advancement of any of the exploration properties in which we have an interest will only follow upon obtaining satisfactory exploration results, project permitting and licensing, and financing. The exploration, construction, development, operation and other activities associated with mineral projects involves significant financial risks over an extended period of time, which even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not eliminate. While discovery of a mine or other facility may result in substantial rewards, few properties which are explored are ultimately developed into producing mines or extraction or recovery facilities. Major expenses may be required to establish mineral resources and mineral reserves by drilling and to finance, permit, license, and construct extraction, mining, recovery and processing facilities. It is impossible to ensure that the current or proposed exploration, permitting, construction, or development programs on our mineral properties will result in a profitable commercial extraction, mining, or recovery operations.
Whether a mineral deposit will be commercially viable depends on a number of factors, which include, among other things: the accuracy of resource and reserve estimates; the particular attributes of the deposit, such as its size, geology and grade; the ability to economically recover commercial quantities of the minerals; proximity to infrastructure and availability of personnel; financing costs; governmental regulations, including regulations relating to prices, taxes, royalties; the potential for litigation; land use; importing and exporting; and environmental and cultural protection. The construction, development, expansion and restarting of projects are also subject to the successful completion of engineering studies, the issuance of necessary governmental permits, the availability of adequate financing, and that engineering and construction timetables and capital costs are correctly estimated for our projects, including restarting projects on standby, and such construction timetables and capital costs are not affected by unforeseen circumstances. The effect of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but the combination of these factors, along with others, may result in our not receiving an adequate return on invested capital.
It is possible that actual costs and economic returns of current and new extraction, mining, or recovery operations may differ materially from our best estimates. It is not unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations and facilities to experience unexpected problems during the start-up phase, take much longer than originally anticipated to bring into a recovery or producing phase, require more capital than anticipated, operate at a higher cost than expected, and/or have reclamation liabilities which are higher than expected.
There can be no assurance that as the Company mines its properties, or disposes of properties, the reduction of existing mineral resources through depletion or sales, will be replaced with new resources of comparable value.
There is uncertainty in the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources.
Our properties do not contain any mineral reserves under Industry Guide 7. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates, above.
Mineral reserves and resources are statistical estimates of mineral content, based on limited information acquired through drilling and other sampling methods, and require judgmental interpretations of geology. Successful extraction requires safe and efficient mining and processing. Our mineral reserves and resources are estimates, and no assurance can be given that the estimated reserves and resources are accurate or that the indicated level of uranium, vanadium or copper will be produced economically or otherwise. Such estimates are, in large part, based on interpretations of geological data obtained from drill holes and other sampling techniques. Actual mineralization or formations may be different from those predicted. Further, it may take many years from the initial phase of drilling before production is possible, and during that time the economic feasibility of exploiting a discovery may change.
Mineral reserve and resource estimates for properties that have not commenced extraction, production or recovery are based, in many instances, on limited and widely spaced drill-hole information, which is not necessarily indicative of the conditions between and around drill holes. Accordingly, such mineral resource and reserve estimates may require revision as more drilling information becomes available or as actual extraction, production or recovery experience is gained. It should not be assumed that all or any part of our mineral resources constitutes, or will be converted into, reserves. Market price fluctuations of uranium, vanadium or copper as applicable, as well as increased production and capital costs or reduced recovery rates, may render our proven and

29



probable reserves unprofitable to develop at a particular site or sites for periods of time or may render mineral reserves containing relatively lower grade mineralization uneconomic.
Our business is subject to extensive environmental regulations that may make exploring, mining, or related activities expensive, and which may change at any time.
We are required to comply with environmental protection laws and regulations and permitting requirements promulgated by federal agencies and various states and counties in which we operate and conduct our activities, in connection with extraction, mining, recovery and milling operations. The uranium industry is subject not only to the worker health and safety and environmental risks associated with all mining activities, but also to additional risks uniquely associated with uranium extraction, mining, recovery, and milling. We expend significant resources, both financial and managerial, to comply with these laws and regulations. The possibility of more stringent regulations exists in the areas of worker health and safety, storage of hazardous materials, standards for heavy equipment used in extraction, mining, recovery or milling, the disposition of wastes, the decommissioning and reclamation of exploration, extraction, mining, recovery, milling and in-situ sites, climate change and other environmental matters, each of which could have a material adverse effect on the cost or the viability of a particular project.
We cannot predict what environmental legislation, regulations or policies will be enacted or adopted in the future or how future laws and regulations will be administered or interpreted. The recent trend in environmental legislation and regulation is generally toward stricter standards, and this trend is likely to continue in the future. This recent trend includes, without limitation, laws and regulations relating to air and water quality, mine and other facility reclamation, waste handling and disposal, the protection of certain species and the preservation of certain lands. These regulations may require the acquisition of permits or other authorizations for certain activities. These laws and regulations may also limit or prohibit activities on certain lands. Compliance with more stringent laws and regulations, as well as potentially more vigorous enforcement policies, stricter interpretation of existing laws and stricter permit and license conditions, may necessitate significant capital outlays, may materially affect our results of operations and business or may cause material changes or delays in our intended activities. There can be no assurance of our continued compliance or ability to meet stricter environmental laws and regulations and permit or license conditions. Delays in obtaining permits and licenses could impact expected production levels or increases in expected uranium extraction levels.
Our operations may require additional analysis in the future including environmental, cultural, and social impact and other related studies. Certain activities require the submission and approval of environmental impact assessments. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to obtain or maintain all necessary permits that may be required to continue operations or exploration and development of our properties or, if feasible, to commence construction, development, operation or other activities relating to mining facilities at such properties on terms that enable operations or activities to be conducted at economically justifiable costs. If we are unable to obtain or maintain, licenses, permits or other rights for construction or development of our properties, or otherwise fail to manage adequately future environmental issues, our uranium recovery operations and mining activities could be materially and adversely affected.
On December 31, 2014, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR §192, “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings”, to add standards and regulation for ISR facilities such as the Nichols Ranch Project and the Alta Mesa Project. That proposed rule was withdrawn on January 3, 2017 and a new proposed rule was introduced on January 19, 2017. EPA is currently considering whether to proceed with the proposed rule. If EPA decides to proceed, the effect of the new proposed rule could be significant if promulgated. Any changes to rules or regulations that could significantly adversely impact any of our material projects could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
In addition, former President Obama designated the Bears Ears National Monument by executive order in December of 2016, which comprises 1.35 million acres of land in San Juan County, Utah. As originally mapped, the monument boundary was on the western property line of the White Mesa Mill, and the western monument boundary was very close to the permit boundary of the Daneros Mine, which could impact access to the mine. A National Monument created on land where our projects are sited, or near the Company’s projects, along with any resulting changes to rules or regulations, could significantly adversely impact any of our material projects and could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
The current Trump administration modified the designation of the Bears Ears National Monument on December 4, 2017 through Presidential Proclamation, which took effect on February 2, 2018. The revised boundaries have been moved well away from the White Mesa Mill property boundary as well as the Daneros Mine permit boundary. This revision of the monument boundaries is currently under legal challenge, but the Company does not expect that action to interfere with operations or activity.
Opposition to mining may disrupt our business activities.
In recent years, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, individuals, communities and courts have become more vocal and active with respect to their opposition to certain mining and business activities including with respect to production and uranium recovery at our facilities, such as the White Mesa Mill and the Canyon Project. This opposition may take on forms such as road blockades, applications for injunctions seeking to cease certain construction, development, extraction, mining and/or

30



milling or recovery activities, refusals to grant access to lands or to sell lands on commercially viable terms, lawsuits for damages or to revoke or modify licenses and permits, issuances of unfavorable laws and regulations, and other rulings contrary to our interests. These actions can occur in response to current activities or in respect of mines or facilities that are decades old. In addition, these actions can occur in response to our activities or the activities of other unrelated entities. Opposition to our activities may also result from general opposition to nuclear energy and mining. Opposition to our business activities are beyond our control. Any opposition to our business activities may cause a disruption to our business activities and may result in increased costs, and this could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
We are subject to litigation and other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business and may be involved in disputes with other parties in the future which may result in litigation.
The causes of potential future litigation and legal proceedings cannot be known and may arise from, among other things, business activities, environmental laws, permitting and licensing activities, volatility in stock prices, or alleged failure to comply with disclosure obligations. The results of litigation and proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and may include injunctions pending the outcome of such litigation and proceedings. Failure to resolve any such disputes favorably may have a material adverse impact on our financial performance, cash flow and results of operations.
We are subject to costs associated with decommissioning and reclamation of our properties.
As owner and operator of the White Mesa Mill, the Nichols Ranch Project, the Alta Mesa Project, and numerous uranium and uranium/vanadium projects and other facilities located in the United States and certain permitting, construction, development and exploration properties, and for so long as we remain an owner thereof, we are obligated to eventually reclaim or participate in the reclamation of such properties. Most, but not all, of our reclamation obligations are bonded, and cash and other assets have been reserved to secure a portion, but not all, of this bonded amount. Although our financial statements will record a liability for the asset retirement obligation, and the bonding requirements are generally periodically reviewed by applicable regulatory authorities, there can be no assurance or guarantee that the ultimate cost of such reclamation obligations will not exceed the estimated liability to be provided on our financial statements. Further, to the extent the bonded amounts are not fully collateralized, we will be required to come up with additional cash to perform our reclamation obligations when they occur.
Decommissioning plans for our properties have been filed with applicable regulatory authorities. These regulatory authorities have accepted the decommissioning plans in concept, not upon a detailed performance forecast, which has not yet been generated. Over time, further regulatory review of the decommissioning plans may result in additional decommissioning requirements, associated costs and the requirement to provide additional financial assurances, including as our properties approach or go into decommissioning. It is not possible to predict what level of decommissioning and reclamation (and financial assurances relating thereto) may be required in the future by regulatory authorities.
We are subject to technical innovation and obsolescence in the uranium industry.
Requirements for our products and services may be affected by technological changes in nuclear reactors, enrichment, and used uranium fuel reprocessing. These technological changes could reduce the demand for uranium. The cost competitiveness of our operations may be impacted through the development and commercialization of other uranium mining, milling, processing and other technologies. As a result, our competitors may adopt technological advancements that give them an advantage over the Company.
Our mineral properties may be subject to defects in title.
We have investigated our rights to explore and exploit all of our material properties and, to the best of our knowledge, those rights are in good standing. However, no assurance can be given that such rights will not be revoked, or significantly altered, to our detriment. There can also be no assurance that our rights will not be challenged or impugned by third parties, including by governments, surface owners, and non-governmental organizations.
The validity of unpatented mining claims on U.S. public lands is sometimes difficult to confirm and may be contested. Due to the extensive requirements and associated expense required to obtain and maintain mining rights on U.S. public lands, our properties are subject to various title uncertainties which are common to the industry with the attendant risk that there may be defects in title. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has withdrawn certain lands around the Grand Canyon National Park from location and entry under the Mining Laws. All of our material Arizona Strip properties, other than the Wate Property, are located on these withdrawn lands. No new mining claims may be filed on the withdrawn lands and no new plans of operations may be approved, other than plans of operations on mining claims that were valid at the time of withdrawal and that remain valid at the time of plan approval. Whether or not a mining claim is valid must be determined by a mineral examination conducted by BLM or USFS, as applicable. The mineral examination, which involves an economic evaluation of a project, must demonstrate the existence of a locatable mineral resource and that the mineral resource constitutes discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. We believe that all of our material Arizona Strip projects are on valid mining claims that would withstand a mineral examination. Further, our Arizona

31



1 Project has an approved PO which, absent modification, would not require a mineral examination. Although our Canyon project also has an approved PO, which, absent modification, would not require a mineral examination, the USFS performed a mineral examination at that mine in 2012, and concluded that the underlying mining claims are valid existing rights (a decision which is involved in a current court challenge). However, market conditions may postpone or prevent the performance of mineral examinations on certain other properties and, if a mineral examination is performed on a property, there can be no guarantee that the mineral examination would not result in one or more of our mining claims being considered invalid, which could prevent a project from proceeding.
Certain of our properties, or significant portions thereof, are mineral leases that have fixed terms, both with State and private parties. Certain of our properties are subject to other agreements that may affect our ability to explore, permit, develop and operate them, including surface use, access and other agreements. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to renew or extend such leases and agreements on favorable terms or at all. The failure to renew any such leases or agreements could have a material adverse effect on our operations.
Possible amendments to the General Mining Law could make it more difficult or impossible for us to execute our business plan.
Members of the United States Congress have repeatedly introduced bills which would supplant or alter the provisions of the United States Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Such bills have proposed, among other things, to (i) either eliminate or greatly limit the right to a mineral patent; (ii) significantly alter the laws and regulations relating to uranium mineral development and recovery from unpatented and patented mining claims; (iii) impose a federal royalty on production from unpatented mining claims; (iv) impose time limits on the effectiveness of plans of operation that may not coincide with mine or facility life; (v) impose more stringent environmental compliance and reclamation requirements on activities on unpatented mining claims; (vi) establish a mechanism that would allow states, localities and Native American tribes to petition for the withdrawal of identified tracts of federal land from the operation of the U.S. general mining laws; and (vii) allow for administrative determinations that mining or similar activities would not be allowed in situations where undue degradation of the federal lands in question could not be prevented. If enacted, such legislation could change the cost of holding unpatented mining claims and could significantly impact our ability to develop locatable mineral resources on our patented and unpatented mining claims. Although it is impossible to predict at this point what any legislated royalties might be, enactment could adversely affect the potential for construction and development and the economics of existing operating mines and facilities. Passage of such legislation could adversely affect our financial performance.
In addition to the withdrawal noted in the previous risk factor, there are currently other designated or proposed withdrawals of federal lands for the purposes of mineral location and development and proposed designations of national monuments which would have a similar effect as a withdrawal. While such proposals are not yet final and would require further federal action, if they were to occur, it is uncertain whether any such withdrawals or designations would affect in any manner our current mineral projects.
Because we may be unable to secure access rights to certain of our properties, we may be unable to explore and/or advance such properties.
We are currently in the process of negotiating and clarifying access rights to certain of our properties, such as the Roca Honda Project and the Wate Project, with private landholders. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to negotiate or clarify such access rights on favorable terms, or at all. The failure to negotiate or clarify such access rights on suitable terms could have a material adverse effect on our operations.
We are subject to foreign currency risks.
Our operations are subject to foreign currency fluctuations. Our operating expenses and revenues are primarily incurred in U.S. dollars, while some of our cash balances and expenses and our Debentures are measured in Canadian dollars. The fluctuation of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar will consequently have an impact on our profitability and may also affect the value of our assets and shareholders’ equity. In addition, the recent strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies makes our mineral extraction and recovery less competitive in relation to similar activities in other countries. Current and future strengthening of the U.S. dollar in relation to the currencies of other countries can have a material impact on our cash flows and profitability, and affect the value of our assets and shareholders’ equity.
We may not realize the anticipated benefits of previous acquisitions.
We may not realize the anticipated benefits of acquiring: the Sheep Mountain Project in 2012; Denison Mines Corp’s US Mining Division in 2012, including the White Mesa Mill, certain of the Arizona Strip Properties, the Henry Mountains Complex, the La Sal Project, and the Daneros Project; Strathmore in 2013, including the Roca Honda Project; Uranerz in 2015, including the Nichols Ranch Project; and EFR Alta Mesa in 2016, including the Alta Mesa Project, due to integration, operational and uranium market challenges. Decreases in commodity prices have required us to place or maintain a number of acquired properties and facilities

32



on standby and to defer permitting and construction and development activities on certain other acquired assets, until market conditions warrant otherwise, and in some cases we have elected to sell or abandon certain of these properties at a loss. Our success following those acquisitions will depend in large part on the success of our management in integrating the acquired assets into the Company. Our failure to achieve such integration and to mine or advance such assets could result in our failure to realize the anticipated benefits of those acquisitions and could impair our results of operations, profitability and financial results.
We prepare estimates of future uranium extraction and recovery, and there are no assurances that such estimates will be achieved.
We may from time to time prepare estimates of future uranium extraction and recovery, or increases in uranium extraction and recovery, for particular operations, or relating to our ability to increase uranium extraction and recovery in response to increases in commodity prices, as market conditions warrant or otherwise. No assurance can be given that any such extraction and recovery estimates will be achieved, nor can assurance be given that extraction or recovery increases will be achieved in a cost effective or timely manner. Failure to achieve extraction and recovery estimates or failure to achieve extraction and recovery in a cost effective or timely manner could have an adverse impact on our future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition. These estimates are based on, among other things, the following factors: the accuracy of mineral resource and reserve estimates; the accuracy of assumptions regarding ground conditions and physical characteristics of mineralized materials, such as hardness and presence or absence of particular metallurgical characteristics; the accuracy of estimated rates and costs of extraction, recovery and processing; assumptions as to future commodity prices; assumptions relating to changes in laws, regulations or policies, or lack thereof, that could impact the cost and time required to obtain regulatory approvals, licenses and permits; assumptions relating to obtaining required licenses and permits in a timely manner, including the time required to satisfy environmental analyses, consultations and public input processes; assumptions relating to challenges to or delays in the licensing and permitting process; and assumptions regarding any appeals or lack thereof, or injunctions or lack thereof, relating to any approvals, licenses or permits.
Our actual uranium extraction and recovery may vary from estimates for a variety of reasons, including, among others: actual mineralized material extracted, mined or recovered varying from estimates of grade, tonnage, dilution and metallurgical and other characteristics; short term operating factors relating to the mineral resources and reserves, such as the need for sequential construction or development of mineralized materials or deposits and the processing of new or different mineral grades; risk and hazards associated with extraction, mining and recovery; natural phenomena, such as inclement weather conditions, underground floods, earthquakes, pit wall failures and cave-ins; unexpected labor shortages or strikes; varying conditions in the commodities markets; and delays in obtaining or denial, challenges or appeals of regulatory approvals, licenses and permits or renewals of existing approvals, licenses or permits.
In addition, the Company is evaluating recovering copper at the White Mesa Mill as a by-product with uranium from its Canyon Project. There can be no assurance that this evaluation will result in the Mill being able to recover copper at the Mill as a by-product on an economic basis.
We depend on the issuance of license amendments and renewals which cannot be guaranteed.
We maintain regulatory licenses and permits in order to operate our White Mesa Mill, Nichols Ranch Project and Alta Mesa Project, all of which are subject to renewal from time to time and are required in order to operate in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, depending on our business requirements, it may be necessary or desirable to seek amendments to one or more of our licenses or permits from time to time. While we have been successful in renewing our licenses and permits on a timely basis in the past and in obtaining such amendments as have been necessary or desirable, there can be no assurance that such license and permit renewals and amendments will be issued by applicable regulatory authorities on a timely basis or at all in the future.
Mining, mineral extraction, recovery and milling are subject to a high degree of risk, and we are not insured to cover against all potential risks.
Our operations and activities are subject to all of the hazards and risks normally incidental to exploration, construction, development, extraction and mining of mineral properties, and recovery, processing and milling, including: environmental hazards; industrial accidents; labor disputes, disturbances and unavailability of skilled labor; encountering unusual or unexpected geologic formations; rock bursts, pressures, cave-ins, flooding; periodic interruptions due to inclement or hazardous weather conditions; technological and processing problems, including unanticipated metallurgical difficulties, ground control problems, process upsets and equipment malfunctions; the availability and/or fluctuations in the costs of raw materials and consumables used in our production and recovery processes; the ability to procure mining and other equipment and operating and other supplies in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis; and other extraction, mining, recovery, milling, and processing risks, as well as risks associated with our dependence on third parties in the provision of transportation and other critical services. Many of the foregoing risks and hazards could result in damage to, or destruction of, our mineral properties or processing or recovery facilities, personal injury or death, environmental damage, delays in or interruption of or cessation of extraction, mining, production and recovery from our mines or processing facilities or in our exploration, construction or development activities, delay in or inability to receive regulatory approvals to

33



transport our uranium concentrates, or costs, monetary losses and potential legal liability and adverse governmental action. In addition, due to the radioactive nature of the materials handled in uranium extraction, mining, recovery, and processing, additional costs and risks are incurred by us on a regular and ongoing basis.
While we may obtain insurance against certain risks in such amounts as we consider adequate, the nature of these risks are such that liabilities could exceed policy limits or could be excluded from coverage. There are also risks against which we cannot insure or against which we may elect not to insure. The potential costs which could be associated with any liabilities not covered by insurance or in excess of insurance coverage or compliance with applicable laws and regulations may cause substantial delays and require significant capital outlays, adversely affecting our future earnings, financial position and competitive position. No assurance can be given that such insurance will continue to be available or will be available at economically feasible premiums or that it will provide sufficient coverage for losses related to these or other risks and hazards. This lack of insurance coverage could result in material economic harm to us.
We will need to continuously add to our mineral reserve and resource base and to our alternate feed materials.
Our properties do not contain any mineral reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates, above.
Our material mineral resources are located at the Nichols Ranch Project, the Alta Mesa Project, the Canyon Project, the Roca Honda Project, the Sheep Mountain Project, the Henry Mountains Complex, the La Sal Project, and the Daneros Project. These projects are our primary sources (and potential sources) of current and future uranium concentrates. Unless other mineral resources or reserves are discovered or extensions to existing resource bodies are found, our sources of extraction, production and recovery for uranium concentrates will decrease over time as our current mineral resources are depleted. There can be no assurance that our future exploration, construction, development and acquisition efforts will be successful in replenishing our mineral resources or finding or developing reserves. In addition, while we believe that many of our properties will eventually engage in extraction or mining activities, there can be no assurance that they will be placed into such activities, or that they will be able to replace current extraction or mining activities.
We also recover uranium from processing alternate feed materials at our White Mesa Mill. There can be no assurance that additional sources of alternate feed materials will be forthcoming in the future on commercially acceptable terms or otherwise, or that we will be successful in receiving all required regulatory approvals, licenses and permits on a timely basis to allow for the receipt and processing of any such alternate feed materials.
Our sales of uranium and vanadium products expose us to the risk of non-payment.
Our sales of uranium and vanadium products expose us to the risk of non-payment. We manage this risk by monitoring the credit worthiness of our customers and requiring pre-payment or other forms of payment security from customers with an unacceptable level of credit risk. Most of the Company’s sales are to major nuclear utilities, which pose a relatively low risk of non-payment due to their large size and capitalization.
We are dependent on key personnel and qualified and experienced employees.
Our success will largely depend on the efforts and abilities of certain senior officers and key employees, some of whom are approaching retirement. Certain of these individuals have significant experience in the uranium industry. The number of individuals with significant experience in this industry is small. While we do not foresee any reason why such officers and key employees will not remain with us, other than through retirement, if for any reason they do not, we could be adversely affected. We have not purchased key person life insurance for any of these individuals, other than for our Chief Executive Officer.
Our success will also depend on the availability of qualified and experienced employees to work in our operations and our ability to attract and retain such employees. The number of individuals with relevant mining and operational experience in this industry, especially the U.S. uranium industry, is small.
If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control, we may not be able to accurately report financial results or prevent fraud.
Internal controls over financial reporting are procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly authorized, assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use, and transactions are properly recorded and reported. Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in reports filed with securities regulatory agencies is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis and is accumulated and communicated to a company’s management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance with respect to the reliability of reporting, including financial reporting and financial statement preparation.

34



We are dependent on business partners, government and third party consents.
We have a number of joint ventures and other business relationships relating to our properties and projects, including key projects, such as the Arkose Mining Venture, which can restrict our ability to act unilaterally with respect to those projects in certain circumstances. There can be no assurances that we will be able to maintain relationships with our joint venture and business partners to allow for satisfactory exploration, permitting, construction, development, extraction, mining, recovery or milling relating to any such projects. Our operations and activities are also dependent from time to time on receiving government and other third party consents and approvals. There can be no assurances that all such consents and approvals will be forthcoming when required.
Certain of our directors may be in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the Company due to their relationship with other resource companies.
Some of our directors are also directors of other companies that are similarly engaged in the business of acquiring, exploring and developing natural resource properties. Such associations may give rise to conflicts of interest from time to time. In particular, one of the consequences will be that corporate opportunities presented to a director may be offered to another company or companies with which the director is associated, and may not be presented or made available to us. Our directors are required by law to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Company, to disclose any interest which they may have in any project or opportunity of the Company, and to abstain from voting on such matter. Conflicts of interest that arise will be subject to and governed by the procedures prescribed in our Code of Ethics and by the Business Corporations Act (Ontario).
Our relationship with our employees may be impacted by changes in labor relations.
None of our operations or activities currently directly employ unionized workers who work under collective agreements. However, there can be no assurance that our employees or the employees of our contractors will not become unionized in the future, which may impact our operations and activities. Any lengthy work stoppages may have a material adverse impact on our future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition.
Mining, extraction, recovery, processing, construction, development, and exploration activities depend, to a substantial degree, on adequate infrastructure.
Reliable roads, bridges, power sources, and water supply are important determinants affecting capital and operating costs. We consider the existing infrastructure to be adequate to support our proposed operations and activities. However, unusual or infrequent weather phenomena including drought, sabotage, government, or other interference in the maintenance or provision of such infrastructure could adversely affect our operations and activities, financial condition and results of operations.
Because the probability of an individual prospect ever having reserves as defined by the SEC is not known, our properties may not contain any reserves, and any funds spent on exploration may be lost.
We have no reserves as defined by SEC Industry Guide 7. Because the probability of an individual prospect ever having reserves is uncertain, our properties may not contain any reserves, and any funds spent on exploration, construction, development, extraction, and recovery may be lost. We do not know with certainty that economically recoverable uranium exists on any of our properties as defined by SEC Industry Guide 7. Further, although we are undertaking uranium extraction activities at our Nichols Ranch Project, our lack of established reserves means that we are uncertain as to our ability to continue to generate revenue from our operations. We may never discover uranium in commercially exploitable quantities and any identified deposit may never qualify as a commercially mineable (or viable) reserve. We will continue to attempt to acquire the surface and mineral rights on lands that we think are geologically favorable or where we have historical information in our possession that indicates uranium mineralization might be present.
The exploration and, if warranted, construction relating to or development of mineral deposits involves significant financial and other risks over an extended period of time, which even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not eliminate. Few properties which are explored are ultimately developed into producing mines. Major expenditures are required to establish reserves by drilling and to construct mining and processing facilities at a site. Our uranium properties are all classified under SEC Industry Guide 7 to be at the exploration stage and do not contain any reserves at this time. It is impossible to ensure that the current or proposed exploration programs and other activities on properties in which we have an interest will result in the delineation of mineral reserves or in profitable commercial operations. Our operations and activities are subject to the hazards and risks normally incident to exploration and production of uranium, precious and base metals, any of which could result in damage to life or property, environmental damage and possible legal liability for such damage. While we may obtain insurance against certain risks, the nature of these risks is such that liabilities could exceed policy limits or could be excluded from coverage. There are also risks against which we cannot insure or against which we may elect not to insure. The potential costs which could be associated with any liabilities not covered by insurance, or in excess of insurance coverage, or compliance with applicable laws

35



and regulations may cause substantial delays and require significant capital outlays, adversely affecting our future earnings and competitive position and, potentially our financial viability.
U.S. investors may have difficulty bringing actions and enforcing judgments under U.S. securities laws against an Ontario corporation.
Although our primary trading market is the NYSE American, we have a majority of U.S. resident shareholders, are a U.S. Domestic Issuer for SEC purposes, and all of our assets, operations and employees are in the U.S., the Company was incorporated in Ontario, and as a result, investors in the United States or in other jurisdictions outside of Canada may have difficulty bringing actions and enforcing judgments against us, our directors, our executive officers and some of the experts named in this Annual Report on Form 10-K based on civil liabilities provisions of the federal securities laws or other laws of the United States or any state thereof or the equivalent laws of other jurisdictions of residence.
Any attempt by U.S. President Trump to withdraw from or materially modify NAFTA and certain other international trade agreements could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, to the extent dependent on the jurisdiction of our incorporation.

Although our primary trading market is the NYSE American, we have a majority of U.S. resident shareholders, are a U.S. Domestic Issuer for SEC purposes, and all of our assets, operations and employees are in the U.S., the Company was incorporated in Ontario. During the election campaign, then President-elect Trump made comments suggesting that he was not supportive of certain existing international trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). At this time, it remains unclear what President Trump will or will not do with respect to these international trade agreements. If President Trump takes action to withdraw from or materially modify NAFTA or certain other international trade agreements, and such actions depend on the jurisdiction of our incorporation, then our business, financial condition and results of operations could possibly be adversely affected, depending on the nature of the action.

The impact of the new tax legislation on our financial statements is uncertain and could be adverse.

On December 22, 2017, U.S. tax legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, was signed into law, significantly reforming the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The TCJA, among other things, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates, imposes significant additional limitations on the deductibility of interest, allows for the expensing of capital expenditures, puts into effect the migration from a “worldwide” system of taxation to a territorial system and modifies or repeals many business deductions and credits. We continue to examine the impact the TCJA may have on our business. We will evaluate the effect of the TCJA on our projection of minimal cash taxes or to our net operating losses. The estimated impact of the TCJA is based on our management’s current knowledge and assumptions and recognized impacts could be materially different from current estimates based on our actual results and our further analysis of the new law.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.


36



ITEM 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors: Information contained in this item differs from the disclosure requirements of the SEC applicable to U.S.-incorporated domestic issuers. This Item 2 and other sections of this Annual Report contain the terms “measured mineral resources,” “indicated mineral resources,” “inferred mineral resources,” “proven mineral reserves,” and “probable mineral reserves” as defined in accordance with NI 43-101. See “Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” at the beginning of this Annual Report for definitions and further discussion on the differences between terms under NI 43-101 and SEC Industry Guide 7.


allpropertiesa01.jpg

37



Overview

Energy Fuels is engaged in conventional and ISR uranium extraction and recovery, along with the exploration, permitting and evaluation of uranium properties in the United States.

ISR Uranium Activities

The Company conducts its ISR recovery activities through its Nichols Ranch Project in northeast Wyoming, which it acquired in June 2015 through the acquisition of Uranerz, and its Alta Mesa Project in south Texas, which it acquired in June 2016 through the acquisition of EFR Alta Mesa.

The Nichols Ranch Project includes: (i) the Nichols Ranch Plant; (ii) the Nichols Ranch Wellfields; (iii) the Jane Dough Property, and; (iv) the Hank Project, which includes the permitted but not constructed Hank Satellite Plant and the Hank Property. See “The Nichols Ranch ISR Project” below. Also through the acquisition of Uranerz, the Company acquired the Reno Creek Property, the West North Butte Property, the North Rolling Pin Property, and the Arkose Mining Venture, a joint venture of ISR properties held 81% by Energy Fuels. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other ISR Projects,” below.

The Alta Mesa Project has a fully-licensed and constructed ISR uranium recovery plant, with a design capacity of 1.5 million pounds of uranium concentrate per year. In order for Alta Mesa to be capable of uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to develop wellfields. A decision to commence development will be made once uranium prices improve to a point where economic feasibility of the Alta Mesa Project is established.

Conventional Uranium Activities

The Company conducts its conventional uranium extraction and recovery activities through its White Mesa Mill, which is the only operating conventional uranium mill in the United States. The White Mesa Mill, located near Blanding, Utah, is centrally located such that it can be fed by a number of the Company’s uranium and uranium/vanadium projects in Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, as well as by ore purchase or toll milling arrangements with third party miners in the region, as market conditions warrant. The Company also owns the Sheep Mountain Project in Wyoming, which is a conventional uranium project. Due to its distance from the White Mesa Mill, the Sheep Mountain Project is not expected to be a source of feed material for the Mill. The Sheep Mountain Project consists of the Sheep Mountain Extraction Operation, which is permitted, and the proposed Sheep Mountain Processing Operation, which is not permitted at this time.

The Company’s principal conventional properties include the following:

the White Mesa Mill. See “The White Mesa Mill” below;
the Canyon Mine. See “The Canyon Mine” below;
the Roca Honda Project. See “The Roca Honda Project” below;
the Sheep Mountain Project. See “The Sheep Mountain Project” below;
the Henry Mountains Complex comprised of the Tony M Property and the Bullfrog Property. See “The Henry Mountains Complex” below;
the La Sal Project. See “The La Sal Project” below;
the Daneros Project. See “The Daneros Project” below;
the Arizona Strip uranium properties located in north-central Arizona, including: the Arizona 1 Project, the Wate Project, and EZ Project. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other Conventional Projects – Arizona Strip” below; and
The Colorado Plateau uranium properties located in the Four Corners region of Colorado and Utah, including: the Whirlwind Project and the Sage Plain Project. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other Conventional Projects – Colorado Plateau” below.

The material projects are shown on the map above and are described in further detail below. Properties that the Company does not consider material are summarized at the end of this Item 2.

Uranium and Vanadium Recovery History

The following tables show the mineralized material processed and pounds of uranium and vanadium recovered from the Company’s projects and facilities from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017:(1) 




38



Recovery History (1) 
Project or Source
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
Alternate Feed Materials(2)
Tons (000)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
 Ave. % U3O8
 18.86%
27.98%
9.21%
16.94%
5.03%
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
 1,004(3)
172(3)(4)
229(3)
391(3)
351(3)
Tailing Solution Recycle & In-Circuit Material(5)
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
 308
77
67
---
---
Conventional Feed Materials
Tons (000)
--- 
45
---
49
126
Contained Grade % U3O8
 ---
0.50%
---
0.56%
0.26%
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
 ---
431
---
552
655
Nichols Ranch(6)
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
 259
335
273
200
---
Alta Mesa
Recovered Pounds (000)
---
---
---
3(7)
139(7)
Total Pounds of U3O8 Recovered (000)
 1,571
 1,015
569
1,146
1,145 
Total Pounds of V2O5 Recovered (000)
 ---
--- 
--- 
--- 
1,303
Notes:
(1)    Mineralized material is shown as being processed and pounds recovered during the year in which the materials were processed at the White Mesa Mill or at the Nichols Ranch Plant, which is not necessarily the year in which the materials were extracted from the project facilities.
(2)    All alternate feed materials were processed at the White Mesa Mill. A number of different alternate feed materials were processed during the period 2013 – 2017. The table shows the average uranium grades and the total pounds recovered from all alternate feed materials processed at the Mill during each of the years in that period. Because of the variability in uranium grades, pounds recovered is considered to be the relevant metric and tons fed is not considered to be relevant.
(3)    The 1,004,000 pounds recovered in 2017 include 952,000 pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; the 172,000 pounds recovered in 2016 include nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; the 229,000 pounds recovered in 2015 include 72,000 pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; the 391,000 pounds recovered in 2014 include 85,000 pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; and the 351,000 pounds recovered in 2013 include nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties.
(4)    Material recovered originated from several different sources that were fed to process at various times in 2015 and 2016. Therefore, the recovered amount is independent of the reported feed amount for any given period.
(5)    Pounds contained in tailings solutions containing previously unrecovered uranium, together with in-circuit mineralized material from previous conventional mine material processing, were recovered by processing alternate feed materials at the White Mesa Mill, though tons and grade are not available because it cannot be tied to any specific source.
(6)    Uranium recovery commenced at the Nichols Ranch Project on April 17, 2014. Because the Nichols Ranch Project uses ISR instead of conventional extraction methods, grade and tons of mineralized material are inapplicable to the Nichols Ranch Project. The data in the table include all uranium recovered from the Nichols Ranch Project, both before and after the Company acquired Uranerz and the Nichols Ranch Project. Of the total pounds recovered at the Nichols Ranch Project in 2015, approximately 172,000 pounds were recovered after June 18, 2015, and are for the account of the Company.
(7)    Figures prior to June 17, 2016 predate the Company's ownership of the Alta Mesa Project, and are therefore for the account of the previous owner.



39



Mineral Extraction

The following table shows the extraction history from 2013 to December 31, 2017 from the mineral properties currently owned by the Company. Much of the material was stockpiled at the White Mesa Mill for a year or more before being processed. Since mineralized material is processed on a continuing basis during a Mill run and remains in-circuit for a considerable time mixed with all other mill feed, it is not possible to tie uranium and vanadium recovery to each project on an annual basis. Therefore, pounds of extracted uranium and vanadium are not included in this table, except for the Nichols Ranch and Alta Mesa Projects where annual extraction can be tracked. The mineral extraction table below is based on estimates of mineralized material grade as material comes out of the mine whereas the recovery table above reflects actual head grades as material is fed to process at the Mill. Therefore, the grades in the two tables differ.
Project(1)
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013(1)
Arizona 1(2)
Tons (000)
---
---
---
4
16
% U3O8
 
 
 
0.56%
0.58%
Pinenut(3)
Tons (000)
---
---
30
43
8
% U3O8
 
 
0.54%
0.55%
0.53%
Nichols Ranch
Pounds (000)
 259
335
273(4)
200
---
Alta Mesa
Pounds (000)
---
---
---
3(5)
139(5)
Notes:
(1)    All properties reported in this table were owned by the Company on December 31, 2017, and continue to be owned by the Company. Alta Mesa was acquired by the Company in June 2016 as part of the EFR Alta Mesa acquisition, and Nichols Ranch was acquired by the Company in June 2015 as part of the Uranerz acquisition. Properties sold or otherwise disposed of are not included in this table. Production for the US Mining Division prior to June 29, 2012 predates the Company's ownership of the US Mining Division, and was therefore for the account of the previous owner.
(2)    The Arizona 1 Project was placed on Standby in February 2014.
(3)    The Pinenut Project was placed into reclamation in August 2015 due to depletion of the identified resources.
(4)    Uranium recovery commenced at the Nichols Ranch Project on April 17, 2014. Of the total pounds recovered at the Nichols Ranch Project in 2015, approximately 172,000 pounds were recovered after June 18, 2015, and are for the account of the Company.
(5)    Production prior to June 17, 2016 predates the Company's ownership of the Alta Mesa Project, and is therefore for the account of the previous owner.

Summary of Mineral Reserves and Resources

John H. White, Colorado PE # 0047237, the Company’s VP of Technical Services, is responsible for the disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning mineral projects in this Annual Report.

The following tables show the Company's estimate of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2017. NI 43-101 requires mineral companies to disclose Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources using the subcategories of Proven Mineral Reserves, Probable Mineral Reserves, Measured Mineral Resources, Indicated Mineral Resources and Inferred Mineral Resources. Energy Fuels reports Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources separately. Properties sold or otherwise disposed of, or committed to be sold or otherwise disposed of, during 2017 or 2018 are not included in the table. Such properties include Reno Creek and Torbyn, which are not included in the table. Except as stated below, the Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource information shown below is as reported in the various technical reports prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 (the “Technical Reports”) by qualified persons employed by Peters Geosciences, BRS Inc., SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc., and Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. See “Mineral Projects” below. The table below also reflects the Company’s adjustments to the resources as of December 31, 2017 at the properties where exploration and well installation drilling and/or extraction were in progress in 2017; notably at the Nichols Ranch Project. The Pinenut Project has been

40



removed from the table since extraction of all known resources was completed during 2015. An updated Technical Report for The Daneros Project was filed on March 9, 2018. The updated Mineral Resource for Daneros is given in the Mineral Resource table below.

Mineral Reserve Estimates - Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4) 
 
Proven Mineral Resources
 
Probable Mineral Reserves
Tons (000)
Grade % eU3O8
Pounds eU3O8 (000)
 
Tons (000)

Grade % eU3O8

Pounds eU3O8 (000)

Sheep Mountain - Congo Pit
---
---
---
 
3,955

0.115
%
9,117

Sheep Mountain - Underground
---
---
---
 
3,498

0.132
%
9,248

Total Mineral Reserves
---
---
---
 
7,453

0.123%

18,365

Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Reserve estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7.
(2)    Mineral Reserves are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.10 G.T. (2 ft. of 0.05% eU3O8) for the Congo Pit and 0.45 G.T. (6 ft. of 0.075% eU3O8) for Sheep Underground.
(3)    Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound U3O8.
(4)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Mineral Resource Estimates – Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4) 
 
 
Measured Mineral Resources
 
Indicated Mineral Resources
 
Inferred Mineral Resources
 
Tons (000)

Grade % eU3O8

Pounds eU3O8 (000)

 
Tons (000)

Grade % eU3O8

Pounds eU3O8 (000)

 
Tons (000)

Grade % eU3O8

Pounds eU3O8 (000)

 
 
ISR Properties
 
Nichols Ranch(5)
357 

0.140% 

1,000 

 
2,471

0.111% 

5,500

 
561

0.099
%
1,112

 
Alta Mesa(6)
123

0.151%

371

1,512

0.107%

3,246

6,964

0.120%

16,794

 
Reno Creek
2,281

0.061
%
2,782

1,550

0.049
%
1,511

190

0.037
%
142

 
Other Power River Basin Properties(7)
310

0.062%

387

1,198

0.130%

3,115

2,823

0.106%

6,008

 
ISR Subtotal
 

 

4,540

 

 

13,372

 

 

24,056

 
Conventional Properties
 
Canyon
6

0.43%

56

 
132

0.90%

2,378

 
18

0.38%

134

 
Roca Honda(8)
208

0.48%

1,984

1,303

0.48%

12,580

1,198

0.47

11,206

 
Sheep Mountain(9)
---

---

---

12,895

0.12%

30,285

---

---

---

 
Henry Mountains(10)
---

---

---

2,410

0.27%

12,800

1,610

0.25%

8,080

 
La Sal(11)
1,009

0.18%

3,732

132

0.14%

367

185

0.10%

362

 
Daneros
---

---

---

20

0.36
%
142

7

0.37
%
52

 
Other Properties(12)
240

0.16%

772

201

0.28%

1,122

742

0.35%

5,248

 
Conventional Subtotal
 
 
6,544

 

 

59,674

 

 

25,082

 
Total Mineral Resources (eU3O8)
 
 
11,084

 
 
 
73,047

 
 
 
49,138




41



Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimates in this table comply with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    Mineral Resources were estimated at various %eU3O8 or G.T. cut-off grades. Details regarding cut-off grade calculations for each project are given in the project’s respective section below.
(3)    Mineral Resources were estimated at various long-term uranium prices. The specific long-term uranium price for each project is given in the project’s respective section below.
(4)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(5)    The numbers shown represent Energy Fuels share of the Nichols Ranch Project, which is less than 100% due to a portion that is held by Akose Mining Venture. The total Nichols Ranch Project Mineral Resources (100%) are shown in the Nichols Ranch section of this report, and include 1.0 million, 6.2 million, and 1.2 million pounds of measured mineral resources, indicated mineral resources, and inferred mineral resources, respectively. The Nichols Ranch Project is comprised of three properties: the Nichols Ranch Wellfield, the Hank Property and the Jane Dough Property. A portion of the Jane Dough Property is held through the Arkose Mining Venture, in which the Company has an 81% interest. The Mineral Resources shown in the table differ from those in the 2015 Nichols Ranch Technical Report due to adjustments made by the Company by subtracting recovered material (857,041 pounds) and adding additional resources discovered by drilling during well field installation (162,500 pounds).
(6)    Includes Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande.
(7)    The other Powder River Basin ISR properties include: the North Rolling Pin Property, the West North Butte Property, the East North Butte property, the Willow Creek property, and the East Buck, Little Butte, Sand Rock and South Doughstick properties in the Arkose Joint Venture. The Mineral Resources for the Arkose properties are included in the table as 81% of the total, which is Energy Fuels share.
(8)    The numbers do not include the historical resource estimate for the Adjacent Roca Honda Properties. See “The Roca Honda Project,” below.
(9)    The Sheep Mountain Indicated Mineral Resource includes Probable Mineral Reserves calculated in accordance with NI 43-101 of 18,365,000 pounds of eU3O8 in 7,453,000 tons at a grade of 0.123%. Such mineral resources do not constitute reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7.
(10)    The Henry Mountains Complex includes the Tony M, Southwest, Indian Bench and Copper Bench properties.
(11)    The La Sal Project includes the Energy Queen, Redd Block, Beaver, and Pandora properties.
(12)    This includes all conventional Non-Material properties, including: Wate, EZ Project, Whirlwind, and the retained portion of Sage Plain.

Mineral Resource Estimate – Vanadium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) 
 
 
Measured Mineral Resources
 
Indicated Mineral Resources
 
Inferred Mineral Resources
 
Tons (000)

Grade % V2O5
Pounds V2O5 (000)
 
Tons (000)
Grade % V2O5

Pounds V2O5 (000)
 
Tons (000)
Grade % V2O5
Pounds V2O5 (000)
 
 
Las Sal(6)
1,009

0.97%
19,596
 
132
0.73%

1,930
 
185
0.51%
1,902
 
Other Properties(7)
240

1.32%
6,350
201
0.94
%
3,797
447
0.74%
6,660
 
Total Mineral Resources (V2O5)
 
 
25,946
 
 
 
5,727
 
 
 
8,562
Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimates in this table comply with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    Mineral Resources were estimated at various %U3O8 or G.T. cut-off grades. Details regarding cut-off grade calculations for each project are given in the project’s respective section below.
(3)    Mineral Resources were estimated at various long-term uranium prices. The specific long-term uranium price for each project is given in the project’s respective section below.
(4)    Various vanadium to uranium ratios were used to calculate the vanadium grades and pounds given in the table. The specific ratio used for each project is given in the project’s respective section below.
(5)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(6)    The La Sal Project includes the Energy Queen, Redd Block, Beaver, and Pandora properties.
(7)    Other Properties includes Whirlwind and the retained portion of Sage Plain.

42



Mineral Resource Estimate – Copper(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) 
 
 
Measured Mineral Resources
 
Indicated Mineral Resources
 
Inferred Mineral Resources
 
Tons (000)
Grade % Cu
Pounds Cu (000)
 
Tons (000)
Grade % Cu
Pounds Cu (000)
 
Tons (000)
Grade % Cu
Pounds Cu (000)
 
 
Canyon
6
9.29%
1,203
 
94
5.70%
10,736
 
5
5.90%
570
 
Total Mineral Resources (Cu)
 
 
1,203
 
 
 
10,736
 
 
 
570
Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    For the Main and Main-Lower zones of the Canyon Mine, a 0.36% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U3O8 Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. In all other zones only uranium was reported and a 0.29% U3O8 cut-off grade was applied. (The %U3O8 Eq grade term is not the same as the eU3O8 % grade term with indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report. For details see the Canyon Technical Report).
(3)    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$60 per pound and a Copper price of US$3.50 per lb.
(4)    A copper to U3O8 conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U3O8 grades (U3O8 Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.
(5)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(6)    For Canyon, Mineral Resource tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower Zones.


43



The Nichols Ranch Project

nicholsranch1a01.jpg
Unless stated otherwise, the following description of the Nichols Ranch Project is derived from a technical report titled “Nichols Ranch Uranium Project, 43-101 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment” dated February 28, 2015, prepared by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G. of BRS Inc. and Paul Goranson, P.E. of the Company, in accordance with NI 43-101 (the “Nichols Ranch Technical Report”). The Nichols Ranch Technical Report includes an updated NI 43-101 mineral resource estimate and the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) for the uranium resources identified to date at the Nichols Ranch Project. Each of the authors is a “qualified person” within the meaning of NI 43-101, and Mr. Beahm is “independent” of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. Because the independent author of the Nichols Ranch Technical Report assumed overall responsibility for all items of the technical report, the report is therefore an independent technical report under NI 43-101. The Nichols Ranch Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. The Nichols Ranch Project does not have known reserves, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be exploratory in nature, despite currently ongoing uranium recovery activities.

Property Description and Location

The Nichols Ranch Project is the Company’s currently active ISR uranium recovery project, which it acquired in June 2015 through the acquisition of Uranerz. It is located in the Powder River Basin of northeast Wyoming. The Nichols Ranch Project includes: (i) the Nichols Ranch Plant; (ii) the Nichols Ranch Wellfield; (iii) the Jane Dough Property; and (iv) the Hank Project, which includes the planned Hank Satellite Plant and the Hank Property. The Nichols Ranch Project is an ISR project; it is not an underground or open pit project.

A map of the Nichols Ranch Project, including the Nichols Ranch Plant, the Nichols Ranch Wellfield, the Jane Dough Property and the Hank Property is shown below:


44



nicholsranch2a02.jpg

The Nichols Ranch Project is an operating ISR facility that recovers uranium through a series of injection and recovery wells. Using groundwater fortified with oxygen and sodium bicarbonate, uranium is dissolved within a deposit. The groundwater is then collected in a series of recovery wells and pumped to the Nichols Ranch Plant. The Nichols Ranch Plant creates a yellowcake slurry that is transported by truck to the White Mesa Mill where it is dried and packaged into drums that are later shipped to a conversion facility.

The original plan for the Nichols Ranch Project included the construction of an ISR processing facility and a second uranium recovery and extraction facility at the Hank Project. Our current extraction plan for the Nichols Ranch Project is now divided into three separate areas, being (i) the Nichols Ranch Wellfield, (ii) the Jane Dough Property, and (iii) the Hank Property. The Nichols Ranch Wellfield is, and the Jane Dough Property is expected to be, directly connected to the Nichols Ranch Plant via pipeline. The Hank Project is expected to consist of a uranium extraction and recovery facility that will create a loaded resin that will be trucked to the Nichols Ranch Plant for elution. The Nichols Ranch Wellfield consists of our two initial production areas, being Production Area #1 and Production Area #2. The Nichols Ranch Wellfield also includes the two deep disposal wells that are permitted and constructed for the Nichols Ranch Project. The Jane Dough Property is adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Wellfield to the south and contains certain properties that are 100% owned by Energy Fuels and other properties that are held in the Arkose Mining Venture, in which we own an 81% interest. The Jane Dough Property contains two fully licensed and permitted extraction areas. The Hank Project is 100% owned by Energy Fuels and is located approximately six miles east of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield. The Hank Satellite Plant is fully licensed and permitted to be constructed and operate as a satellite to the Nichols Ranch Plant, and the Hank Property contains two targeted extraction areas.

Construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant was substantially completed in 2013, and extraction commenced in the second quarter of 2014 after final NRC inspections were completed. The Jane Dough Property described above has two fully licensed and permitted extraction areas. The Company completed construction of an elution and precipitation circuit at the Nichols Ranch Plant in early-February 2016. Yellowcake slurry is now transported from the Nichols Ranch Plant to the White Mesa Mill for drying and packaging. However, the

45



Nichols Ranch Plant is currently licensed to allow for the construction and operation of a drying and packaging circuit should conditions warrant.

The Nichols Ranch Project does not have known reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be “exploratory” in nature. During 2017, a total of approximately 259,000 pounds of U3O8 were recovered from the Nichols Ranch Project and nil pounds of mineralized material were added through drilling.

Accessibility, Local Resources, Physiography and Infrastructure

The Nichols Ranch Project site is located approximately 50 road miles southwest of Gillette, Wyoming and 76 road miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming in portions of Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming in the Townships 41 to 45 North and Ranges 73 to 77 West. It is accessed from State Highway 50 from the east or State Highway 387 from the south, and various internal gravel-surface county and private roads. Casper is on Interstate 25, approximately one hour by air from either Denver, Colorado or Salt Lake City, Utah. The Nichols Ranch Project is accessible via two-wheel drive vehicle on existing county and/or private gravel and dirt roads.
The Nichols Ranch Project is located within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the central portion of the Powder River Basin, within the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District. The Pumpkin Buttes are a series of small buttes rising several hundred feet above the surrounding plains. Portions of the Powder River Basin properties are located east, west and south of these buttes. The cap rocks on top of the buttes are erosional remnants of the Tertiary White River Formation that is believed to have overlain the majority of the Powder River Basin. The volcanic tuffs in the White River Formation have been cited as a source of uranium in this basin.

The area in which the Powder River Basin properties is located is a low lying plain, and elevations range from approximately 4,390 feet (1,440 meters) in the northwest to approximately 5,450 feet (1,790 meters) in the southeast. Historically and currently, the land is used for livestock and wildlife grazing. Vegetation is characteristically sagebrush grassland with some pines on elevated terrain and some deciduous trees within drainages.

The climate is semi-arid and receives an annual precipitation of approximately 9.4 inches, the most falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot, dry and clear except for infrequent heavy rains. Cold, wind and snow/blizzards can make winter exploration work in this area difficult but not impossible. The weather may limit the time periods for capital construction but should not have any significant adverse impacts on the operation of an ISR facility.

Infrastructure at the site of the Nichols Ranch Project is dominantly related to local oil, gas, and coal bed methane exploration and development. Mineralized locations could affect future siting of wellfields and processing facilities. Generally, the proximity of the Nichols Ranch Project to paved roads is beneficial with respect to transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product to and from the property. Power transmission lines are located on or near parts of the property. We have secured power from the local electrical service provider to accommodate our needs. Water is available from wells developed at planned facility locations, and water for ISR operations comes from the operation itself, i.e. the extracted groundwater. Therefore, the basic infrastructure (power, water and transportation) that is required to support an ISR mining operation is located within reasonable proximity to the Nichols Ranch Project.

Ownership

Our property interests vary widely, and include unpatented mining claims, private and state leasehold interests and surface use rights. Some agreements renew annually, some renew automatically when mineral extraction has commenced, and some are agreements for fixed terms. For the property agreements that expire in 2018, the Company may negotiate new agreements for only those acres that are within permit boundaries or critical project areas. Leases outside of such desired project areas may be allowed to expire, although the Company may seek to negotiate new agreements for those dropped properties in the future should market conditions warrant. We do not expect that the expiry of any property interests in 2018 and beyond, nor the forfeiture of any unpatented mining claims in 2018, will have a material effect on our ability to continue exploration and extraction activities on our properties.

Our unpatented lode mining claims are located on minerals owned by the federal government and open to location, with the surface being owned by either the federal government or private individuals. In addition, the unpatented lode mining claims are recorded in the appropriate county and filed with the state office of the BLM. The unpatented lode claims do not have an expiration date. However, affidavits must be filed annually with the BLM and respective county recorder’s offices in order to maintain the claims’ validity. All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements ($155 per claim) with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year. Most of the above-mentioned unpatented lode mining claims are located on Stock Raising Homestead land where the United States government has issued a patent for the surface to an individual and reserved the minerals to the United States government subject to the location rights by claimants as set forth in the federal Mining Act of 1872.

Our leasehold interests are subject to the various terms as set forth in the applicable leases. The state leases and leases on fee mineral lands usually have annual payments, royalty obligations, and the terms of the leases vary, but for the most part can be extended by

46



production (as defined in the leases). The fee surface and mineral leases apply only to uranium and other fissionable minerals and typically have a 10-year term with the right to extend the leases with production (as defined in the leases). Commingling of extraction from adjacent lands is allowable under the fee mineral leases.

Surface rights under applicable laws allow for exploration disturbance, road construction and facility siting. The claimant must first notify the surface owner of its intention to locate unpatented lode mining claims on the owner’s surface and then reach an agreement with the surface owner to pay for damages caused by the claimant’s operations. If an agreement cannot be reached, the claimant may post a bond with the BLM to cover the amount of the damages caused by the claimant’s operations. We have negotiated surface use agreements with various surface owners that provide us with all required surface access for the Nichols Ranch Project. The surface use agreements typically provide for reimbursement to the surface owner of actual damages resulting from our operations.

Nichols Ranch Plant – 100% Energy Fuels
The Nichols Ranch Plant is located on the Nichols Ranch Project property pursuant to the surface use agreements described below.

Nichols Ranch Wellfield – 100% Energy Fuels
The Nichols Ranch Project, which includes the Nichols Ranch Plant and the Nichols Ranch Wellfield mining permit area, consists of 36 unpatented lode mining claims, two fee surface and mineral leases, and one surface use agreement encompassing approximately 920 acres. The Nichols Ranch Wellfield permit boundary encompasses approximately 1,120 acres. There is an overriding royalty interest in favor of Excalibur Industries on all federal unpatented lode mining claims that were acquired from Excalibur Industries, defined as a gross royalty of six percent when the spot price of uranium is less than $45.00 per pound and of eight percent if the uranium spot price is $45.00 per pound or higher. In addition, there is a portion of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield that includes private (fee) mineral that is subject to the above Excalibur Industries royalty, plus an additional royalty payable to the fee mineral owner under the fee leases. Cumulatively, the combined royalties range from 12 percent to 16 percent, depending upon the price of uranium). The Company has entered into an agreement to acquire these Excalibur Industries royalties, which it intends to cancel upon acquisition. See General Development of the Business: 2017 Corporate Developments. The primary term of the leases would have expired in 2017; however, they are held by production (as defined in the leases). The primary term of the surface use agreement would have expired in 2016, however the term has been held by production.

Hank Property – 100% Energy Fuels
At the Hank Project, for which the Company has received a license to construct and operate a satellite plant to the Nichols Ranch Plant (known as the Hank Satellite Plant), we have 66 unpatented lode mining claims, two fee surface and mineral leases, which are not significant, and one surface use agreement encompassing approximately 1,393 acres. The Hank Project permit boundary encompasses approximately 2,250 acres. Of the 66 unpatented lode mining claims comprising the Hank Project, 56 of the claims have a royalty interest burden, payable to Excalibur Industries, of 6 or 8 percent depending on the price of uranium. This royalty interest is based on uranium produced from these claims. As mentioned above, the Company has entered into an agreement to acquire these Excalibur Industries royalties, which it intends to cancel upon acquisition. See General Development of the Business: 2017 Corporate Developments. The primary term of the leases would have expired in 2016, however they have been held beyond the primary term by production (as defined in the leases). In 2017, the Company renewed all of these leases through 2026.

Jane Dough Property (Jane Dough/Doughstick – 100% Energy Fuels; North Jane and S. Doughstick – 100% Arkose Mining Venture, held 81% by Energy Fuels)
In 2017, the Company received its license amendment from the NRC, which includes the Jane Dough Property in the Nichols Ranch Project permit area, and combines the Jane Dough/Doughstick, North Jane and S. Doughstick properties consisting of 115 unpatented lode mining claims, 16 mineral leases, and three surface use agreements encompassing approximately 3,121 acres. Our operating interest in the Jane Dough Property includes Energy Fuels’ 100% owned property and 81% from the two properties held by the Arkose Mining Venture. The Jane Dough Property permit amendment encompasses approximately 3,680 acres. The fee land in the project is covered by mineral leases some of which have annual payments and some of which are five year paid up leases. The mineral leases have primary terms of ten years and can be held by ongoing uranium extraction (as defined in the leases). Some of the leases expire in 2018, and 2019. The fee surface is covered by three separate surface use agreements, which include damage payments paid on an annual basis. The mining leases have a variety of royalty payments based on a fixed rate, a two tier system, or a sliding scale system.

One of the leases has a fixed royalty rate of 4% of the gross proceeds. Two of the leases have a two-tier royalty based on the price of U3O8 at the time of the sale, and they are 6% for a U3O8 price less than $75 per pound, and 8% for a U3O8 price equal to or greater than $75 per pound. Five of the leases have a sliding scale royalty that runs from a low of 2% at a U3O8 price of $25 per pound up to a high of 10% for a U3O8 price of equal to or greater than $100 per pound. Four leases have a sliding scale royalty that runs from a low of 4.0% at a U3O8 price of $40 per pound up to a high of 10% for a U3O8 price of equal to or greater than $100 per pound. Four of the leases have a sliding scale royalty that runs from a low of 4.5% at a U3O8 price of $49.99 up to a high of 10% for a U3O8 price of equal to or greater than $100 per pound. There is an overriding royalty interest held by Excalibur Industries that covers some of the unpatented claims located in Sections 20, 21, 28 and 29, Township 43 North, Range 76 West, which is a two-tiered royalty based on quarterly

47



production of U3O8 and adjusted annually by the actual amount of U3O8 sold during the previous year. The Excalibur royalty amounts are based on the average quarterly spot price for U3O8, and they are 6% for a U3O8 price equal to or less than $45 per pound and 8% for a U3O8 price greater than $45 per pound. As mentioned above, the Company has entered into an agreement to acquire these Excalibur Industries royalties, which it intends to cancel upon acquisition. See General Development of the Business: 2017 Corporate Developments. There are twenty (20) unpatented mining claims located in Section 32, Township 43 North, Range 76 West that have an overriding royalty interest of 0.25%. This overriding royalty interest is based on production of uranium on said claims. Two of the surface use agreements have a two tiered royalty based on the sales price of the U3O8 received by Uranerz, and they are 1% for a sales price of less than $50 per pound; and 2% for a sales price of equal to or greater than $50 per pound.

Uranium Severance Tax
We are required to pay a standard uranium industry severance tax of approximately 4% of sales and an ad valorem tax (annual property tax based on assessed values) to the State of Wyoming, in addition to various maintenance, land impact and access fees and other consideration to surface owners.

Permitting and Licensing

Energy Fuels has received all regulatory approvals necessary to conduct extraction and uranium processing activities at the Nichols Ranch Plant and Nichols Ranch Wellfield. In December 2010, Uranerz received its Permit to Mine for the Nichols Ranch Project from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) - Land Quality Division (“WDEQ-LQD”). In July 2011, Uranerz received a Source Material License from the NRC for the Nichols Ranch Plant and Nichols Ranch Wellfield, and construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant immediately began.

Both the state and federal agencies analyzed all environmental aspects of the Nichols Ranch Project including reclamation of the land surface following extraction operations and restoration of impacted ground water. Workplace safety and the safety of the public are also closely monitored by regulatory agencies. We have posted a reclamation bond with the regulatory agencies in an amount of $6.8 million to cover the total estimated cost of reclamation by a third party as a requirement of the licenses.

The various state and federal permits and licenses that were required and have been obtained for the Nichols Ranch Project, exclusive of the expansion to the Jane Dough Property, are summarized below:

Primary Permits and Licenses for the Nichols Ranch Project (Nichols Ranch and Hank Units Only)
Permit, License, or Approval Name
Agency
Status
Source Material License
NRC
Obtained
Permit to Mine (UIC Permit)
WDEQ-LQD
Obtained
Aquifer Exemption
WDEQ-LQD; EPA
Obtained
Permit to Appropriate Groundwater
SEO
Obtained
Wellfield Authorization
WDEQ-LQD
Obtained
Deep Disposal Well Permits
WDEQ-WQD
Obtained
WYPDES
WDEQ- WQD
Obtained
Plan of Operations (Hank Unit only)
BLM
Obtained
Air Quality Permit
WDEQ-AQD
Obtained
Notes:    NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
WDEQ-LQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division
WDEQ-WQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division
WDEQ-AQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division
WYPDES – Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SEO - State Engineer's Office


48



Under the licensed plan, the Nichols Ranch Plant has been built, and a satellite processing facility is licensed for the Hank Project. In 2017, the NRC approved a source material license amendment to add the Jane Dough Property to the existing license for the Nichols Ranch Project, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality approved an amendment to our Permit to Mine to incorporate the Jane Dough Property. The Jane Dough Property is now fully licensed and permitted as part of the Nichols Ranch Project. The Jane Dough Property is adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Wellfield and is expected to share its infrastructure. We are now able to bring the Jane Dough Property into extraction operations before the Hank Project. Due to its close proximity, extracted solutions from the Jane Dough Property may be delivered directly to our Nichols Ranch Plant by pipeline, thus eliminating the need for a larger capital outlay to construct a satellite plant as is planned for the Hank Project. Our Jane Dough Property includes the Doughstick, South Doughstick and North Jane properties. Additional wellfields may be added to the extraction operations plan as we continue to assess geological data.

Geology

The Nichols Ranch Project is located in the Powder River Basin. The mineralized trends within the Nichols Ranch Project are alteration-reduction trends hosted in the Eocene age channel sands that lie at depths of approximately 300 to 1,100 feet from the surface. Roll front deposits of uranium bearing material are anticipated to occur within these properties. An alteration-reduction trend is a natural chemical boundary trend line in a sandstone aquifer where reduced (non-oxidized) sand is in contact with altered (oxidized) sand. Uranium mineralization may be found along the trend line.

The properties in the Nichols Ranch Project contain alteration-reduction trends hosted in Eocene age channel sands. Alteration-reduction trends in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District are typically composed of multiple, stacked roll front deposits that often contain associated uranium mineralization. A stacked roll front is a type of uranium occurrence found in thick sandstone where a number of mineralization trends are stacked on top of each other. Uranium mineralization within and adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Project are found in the Eocene Wasatch Formation (“Wasatch”). The Wasatch is a fluvial deposit composed of arkosic sandstones that are typically 25% or more feldspar grains and indicates a source rock where chemical weathering was not extreme and the sediments have not been transported far. A fluvial deposit is a deposit of uranium mineralization found in sandstones that originated from sediments laid down by streams and rivers. The arkosic sandstone is a type of sandstone that contains a high percentage of feldspar grains. The medium grain size and relatively good sorting of this sediment implies water transportation, probably in a meandering river/stream system. The Wasatch Formation is interlaid with sandstones, claystones, siltstones, carbonaceous shale, and thin coal seams that overlie the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, another fluvial sedimentary unit.

History

The Nichols Ranch Project is located within the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District, which was the first commercial uranium extraction district in Wyoming. Uranium was first discovered in the Pumpkin Buttes in 1951. Intermittent uranium extraction from about 55 small mines occurred through 1967 producing 36,737 tons of material containing 208,143 pounds of uranium. This early mining activity focused on shallow oxidized deposits exploited by small open pit mines. The material was generally transported to the Atomic Energy Commission (“AEC”) buying station in Edgemont, South Dakota. Modern mining in the district has focused on deeper reduced deposits, including facilities operated by Cameco Corporation and Uranium One Inc.

The properties included in the Nichols Ranch Project were originally part of a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the 6th principal meridian. In 1966, Mountain West Mines Inc. (“MWM,” now known as Excalibur Industries) began a successful drilling exploration program in a portion of this area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company (“CCI”) for further exploration and an option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations in the vicinity of North Butte. Changing economic conditions and the introduction of ISR mining technology reportedly ended much of CCI’s interest in the area. By the late 1980’s, CCI began selling select properties or allowing them to revert to the federal government.

Between 1968 and 1980, CCI drilled 117 holes and installed 3 water wells on the Nichols Ranch Project area. Texas Eastern Nuclear Inc. in 1985 completed limited drilling and exploration on the property (approximately 28 borings) and in early 1990s Kerr McGee Corporation and Rio Algom Mining Corporation also completed limited drilling in the area.

Mineralization

The targeted mineralized zones for the Nichols Ranch Wellfield in the A Sand unit are 300 to 700 feet below the surface and occur in two long narrow trends meeting at the nose. The nose is in the northwest corner of the deposit where the two narrow trends meet to form the tip of the geochemical front. The Hank Project’s two targeted mineralized zones in the F Sand unit range from 200 to 600 feet below the ground surface depending on the topography and changes in the formation elevation and stratigraphic horizon. The targeted

49



mineralization zone for the Jane Dough Property is the A Sand unit, the same as Nichols Ranch, at depths of 300 to 750 feet below the surface.

Mineral Resource Estimates

BRS prepared an updated NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource estimate for the Nichols Ranch Project in the Nichols Ranch Technical Report. The updated Mineral Resource estimate is effective as at January 1, 2015 and is summarized in the table below. Mineral Resources were estimated using the GT Contour method. The primary data used in evaluation are equivalent uranium values as quantified by downhole geophysical logging reported as %e U3O8. Radiometric equilibrium was evaluated and a disequilibrium factor ("DEF") of 1 was used. The minimum uranium grade included in the estimate was 0.02% eU3O8. A minimum grade of 0.02% U3O8 and GT (grade x thickness) of 0.20 were used in these resource calculations. Mineral resources are reported at a cutoff of 0.20 GT, which is the cutoff applied at the Nichols Ranch Project. The table below provides a summary of Mineral Resources by classification following CIM guidelines. There are no Mineral Reserves on the property at this time. BRS noted that it is not aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the current resource estimate.

Nichols Ranch Remaining Mineral Resources – Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) 
 
Classification
Property
Tons (000)
Grade % eU3O8
Pounds eU3O8 (000)
Energy Fuels Pounds (000)(6)
 
 
Nichols Ranch Measured Resources (M)
Nichols Ranch
               357
0.140%
               1,000
                1,000
 
Nichols Ranch Indicated Resources (I)
Nichols Ranch
               428
0.126%
               1,079
                1,079
 
Hank
               450
0.095%
                  855
                   855
 
Jane Dough
            1,892
0.112%
               4,237
                3,567
 
Nichols Ranch Total (M & I)
 
           3,127
0.115%
             7,171
               6,501
 
Nichols Ranch Inferred Resources
Nichols Ranch
 ---
---
 ---
 ---
 
Hank
               423
0.095
                  803
                   803
 
Jane Dough
               170
0.112
                  381
                   309
 
Nichols Ranch Inferred Total
 
               593
0.100%
               1,184
                1,112
Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    Remaining Mineral Resource includes reduction for production of 857,041 pounds from January 1, 2015 through January 1, 2018, and an increase of approximately 162,500 pounds due to additional drilling.
(3)    Mineral Resources are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.20 G.T. (minimum 0.02% eU3O8).
(4)    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound.
(5)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(6)    “Energy Fuels Pounds” represent 100% of Nichols Ranch and Hank, and 81% of the Company's share of the portion of Jane Dough held by the Arkose Mining Venture.

Information shown in the table above differs from the disclosure requirements of the SEC. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.

Activities Subsequent to Nichols Ranch Technical Report

Subsequent to the completion of the Nichols Ranch Technical Report, the Company has continued to operate and advance the Nichols Ranch Project, as described below. The information contained in this subsection entitled “Activities Subsequent to Nichols Ranch

50



Technical Report”, was prepared by the Company and has not been reviewed or confirmed by the authors of the Nichols Ranch Technical Report.

Wellfield Development and Exploration Completed by Energy Fuels

Prior to its acquisition by Energy Fuels in June 2015, Uranerz drilled 257 exploration holes, including three core holes and three water wells at the Nichols Ranch Project during 2006 and 2007 and 25 exploration holes and seven wells in 2009. In addition, Uranerz drilled 61 exploratory holes and seven wells within the Hank Property during 2006 and 2007 and eight additional wells in 2009. There has been no new drilling activity at the Hank Project since 2009. Uranerz drilled 691 exploration holes and 29 wells for baseline monitoring at the Jane Dough Property. There has been no new drilling at the Jane Dough Property since 2010.

Uranerz drilled a total of 78 rotary drill holes on the Hank Property, Nichols Ranch Wellfield, and Jane Dough Property during 2006, with 46 holes demonstrating uranium mineralization. During 2006, environmental permitting activities also continued at the Hank Property and Nichols Ranch Wellfields with the completion of a total of five hydrogeologic test wells, and the drilling of six core holes. The core was submitted for laboratory testing to support permitting requirements as well as to define resource disequilibrium attributes.

From February 19 to December 20, 2007, Uranerz drilled a total of 486 uranium trend delineation holes and eight hydrologic sampling wells on the Nichols Ranch Project, utilizing as many as three drill rigs and one electric log probing unit. This represents a total of approximately 300,000 feet of drilling with an average depth of 617 feet per hole. A total of 214 delineation holes were drilled on Nichols Ranch in 2007. In the final months of the 2007 drilling program, exploration efforts focused on the Hank Property and Nichols Ranch Wellfield to facilitate sub-surface geologic mapping with cross sections and to refine previous geologic models delineating known trends of uranium mineralization.

During 2008, no new exploration work was undertaken at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield.

During 2009, 51 delineation holes were drilled at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield, including the Doughstick and North Nichols Ranch properties. The purpose of this drilling was primarily to prepare for the installation of baseline monitor wells for the planned Nichols Ranch Plant. Additional drilling was carried out on the Doughstick properties.

During 2011, 38 delineation holes were drilled in 2011 on the Nichols Ranch Wellfield. The purpose of this drilling was for final delineation drilling prior to beginning the monitor well and extraction well installation in Production Area #1 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield.

During 2012, Uranerz engaged in drilling exploration efforts and wellfield installation at Production Area #1 at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield. At Production Area #1, 263 extraction wells were cased and cemented. The extraction wells were connected to header houses with buried feeder lines. It was planned that initial extraction should begin with four header houses. Three header houses were set on their foundations in 2012 and connected to individual extraction wells.

The Uranerz 2013 and 2014 drilling programs at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield were restricted to adding extraction and monitor wells. No new exploration drilling was conducted.

During 2015, Uranerz engaged in drilling delineation efforts and wellfield installation at Production Area #1 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield, where 283 extraction wells were cased and cemented. At Production Area #2 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield, 51 monitor wells were cased and cemented. The extraction wells were connected to header houses with buried feeder lines. Initial extraction at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield began with four header houses. In 2015, two additional header houses (#5 and #6) were set on their foundations and connected to the individual extraction wells.

In 2016, the Company completed drilling 12 delineation holes and drilling and casing of 86 extraction wells in Header Houses #7 and #8 in Production Area #1. Header House #7 was turned on in March of 2016 and Header House #8 was turned on in June of 2016. In Production Area #2, 133 extraction and injection wells were drilled and cased.

Header House #9 was completed and turned on in March of 2017. No drilling or other development activities were performed in 2017 or to date in 2018.

Current Status of Wellfields

All the currently planned and permitted wellfields are in Production Areas #1 and #2 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield. The Nichols Ranch Wellfield is expected to have a total of 13 header-houses, with Production Area #1 comprising header-houses 1 through 8, and Production Area #2 comprising header-houses 9 through 13. Each of the two planned Nichols Ranch Wellfield Production Areas will

51



include a number of injection wells, recovery wells, monitoring wells, header houses and associated piping and power supply. Header houses will be located within the Production Areas and will distribute recovered fluids from recovery wells to trunk lines, and injection fluids from the processing facility through the trunk lines to injection wells. See the map below illustrating Production Areas #1 & #2, and the plant.

nicholsranchmap2.jpg


52



We are currently engaged in uranium recovery activities in Production Area #1 and, as the productivity or solution grade (uranium concentration in the recovered ground water) of some installed patterns decreases below the economic limit, replacement patterns will be placed into operation in order to maintain the desired flow rate and solution grade at the processing plant. As patterns reach their economic limit and extraction flows cease, restoration activities will commence in these areas.

The first five header houses and their respective wellfields in Production Area #1 at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield were installed and extracting uranium at the time we acquired Uranerz in June 2015. Header house #6 was turned on in November 2015. We placed our 7th and 8th header-houses on-line in March and July 2016, respectively, thereby completing development of Production Area #1. In February, 2017 we completed construction on our 9th header-house, marking the beginning of development in Production Area #2. Uranium recovery operations from Production Area #2 commenced in March of 2017.

Nichols Ranch Plant

In 2014, construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant was completed. The Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed to produce up to two million pounds of uranium per year through three major processing solution circuits: (i) a recovery and extraction circuit; (ii) an elution circuit; and (iii) a yellowcake production circuit. The Nichols Ranch Plant is currently constructed and operated with the recovery and extraction circuit and the elution circuit installed. We retain the ability to construct and operate a yellowcake drying and packaging circuit at the Nichols Ranch Plant at a later date if desired.

The Nichols Ranch Plant is currently engaged in uranium recovery operations and is processing uranium-bearing wellfield solutions from Production Areas #1 and #2 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield. At the current time, yellowcake production is occurring at the White Mesa Mill, whereby yellowcake slurry is shipped by truck from the Nichols Ranch Project to the Mill where it is dried and packaged in drums as uranium concentrate product. Prior to the completion of the elution circuit in February 2016, loaded resin was transported by truck to a third party facility for elution, drying and packaging, under a toll processing arrangement.

The Nichols Ranch Plant was acquired by the Company on June 18, 2015, through the acquisition of Uranerz. As of December 31, 2017, the total cost attributable to the Nichols Ranch Plant on the Company’s financial statements was $29.21 million.

The Company’s Planned Work

Header House #9 was completed and uranium extraction began in March 2017. The addition of this header house brought another 123 extraction and injection wells online.

As a result of our recent NRC and WEQ license and permit amendment approvals, we are now able to expand extraction operations to the Jane Dough Property before expanding to the Hank Project.

The Hank Project, including the permitted but not constructed Hank Satellite Plant and planned Hank wellfield, is currently licensed as a satellite uranium extraction and recovery facility, with loaded resin from the satellite facility, when constructed, expected to be transported by truck to the Nichols Ranch Plant for elution. Construction activities at the Hank Project will not commence until market conditions warrant. In the future, we will consider whether to amend our current license for the Hank Project to include a pipeline to our Nichols Ranch Plant, which would replace or eliminate the currently permitted satellite ion exchange recovery facility. If market conditions warrant construction activities at the Hank Project, our extraction plan for the Hank Property will likewise target two planned extraction areas. Should market conditions warrant, the Jane Dough and Hank Properties would be expected to follow a similar construction, extraction, and restoration schedule as outlined above for the Nichols Ranch Wellfield extraction areas.


53



The Alta Mesa Project

altamesamap.jpg

Unless stated otherwise, the following description of the Alta Mesa Project is derived from a technical report titled, “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Mineral Resources and Exploration Target, Technical Report National Instrument 43-101” dated July 19, 2016, prepared by Mr. Douglas Beahm, P.E., P.G. of BRS Inc. in accordance with NI 43-101 (the “Alta Mesa Technical Report”). The author is a “qualified person” within the meaning of NI 43-101, and because the sole author is “independent” of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101 the report is therefore considered an independent technical report under NI 43-101. The Alta Mesa Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. The Alta Mesa Project does not have any known reserves, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be exploratory in nature, despite its history of uranium recovery activities. No current preliminary economic assessment, pre-feasibility study or feasibility study has been completed.




54



Property Description and Location

The Alta Mesa Project is a fully-licensed ISR uranium recovery facility that the Company acquired in June 2016 through the acquisition of EFR Alta Mesa LLC (previously named Mesteña Uranium LLC). It is located in South Texas and is currently on standby. The Alta Mesa Project is not an underground or open pit project.

The Alta Mesa central processing facility and mine office is located at 755 CR 315, Encino, Texas 78353, in Brooks County, Texas, at approximately 26° 54’ 08” North Longitude and 98° 18’ 54” West Latitude. The site is located approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US 281 and Ranch Road 755, which is 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas.

The Project is located within a portion of the private land holdings of the Jones Ranch, founded in 1897. The ranch comprises approximately 380,000 acres. The ranch holdings include surface and mineral rights including oil and gas and other minerals including uranium. Active uses of the lands in addition to uranium exploration and production activities include agricultural use (cattle), oil and gas development, and private hunting.

The Project consists of Uranium Mining Leases for uranium ISR mining (4,598 acres) and Mineral Options (195,501 acres) comprising some 200,100 total acres. The Project is defined as constituting two distinct project areas with sufficient drilling to define resources. These two areas are subdivided, as listed below and illustrated on the map on the following page:

The Alta Mesa project area, Brooks County, Texas, comprising 16,010 acres, including,
The Alta Mesa mine area and central processing facility
South Alta Mesa
Indigo Snake

The Mesteña Grande project area, Jim Hogg County, Texas, comprising 47,088 acres, including,
Mesteña Grande Goliad
Mesteña Grande North
Mesteña Grande Central
Mesteña Grande Alta Vista
El Sordo

The remaining 137,002 acres lack sufficient exploration drilling to define any resources at this time.

Accessibility, Local Resources, Physiography and Infrastructure

The Project is located primarily in Brooks and Jim Hogg counties, Texas, with the central processing facility in Brooks County. Brooks County is generally rural and according to the 2010 United States Census, there were 7,223 people living in the county. The population density was 8 people per square mile. Most of the workers for the operation are from the local area and nearby communities such as Kingsville, Texas approximately 40 miles from the site. Some staff members commute from Corpus Christi, Texas approximately 90 miles from the site.

The Project is located in the coastal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Topography of the lower Gulf Coast is relatively flat, whereas the upper Gulf Coast, including most of the current and past mining operations of the South Texas Uranium Province, generally has low relief, rolling plains, except where it is locally dissected by rivers and streams. Elevations range from sea level to about 800 ft. in the southwest. Three major rivers from south to north are: the Nueces River, which flows into Corpus Christi Bay, and the San Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers, which flow into San Antonio Bay southeast of the city of Victoria.

The Project is accessible year round. The site is located approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US Highway 281 (paved) and Ranch Road 755 (paved), 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas. Commercial airlines serve both San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Many of the local communities have small airfields and there are numerous private airfields in the region.

Overall the climate is warm and dry, with hot summers and relatively mild winters. However, the region is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and, as a result, has a much more marine-type climate than the rest of Texas, which is more typically continental. Monthly mean temperatures in the region range from 55oF in January to 96oF in August. The area rarely experiences freezing conditions and, as a result, the majority of the processing facility and infrastructure is located outdoors. Wellfield piping and distribution lines do not require burial for frost protection. Annual precipitation ranges from 20 to 35 inches regionally. Primary risk for severe weather is related to heavy thunderstorms and potentially effects of hurricanes in the Gulf Coast.


55



Local infrastructure includes electricity service, which is adequate for mine and mineral processing activities. The Alta Mesa facility also has telephone and internet service in the form of a T-1 fiber optics line. The plant has an automated control and monitoring system, which allows remote monitoring of the facility, and includes fail safe systems, which can shut down portions of the system in the event of an upset condition. The facility is fully secured with on-site and remote monitoring. Water supply for the Project is from established and permitted local wells. Liquid waste from the processing facility is disposed of via deep well injection through two permitted Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I disposal wells. Solid waste from the processing facilities is disposed of off-site at licensed disposal facilities. No tailings or other related waste disposal facilities are needed.

The Project is located on an operating cattle ranch. In addition, there is significant local oil and gas development and production. The Alta Mesa area was first developed as an oilfield in the 1930s with production ongoing, primarily for natural gas. Other land uses include farming and recreational uses such as hunting.


56



duvalmap.jpg

57



The area is regionally classified as a coastal sand plain. Brooks County comprises 942 square miles of brushy mesquite land. The nearly level to undulating soils are poorly drained, dark and loamy or sandy; isolated dunes are found. In the northeast corner of the county the soils are light-colored and loamy at the surface and clayey beneath.

The mineral leases and options described below include provisions for reasonable use of the land surface for the purposes of ISR mining and mineral processing. Alta Mesa is a fully licensed, operable facility with sufficient sources of power, water, and waste disposal facilities for operations and aquifer restoration. While the current staff level has been reduced, sufficient local personnel are available for mine operations.

Ownership

Mineral ownership in Texas is a private estate. Private title to all land in Texas emanates from a grant by the sovereign of the soil (successively, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the state of Texas). By a provision of the Texas Constitution the state released to the owner of the soil all mines and mineral substances therein. Under the Relinquishment Act of 1919, as subsequently amended, the surface owner is made the agent of the state for the leasing of such lands, and both the surface owner and the state receive a fractional interest in the proceeds of the leasing and production of minerals.

The Project consists of a private Uranium Solution Mining Lease (4,598 acres) and Options (195,501 acres) for uranium comprising some 200,100 total acres consisting of acreage associated with currently approved mining permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and 9 prospect areas.

The Uranium Solution Mining Lease, originally dated June 1, 2004, covers 4,575 acres, more or less, out of the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, A-218, Brooks County, Texas and “Las Mesteñas Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, A-480, Brooks County, Texas (description corrected in a later amendment). This original Uranium Solution Mining Lease has been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between the Company and the various former holders of the Alta Mesa Project. The Lease now covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, other fissionable minerals, and associated minerals and materials under 4,597.67 acres. The term of the amended lease is fifteen (15) years commencing on June 16, 2016 or so long as the lessee is continuously engaged in any mining, development, production, processing, treating, restoration or reclamation operations on the leased premises. The amended lease can be extended by the Lessee for an additional 15 years upon payment of a stipulated cash payment. The lease includes provisions for royalty payments on the net proceeds (less allowable deductions) received by the Lessee. The royalty payment is 7.5% of Market Value of Product sold at a uranium price greater than $95.00 per pound, 6.25% of Market Value of Product sold at a uranium price greater than $65.00 and up to and including $95.00 per pound, and 3.125% of the Market Value of Product sold at a uranium price of $65.00 or less per pound.

The Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement, originally dated August 1, 2006, covers all of the land containing mineral potential as identified through exploration efforts and covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, and all other fissionable materials, compounds, solutions, mixtures, and source materials, has been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Testing and Lease Option Agreement dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between the Company and the various holders of the Alta Mesa Project. It now covers some 195,501.03 acres. The term of the amended lease and option agreement is for eight years commencing June 16, 2016. The amended lease and option agreement can be extended by the grantee for an additional seven years. Certain payments by the Grantee to the Grantor are required prior to year three of the initial eight year lease. The amended Lease Option Agreement provides for designating acreage to be leased for production by making certain payments to the Grantor (cash or stock). If acreage designation occurs within the first three years of the initial eight year lease, the payments will be deducted from the certain payments required by year three in the lease option agreement. The grantor then has sixty business days to execute and return the lease.

Amended surface use agreements have been entered into with all of the surface owners on the various prospect areas as part of the Membership Interest purchase agreement between the Company and the various former holders of the Alta Mesa Project. These amended agreements, unchanged from those originally entered into on June 1, 2004, provide, among other things, for stipulated damages to be paid for certain activities related to the exploration and production of Uranium. Specifically, the agreements call for Consumer Price Index adjusted payments for the following disturbances: exploratory test holes, development test holes, monitor wells, new roads, and related surface disturbances. The lease also outlines an annual payment schedule for land taken out of agricultural use around the area of a deep disposal well, land otherwise taken out of agricultural use, and pipelines constructed outside of the production area.

Surface rights are expressly stated in the lease and in general provide the lessee with the right to ingress and egress, and the right to use so much of the surface and subsurface of the leased premises as reasonably necessary for ISR mining. Open pit and/or strip mining is prohibited by the lease.



58



Ad valorem tax rates per $100 of taxable value applicable to tangible property for 2016 were as follows:
Brooks County                 0.743829
Brooks County Rd and Bridge         0.150000
Brooks County ISD          1.572555
Brooks County FM FC     0.098837
Brush Country Groundwater         0.026020

Permitting and Licensing

The Alta Mesa Project area is fully permitted for ISR mining and recovery of uranium. The table below summarizes the current permits held by EFR Alta Mesa. Similar permits would be required for the Mesteña Grande project area depending upon the nature of operations and their integration with the Alta Mesa facility.

Primary Permits and Licenses for the Alta Mesa Project
Permit, License or Approval Name
Agency
Status
Radioactive Material License
TCEQ
Obtained
Class III UIC Mine Area Permit
TCEQ
Obtained
Aquifer Exemption
TCEQ
Obtained
Production Area Authorization
TCEQ
Obtained
Class I UIC Deep Disposal Well Permits
TCEQ
Obtained

* TCEQ= Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

The ISR processing facility at Alta Mesa has an operating capacity of 1.5 million pounds of uranium per year. Primary regulatory authority resides with the State of Texas. Financial assurance instruments are held by the state for completed wells, ISR mining, and uranium processing to ensure reclamation and restoration of the affected lands and aquifers in accordance with state regulations and permit requirements.

History

Alta Mesa was first discovered in the mid 1970’s by Chevron Resources as a result of researching oil and gas logs for natural gamma geophysical signatures. Chevron controlled the Alta Mesa portion of the project through June of 1985 when they returned the mineral lease due to Chevron exiting the uranium business. Chevron reportedly drilled a total of 360 holes inclusive of exploration drilling, coring, and well completion during a four-year period from 1981 through 1984. In July of 1988 Total Minerals Incorporated (“Total”) executed a lease agreement for the Alta Mesa portion of the project. Total also engaged Uranium Resources Incorporated (“URI”) to complete a feasibility study for the project. The Total mineral lease was terminated as a result of the French Government requiring Total to sell all of their uranium assets to Cogema.

Subsequently, the Project was evaluated by Cogema in 1994 and later by URI. URI held the mineral lease and obtained the Radioactive Material License during the period of 1996 through 1998. EFR Alta Mesa (previously named "Mesteña Uranium LLC") was formed in 1999 and continued permitting activities in April of 2000 and completed licensing in 2003. Plant construction at Alta Mesa began in 2004 with initial production in the 4th quarter of 2005. The Project produced approximately 4.6 million pounds of uranium oxide between 2005 and 2013 via ISR mining. The facility was in production from 2005 until primary production ceased in February 2013. The Project operated in a groundwater clean-up mode until February 2015; therefore, any uranium mined since 2013 remains as in-circuit inventory.

Geology

The Alta Mesa Project is located within the Texas Gulf Coast along a belt of Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary formations. The Project is located within the South Texas Uranium Province, which is known to contain more than 100 uranium deposits that were developed in the second half of the 20th century.



59



Regionally, uranium deposits are hosted by four formations:
Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, consisting of fluvial deposits, mostly unconsolidated sands.
Miocene Oakville Formation, consisting of fluvial deposits (sands, some clay).
Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, consisting of fluvial deposits, mostly sands, clay, and clastic volcanic rich sediments.
The Jackson Group consisting of fluvial deposits sands, silt, clay, and lignite.

At the Alta Mesa Project, in order of importance, uranium is hosted by the Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula formations.

South Texas uranium deposits are sandstone roll-front uranium deposits. The key components in the formation of roll-front type mineralization include:
A permeable host formation:
Sandstone units of the Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula formations.
A source of soluble uranium:
Volcanic ash-fall tuffs coincidental with Catahoula deposition containing elevated concentration of uranium is the probable source of uranium deposits for the South Texas Uranium Province.
Oxidizing ground waters to leach and transport the uranium:
Ground waters regionally tend to be oxidizing and slightly alkaline.
Adequate reductant within the host formation:
Conditions resulting from periodic H2S gas migrating along faults and subsequent iron sulfide (pyrite) precipitation created local reducing conditions.
Time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface.
Uranium precipitates from solution at the oxidation/reduction boundary (REDOX) as uraninite which is dominant (UO2, uranium oxide) or coffinite (USiO4, uranium silicate).
The geohydrologic regime of the region has been stable over millions of years with ground water movement controlled primarily by high-permeability channels within the predominantly sandstone formations of the Tertiary.

The structural map of the Gulf Coast area is dominated by an abundance of growth faults that trend with, or are slightly oblique to, stratigraphic strike, which is more or less parallel to the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, local structural features such as salt domes influence the distribution and deposition of uranium mineralization potentially through various mechanisms including effects on ground water flow and the introduction of additional reductant via the migration of H2S gas along the faulting related to the salt dome intrusion. This mechanism is thought to be of importance at Alta Mesa.

Mineralization

The Alta Mesa Project is located in the South Texas Uranium Province. Mineralization within the South Texas Uranium Province is interpreted to be dominantly roll-front type mineralization and primarily of epigenetic origin. Roll-fronts are formed along an interface between oxidizing ground water solutions, which encounter reducing conditions within the host sandstone unit. This boundary between oxidizing and reducing conditions is often referred to as the REDOX interface or front. Mineralization tends to be very continuous.

Within the Alta Mesa portion of the Project, Quaternary formations are exposed at the surface. These are conformably underlain by the Goliad Formation, the primary uranium host. Alta Mesa ISR mine units have exploited uranium mineralization in the Goliad C sands within wellfields PAA-1, PAA-2, PAA-3, PAA-4, and PAA-6. The B sand was targeted in wellfield PAA-5. Mineral resources have been estimated for the A, B, C, and D sands. Exploration targets in the South Alta Mesa area lie within successively deeper D, E, F, G, and H sands of the Goliad.

Within the Mesteña Grande portion of the project, mineralization is also present in the Goliad Formation but is dominantly found in the Oakville Formation. In the western portion of Mesteña Grande mineralization is found in the Catahoula Formation. Mineral resources have been estimated for all areas within the Mesteña Grande portion of the project.

Present Condition of the Property and Work Completed to Date

The Alta Mesa Project produced approximately 4.6 million pounds of uranium oxide between 2005 and 2013 via In Situ Recovery mining. The facility was in production from 2005 until primary production ceased in February 2013. The Project operated in a groundwater clean-up mode until February 2015; therefore, any uranium mined since 2013 remains as in-circuit inventory. The first wellfield (PAA-1) has undergone restoration and is currently being monitored for restoration stability. All other wellfields are being maintained by a small bleed (less than 100 gpm) for permit compliance. The bleed solutions are disposed of in the deep disposal wells.

Drill data is available for a total of 10,744 drill holes of which approximately 3,000 are within existing wellfields. The primary assay data for the Project is downhole geophysical log data. EFR Alta Mesa relied entirely on prompt-fission-neutron ("PFN") logging for

60



uranium grade assay and used natural gamma logging to screen intervals for PFN logging. Of the 10,744 drill holes in the Alta Mesa database, PFN logging was not available for only 7.2% of the drill holes. For the Mesteña Grande portion of the Project, all 460 drill holes were completed by EFR Alta Mesa and all gamma intercepts greater than 0.02 % eU3O8 were logged by PFN.

For determination of uranium grade, EFR Alta Mesa LLC relied on PFN log data for 92.8% of the data, which is a direct measurement of uranium content and not an equivalent radiometric assay. As a result, assessment of disequilibrium factor ("DEF") is not applicable.

As of December 31, 2017, the total cost attributable to the Alta Mesa Project on the Company's financial statements was $13.63 million.

The Company’s Planned Work

During 2018, the Company expects to maintain the Alta Mesa Project on standby. However, Alta Mesa is capable of ramping up to commercial production levels within approximately six months of a positive production decision by the Company, with only minimal capital requirements.

Mineral Resource Estimates

Mineral resources have been estimated for both the Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande areas by Douglas Beahm of BRS Inc. in accordance with CIM standards and definitions, and are summarized in the respective tables below. Mineral Resources for the Alta Mesa Project are estimated by classifications, meeting CIM standards and definitions as measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources, at a 0.30 GT cutoff.

There are no Mineral Reserves on the property at this time. Mr. Beahm of BRS Inc. noted that he is not aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the current resource estimate.

Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Resource Summary

Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Mineral Resources – Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4) 
 
Classification
Tons (000)
Grade % eU3O8
Pounds eU3O8 (000)

 
 
Total Measured Resources (M)(5)
123
0.151%
371

 
Alta Mesa Indicated Resources (I)
1,393
0.106%
2,959

 
Mesteña Grande Indicated Resources (I)
119
0.120%
287

 
Total (M & I)
1,635
0.111%
3,617

 
Alta Mesa Inferred Resources
1,230
0.128%
3,192

 
Mesteña Grande Inferred Resources
5733
0.119%
13,601

 
Total Inferred Resources
6,963
0.121%
16,793

Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    Mineral Resources are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.30 G.T. (minimum 0.02% eU3O8).
(3)    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound.
(4)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(5)    The Total Measured Mineral Resource is that portion of the in-place mineral resource that is estimated to be recoverable within existing wellfields. Wellfield recovery factors have not been applied to indicated and inferred mineral resources.


61



The White Mesa Mill
whitemesamilla03.jpg
General

The White Mesa Mill is a fully licensed uranium and vanadium processing facility located in southeastern Utah, approximately six miles south of the city of Blanding, Utah. It is within trucking distance of our conventional properties in Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, including the Canyon Project, the Roca Honda Project, the Henry Mountains Complex, the La Sal Project and the Daneros Project. The Mill is the only fully operational and licensed conventional uranium mill in the U.S. It is capable of functioning independently of off-site support except for commercial power from Rocky Mountain Power and as-needed supplemental water supply from the City of Blanding, Utah, and the San Juan Water Conservancy District. The White Mesa Mill is a uranium processing and recovery facility. It is not an underground or open pit project.

The Mill is licensed to process an average of 2,000 tons of ore per day and to extract over 8.0 million pounds of U3O8 per year. In addition to the conventional circuit, the Mill has a separate vanadium by-product recovery circuit.

In addition to the Mill processing equipment, which includes the grinding and leaching circuits, CCD (liquid–solid separation), solvent extraction, and precipitation and drying circuits, the Mill has several days of reagent storage for sulfuric acid, ammonia, salt, soda ash, caustic soda, ammonium sulfate, flocculants, kerosene, amines, and liquefied natural gas.

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

Synthetic lined cells are used to contain tailings and solutions for evaporation. We operate two tailings cells and one or more evaporation ponds during normal operations. As each tailings cell is filled, the water is drawn off and pumped to an evaporation pond and the

62



tailings solids are allowed to dry. As each tailings cell reaches final capacity, reclamation begins with the placement of interim cover over the tailings. Additional cells are excavated, and the overburden is used to reclaim previous cells. In this way, there is an ongoing reclamation process.

In full operation, the Mill employs approximately 150 people. If no Vanadium ores are being processed, the Mill employs approximately 110 people.

Alternate Feed Materials

The Mill License (defined below) also gives the Company the right to process other uranium-bearing materials known as “alternate feed materials” pursuant to an Alternate Feed Guidance published by the NRC. Alternate feed materials are uranium-bearing materials, usually classified as waste products by the generators of the materials, which can be recycled by the Mill for the recovery of U3O8. The Mill License does not permit the processing of uranium-bearing materials that have undergone enrichment. Requiring a routine amendment to the Mill License for each different alternate feed material, the Company can process these uranium-bearing materials and recover uranium, in some cases, at a fraction of the cost of processing conventionally mined material. In other cases, the generators of the alternate feed materials are willing to pay a recycling fee to the Company to process these materials to recover uranium and then dispose of the remaining by-product in the Mill’s licensed tailings cells, rather than directly disposing of the materials at a disposal site. By working with the Company and taking the recycling approach, the suppliers of alternate feed materials can significantly reduce their remediation costs, as there are only a limited number of disposal sites for such materials in the United States. Alternate feed materials are particularly attractive to Energy Fuels because they carry no associated mining costs.

Throughout its history, the Mill has received 17 license amendments, authorizing it to process 20 different alternate feed materials. Of these amendments, eleven have involved the processing of feeds provided by nuclear fuel cycle facilities and private industry, and one has involved the processing of material from the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”). These twelve feed materials have been relatively high in uranium content and relatively low in volume. The remaining five amendments have allowed the Mill to process uranium-bearing soils from former defense sites, known as FUSRAP sites, which were being remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These materials are typically relatively low in uranium content but relatively high in volume.

The Mill has a separate circuit for processing certain types of alternate feed materials, which was built in 2009. This circuit enables the Mill to process both conventionally mined material and alternate feed materials simultaneously.

Accessibility, Local Resources, Physiography and Infrastructure

The Mill is located in central San Juan County, Utah, approximately six miles (9.5 km) south of the city of Blanding. It can be reached by taking a private road for approximately 0.5 miles west of U.S. Highway 191.

The climate of southeastern Utah is classified as dry to arid continental. Although varying somewhat with elevation and terrain, the climate in the vicinity of the Mill can be considered as semi-arid with normal annual precipitation of about 13.4 inches. The weather in the Blanding area is typified by warm summers and cold winters. The mean annual temperature in Blanding is about 50° (F). Winds are usually light to moderate in the area during all seasons, although occasional stronger winds may occur in the late winter and spring.

The Mill site is located on a gently sloping mesa that, from the air, appears similar to a peninsula, as it is surrounded by steep canyons and washes and is connected to the Abajo Mountains to the north by a narrow neck of land. On the mesa, the topography is relatively flat, sloping at less than one (1) percent to the south and nearly horizontal from east to west.

The natural vegetation presently occurring within a 25-mile (40-km) radius of the Mill site is very similar to that of the region, characterized by pinyon-juniper woodland integrating with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) communities.

Off-site infrastructure includes paved highway access from U.S. Highway 191, and rights-of-way for commercial power and a water supply pipeline from Recapture Reservoir, which brings up to 1,000 acre-feet of water per year to the Mill site. The Mill also has four deep (2,000+ foot) water supply wells, which are available to supply process water during normal operations.

Ownership

The White Mesa Mill is located on 4,816 acres of private land owned in fee by Energy Fuels. This land is located in Township 37S and 38S Range 22E Salt Lake Principal Meridian. Energy Fuels also holds 253 acres of mill site claims and a 320 acre Utah state lease. No facilities are planned on the mill site claims or leased land, which are used as a buffer to the operations.


63



All operations authorized by the Mill’s License are conducted within the confines of the existing site boundary. The milling facility currently occupies approximately 50 acres and the current tailings disposal cells encompass another 250 acres.

Permitting and Licensing

The White Mesa Mill holds a Radioactive Materials License through the State of Utah (the “Mill License”). Uranium milling in the U.S. is primarily regulated by the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC’s primary function is to ensure the protection of employees, the public and the environment from radioactive materials, and it also regulates most aspects of the uranium recovery process. The NRC regulations pertaining to uranium recovery facilities are codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations also apply to our ISR facilities in Wyoming and Texas.

On August 16, 2004, the State of Utah became an Agreement State for the regulation of uranium mills. This means that the primary regulator for the White Mesa Mill is UDEQ rather than the NRC. At that time, the Source Material License, which was previously issued and regulated by the NRC, was transferred to the State and became a Radioactive Materials License. The State of Utah incorporates, through its own regulations or by reference, all aspects of Title 10 pertaining to uranium recovery facilities. The Mill License was due for renewal on March 31, 2007. Energy Fuels’ predecessor timely submitted its application for renewal of the license on February 28, 2007. The renewed license was issued by UDEQ on January 19, 2018 for a period of ten years, after which another application for renewal will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing license until such time as the renewed license is issued. The Mill’s license was initially issued in 1980 and was also renewed in 1987 and 1997.

When the State of Utah became an Agreement State, it required that a Groundwater Discharge Permit (“GWDP”) be put in place for the White Mesa Mill. The GWDP is required for all similar facilities in the State of Utah, and implements the State groundwater regulations to the Mill site. The State of Utah requires that every operating uranium mill have a GWDP, regardless of whether or not the facility discharges to groundwater. The GWDP for the Mill was finalized and implemented in March 2005. The GWDP required that the Mill add over 40 additional monitoring parameters and 15 additional monitoring wells at the site. The GWDP came up for renewal in 2010, at which time an application for renewal was timely submitted. The renewed GWDP was issued by UDEQ on January 19, 2018 for a period of five years, after which another application for renewal will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing GWDP until such time as the renewed GWDP is issued. The White Mesa Mill also maintains a permit for air emissions with the UDEQ, Division of Air Quality.

The White Mesa Mill is subject to decommissioning liabilities. Energy Fuels, as part of the Mill License, is required to annually review its estimate for the decommissioning of the White Mesa Mill site and submit it to UDEQ for approval. The estimate of closure costs for the Mill is $20.8 million as of December 31, 2017, and financial assurances are in place for the total amount. However, there can be no assurance that the ultimate cost of such reclamation obligations will not exceed the estimated liability contained in the Company’s financial statements.

History

The Mill was originally constructed and owned by Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (“EFN”) and its affiliates (no relation to the Company). It was licensed by the NRC and commenced operations in June 1980. In 1984, EFN transferred a 70% interest in the Mill to UMETCO Minerals Corp., a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (“UMETCO”). UMETCO became the operator of the Mill in 1984 and continued to be the operator until 1994, at which time it transferred its interest in the Mill back to EFN and its affiliates. The Mill was acquired by Denison Mines Corp. (“Denison”), then named International Uranium Corporation (“IUC”) and its affiliates in 1997, and was operated by Denison until it was acquired by the Company in June 2012. From the original commissioning in 1980 through December 31, 2017, the Mill has recovered a total of approximately 38 million pounds of U3O8 and 46 million pounds of vanadium.

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

The White Mesa Mill has historically operated on a campaign basis. In 2008, the Mill began processing uranium/vanadium conventional mined material, extracting uranium concentrate in the form of U3O8, and vanadium in the form of V2O5. Mineral processing continued through the end of March 2009, at which time maintenance activities were performed at the Mill. Mineral processing recommenced near the end of April 2009, but was discontinued due to a decline in uranium prices at the time. The Mill began mineral processing again in March 2010 and continued through June 2011. Conventional processing recommenced in November 2011 and continued until early March 2012, at which time it ceased for routine maintenance. Conventional mineral processing recommenced at the Mill in August 2012 and continued until early June 2013. Mineral processing began again in May 2014 and continued through August 2014.

64



The alternate feed circuit processed materials from January through December 2014, and continued processing alternate feed materials through December 2015. In 2016, the Company continued processing several alternate feed materials and processed 45,057 tons of mineralized material from its Pinenut mine. In 2017 the Mill continued processing alternate feed materials as well as the recovery of uranium from pond solutions at the site.

Energy Fuels acquired the Mill from Denison Mines Corp. on June 29, 2012. All mineral processing after that date has been for the account of Energy Fuels. Mineral processing at the Mill over the past five years is shown below. Note, only mineral processing since June 30, 2012 has been for the account of Energy Fuels.(1) 

Project or Source
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
Alternate Feed Materials(2)
Tons (000)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
NA(2)
 Ave. % U3O8
 18.86%
27.98
9.21
16.94%
5.03%
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
1,004(3)(4) 
172(3)(4)
229(3)
391(3)
351(3)
Tailing Solution Recycle & In-Circuit Material(5)
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
308 
78
67
---
---
Conventional Feed Materials
Tons (000)
 ---
45
---
49
126
 Contained Grade % U3O8
 ---
0.50%
---
0.56%
0.26%
Recovered Pounds U3O8 (000)
 ---
431
---
552
655
Total Pounds of U3O8 Recovered (000)
 1,312
681
296
943
1,006
Total Pounds of V2O5 Recovered (000)
 
 
 
 
1,303
Notes:
(1)    Mineralized material is shown as being processed and pounds recovered during the year in which the materials were processed at the White Mesa Mill, which is not necessarily the year in which the materials were extracted from the project facilities.
(2)    All alternate feed materials were processed at the White Mesa Mill. A number of different alternate feed materials were processed during the period 2013 - 2017. The table shows the average uranium grades and the total pounds recovered from all alternate feed materials processed at the Mill during each of the years in that period. Because of the variability in uranium grades, pounds recovered is considered to be the relevant metric and tons fed is not considered to be relevant.
(3)    The 1,004,000 pounds recovered in 2017 include 952,000 pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; the 172,000 pounds recovered in 2016 includes nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; the 229,000 pounds recovered in 2015 includes 72,000 pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; the 391,000 pounds recovered in 2014 includes 85,000 pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties; and the 351,000 pounds recovered in 2013 includes nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties.
(4)    Material recovered originated from several different sources that were fed to process at various times in 2015 and 2016. Therefore, the recovered amount is independent of the reported feed amount for any given period.
(5)    Pounds contained in tailings solutions containing previously unrecovered uranium, together with in-circuit mineralized material from previous conventional mine material processing, were recovered by processing alternate feed materials at the White Mesa Mill, though tons and grade are not available because it cannot be tied to any specific source.

Present Condition of the Property

Planned Operations and Maintenance

The White Mesa Mill processed conventional material from June to mid-August 2014. The alternate feed circuit was operating throughout 2014 and 2015, and stopped processing materials in July of 2016. The White Mesa Mill processed conventional mineralized material in the second and third quarter of 2016 and processed alternate feed materials during the remainder of the year. In 2017, the Mill

65



processed only alternate feed materials and recovered uranium from pond solutions at the site. The Mill operations registered zero lost time accidents in 2017.

Environmental Matters

Prior to Energy Fuels’ acquisition of the Mill from Denison, chloroform in the shallow aquifer at the White Mesa Mill site was discovered. The chloroform appears to have resulted from the operation of a temporary laboratory facility that was located at the site prior to and during the construction of the Mill, and from septic drain fields that were used for laboratory and sanitary wastes prior to construction of the Mill’s tailings cells. In April 2003, Denison commenced an interim remedial program of pumping the chloroform affected water from the groundwater to the Mill’s tailings system. This action enabled Energy Fuels to begin cleanup of the affected areas and to take a further step towards resolution of this outstanding issue. Pumping from the wells continued in 2015. On September 14, 2015, the State of Utah approved a long-term Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) for cleanup of the chloroform, which involves continued pumping of the affected water to the Mill’s tailings system. While the investigations to date indicate that this chloroform appears to be contained in a manageable area, the scope and costs of final remediation have not yet been determined and could be significant.

Prior to Energy Fuels’ acquisition of the Mill from Denison, elevated concentrations of nitrate and chloride were observed in some of the monitoring wells at the White Mesa Mill site in 2008, a number of which are upgradient of the Mill’s tailings cells. Pursuant to a Stipulated Consent Agreement with UDEQ, Denison retained INTERA, Inc., an independent professional engineering firm, to investigate these elevated concentrations and to prepare a Contamination Investigation Report for submittal to UDEQ. The investigation was completed in 2009, and the Contamination Investigation Report was submitted to UDEQ in January 2010. INTERA concluded in the Report that: (1) the nitrate and chloride are co-extensive and appear to originally come from the same source; and (2) the source is upgradient of the Mill property and is not the result of Mill activities. UDEQ reviewed the Report, and concluded that further investigations were required before it could determine the source of the contamination and the responsibility for cleanup. Such investigations were performed in 2010 and 2011, but were considered to be inconclusive by UDEQ. As a result, after the investigations, it was determined that there are site conditions that make it difficult to ascertain the source(s) of contamination at the site, and that it was not possible at that time to determine the source(s), causes(s), attribution, magnitude(s) of contribution, and proportion(s) of the local nitrate and chloride in groundwater. For those reasons, UDEQ decided that it could not eliminate Mill activities as a potential cause, either in full or in part, of the contamination. The Company and UDEQ have therefore agreed that resources are better spent in developing a CAP, rather than continuing with further investigations as to the source(s) and attribution of the groundwater contamination. Pursuant to a revised Stipulated Consent Agreement, Denison submitted a draft CAP for remediation of the contamination to UDEQ in November 2011. The CAP proposed a program of pumping the nitrate contaminated groundwater to the Mill’s tailings cells, similar to the chloroform remedial program. UDEQ approved the CAP on December 12, 2012. In accordance with the CAP, in 2013 the Company commenced pumping nitrate/chloride contaminated water from four monitoring wells for use in Mill processing or discharge into the Mill’s process or tailings cells. Although the contamination appears to be contained in a manageable area, the scope and costs of final remediation have not yet been determined and could be significant.

During 2011, 2012, and 2013, the White Mesa Mill reported consecutive exceedances of groundwater compliance limits (“GWCLs”) under the Mill’s GWDP for several constituents in several wells, and there are decreasing trends in pH in a number of wells across the site that have caused the pH in a number of compliance monitoring wells to have dropped below their GWCLs. These exceedances and pH trends include wells that are up-gradient of the Mill facilities, far down-gradient of the Mill site and at the site itself. These consecutive exceedances of GWCLs have resulted in violations of the GWDP. Source Assessment Reports were submitted in 2012 and 2013 addressing each exceedance and the decreasing trends in pH at the site. UDEQ has accepted the Source Assessment Reports, and has concluded that such exceedances and decreasing trends in pH are due to natural background influences at the site. The renewed GWDP, issued on January 19, 2018, has revised GWCLs which are intended to account for these background influences and put those constituents, including pH at the site, back into compliance.

Total Cost of Project

The White Mesa Mill was acquired by the Company in June 2012, through the acquisition of the US Mining Division from Denison. The cost of the White Mesa Mill has been fully impaired, and as of December 31, 2017, the total cost attributable to the White Mesa Mill and its associated equipment on the financial statements of the Company was nil.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company continues to process alternate feed material at the White Mesa Mill. During 2018 the Mill is expected to continue alternate feed processing and the recovery of uranium from uranium dissolved in the Mill's ponds, as well as to pursue additional alternate feed materials and other sources of feed for the Mill, as well as evaluate the possibility of recovering vanadium from existing pond solutions at the Mill.

66



The Canyon Mine
canyonminea01.jpg
Except as noted, the following technical and scientific description of the Canyon Project is based on a technical report titled “Technical Report on the Canyon Mine, Coconino County, Arizona, U.S.A.”, dated October 6, 2017 prepared by Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Valerie Wilson, M.Sc., P.Geo, and Jeffrey L. Woods, QP MMSA, SME of RPA in accordance with NI 43-101 (the “Canyon Technical Report”). Each of the authors of the Canyon Technical Report is a “qualified person” and is “independent” of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The Canyon Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. The Canyon Project does not have known reserves, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be exploratory in nature, despite currently ongoing development activities.

Property Description and Location

The Canyon Project is a fully constructed and partially developed underground uranium project with: a head frame, a hoist, a compressor and a completed shaft. The site is located south of Grand Canyon National Park, in Sections 19 and 20, T29N, R03E, GSRM, Coconino County, Arizona, 153 miles north of Phoenix, 86 miles northwest of Flagstaff and seven miles south of Tusayan, Arizona in the Kaibab National Forest. The Canyon Project was acquired by Energy Fuels in its June 2012 acquisition of Denison’s US Mining Division.

The Canyon Project is located in the Arizona Strip mining district. The Arizona Strip is an area largely bounded on the north by the Arizona/Utah state line; on the east by the Colorado River and Marble Canyon; on the west by the Grand Wash Cliffs; and on the south by a midpoint between the city of Flagstaff and the Grand Canyon. The area encompasses approximately 13,000 square miles. Uranium-bearing material from the Arizona Strip mines is hauled by truck to the White Mesa Mill where it is processed. The Company’s Arizona 1, Pinenut (now in reclamation) and EZ Projects are located north of the Grand Canyon. The Canyon Project and Wate Project are located south of the Grand Canyon. The Canyon Project is 325 road miles from the Mill.


67



canyondetaileda01.jpg

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

Access to the Canyon Mine site is via State Highway 64 and Federal Highway 180 to within five miles of the mine site, then over unsurfaced public Forest Service roads. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railway line passes east-west 50 mi. south of the site at Williams, and a spur of the railway, which passes 10 mi. west of the Canyon Mine site, services the Grand Canyon National Park. Airports at Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tusayan provide air access to the area.

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

The community of Tusayan, seven miles northwest of the Canyon Mine, provides much of the housing and other facilities for people who work within Grand Canyon National Park. Seasonal population is from 500 to 1,000. A clinic run by a Phoenix hospital is operated at Grand Canyon Village inside the national park, as well as a K-12 grade school with a capacity of 250 students. Williams, a rural community, 44 miles south of the site at Interstate 40, has a population of approximately 2,500. Williams relies heavily on tourism to maintain its economy, but many people are also involved in agriculture and forestry. The town offers an elementary, middle and high school, an emergency medical center, shopping and a variety of community services. Although housing is available, lack of adequate water supplies has limited housing construction. Flagstaff, 56 miles southeast of the Canyon Mine, is a full-service city with a population of 70,000 and is the regional trade center for northern Arizona.


68



Arizona, and particularly Coconino County, is among the fastest growing areas in the United States, due to the climate, landscape diversity, and economic and recreational opportunities. Resources and services are often stretched to meet the needs of the growing population.

Personnel for future mining operations are expected to be sourced from the nearby towns of Williams and Flagstaff, as well as other underground mining districts in the western United States.

In addition to the mine shaft, existing mine infrastructure includes surface maintenance shops, employee offices and change rooms, a water well, an evaporation pond, explosives magazines, water tank, fuel tank, and rock stockpile pads. Electrical power is available through an existing power line that terminates at the site.

Northern Arizona is part of the Colorado Plateau, a region of the western United States characterized by semi-arid, high-altitude, gently sloping plateaus dissected by steep walled canyons, volcanic mountain peaks, and extensive erosional escarpments. The Canyon Mine is located on the Coconino Plateau within the Colorado Plateau, at an elevation of approximately 6,500 ft.

Ownership

The Canyon Project is held by Energy Fuels on nine unpatented claims (Canyon 64-66, 74-76, and 84-86) located on land managed by the USFS. A uranium royalty has been retained by the successors to Gulf Oil Company on the Property, however, the current validity of the royalty is under investigation by Energy Fuels. If valid, the royalty rate is a 3.5% weighted average price tied to the Atomic Energy Commission Circular 5.

Holding costs for the Canyon Project are minimal and consist entirely of annual fees for unpatented mining claims ($155 per claim per year) and county filing fees (approximately $10 per claim per year). Unpatented mining claims expire annually, but are subject to indefinite annual renewal by filing appropriate documents and paying the fees described above. In addition, holders of unpatented mining claims on USFS lands are generally granted surface access by the USFS to conduct mineral exploration and mining activities.

Permitting and Licensing

The Canyon Project is located on public lands managed by the USFS and has an approved PO with the USFS. In September 2009, the groundwater General Aquifer Protection Permit was received for the water storage ponds. This permit was renewed in 2014. An Air Quality Permit was issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in March 2011, renewed in 2016 and amended in 2017. The Company received EPA’s approval under the Clean Air Act National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Canyon Project in September of 2015.

Development of uranium-bearing breccia pipes of the Arizona Strip requires minimal surface disturbance, typically less than 20 acres. The overall environmental impact is small. Nevertheless, the areas in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon can be environmentally sensitive in many ways, and the permitting, development, and operation of a uranium extraction facility in this area has been a contentious issue. In 2009, as described below, over one million acres of federal land were withdrawn from mineral location, subject to valid existing rights. Reclamation at the Canyon Project is bonded at its total expected cost.

Geological Setting

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

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

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

Breccia pipes within the Arizona Strip are vertical or near vertical, circular to elliptical bodies of broken rock. Broken rock is comprised of slabs and rotated angular blocks and fragments of surrounding and stratigraphically higher formations. Surrounding the blocks and

69



slabs making up the breccia is a matrix of fine material comprised of surrounding and overlying rock from various formations. The matrix has been cemented by silicification and calcification for the most part.

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

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

At the Canyon deposit, the surface expression of the pipe is a broad shallow depression in the Permian Kaibab Formation. The pipe is essentially vertical with an average diameter of less than 200 feet, but it is considerably narrower through the Coconino and Hermit horizons (80 feet). The cross sectional area is probably between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. The pipe extends for at least 2,300 feet from the Toroweap limestone to the upper Redwall horizons. The ultimate depth of the deposit is unknown.

Mineralization extends over about 1,500 vertical feet, with higher-grade mineralization found mainly in the Coconino, Hermit, and Esplanade horizons and at the margins of the pipe in fracture zones. Sulfide zones are found scattered throughout the pipe but are especially concentrated (sulfide cap) near the Toroweap Coconino contact, where the cap averages 20 feet thick and consists of pyrite and bravoite, an iron-nickel sulfide. The mineralized assemblage consists of uranium-pyrite-hematite with massive copper sulfide mineralization common in and near the higher-grade zone. The strongest mineralization appears to occur in the lower Hermit-upper Esplanade horizons in an annular fracture zone.

History

Uranium exploration and mining of breccia pipe uranium deposits started in 1951 when a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey noted uranium ore on the dump of an old copper prospect on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon of Northern Arizona. The prospect was inside the Grand Canyon National Park, but on fee land that predated the park. A mining firm acquired the prospect and mined this significant high-grade uranium deposit, called the Orphan Mine. By the time mining ended in the early 1960s, 4.26 million pounds of U3O8 and some minor amounts of copper and silver had been produced.

After the discovery of the first deposit in the 1950s, an extensive search for other deposits was made by the government and industry, but only a few low-grade prospects were found. Exploration started again in the early 1970s. In the mid-1970s, Western Nuclear Inc. (“Western Nuclear”) acquired the Hack Canyon prospect located about 25 miles north of the Grand Canyon and found high grade uranium mineralization offsetting an old shallow copper/uranium site. In the next few years, a second deposit was found approximately one mile away. EFN acquired the Hack Canyon property from Western Nuclear in December 1980. Construction started promptly, and the Hack Canyon mine was in production by the end of 1981.

The Canyon deposit is located on mining claims that EFN acquired from Gulf Mineral Resources Company (“Gulf”) in 1982. Gulf drilled eight exploration holes at the site from 1978 through May 1982, but found only low-grade uranium in this pipe. Additional drilling completed by EFN in 1983 identified a major deposit. EFN drilled a further 30 holes from May 1983 through April 1985 to delineate the uranium mineralization and to determine placement of the shaft and water supply well. Additional drilling of six holes was completed in 1994. Construction at the site was discontinued as a result of low uranium prices at that time.

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

Most of the EFN assets were acquired by Denison (then named IUC) in 1997 and by the Company in June 2012 upon acquisition of the US Mining Division. Since that time, Denison and later Energy Fuels has maintained ownership of the Canyon Project.

Denison did not carry out any surface exploration on the Canyon Project since its acquisition of the project in 1997, nor has the Company to date. Exploration for breccia pipes in northern Arizona typically begins with a search for surface expressions of circular features. This search was aided by geologic mapping, Landsat aerial photography, thermal infrared imagery, geochemical testing, and certain geophysical methods such as resistivity, Very Low Frequency ("VLF"), and time domain electromagnetics. Other techniques tested

70



included: geobotany, microbiology, and biogeochemistry. All of these methods were utilized to identify surface expressions of breccia pipes. The key element of the process was to zero in on the throat of the pipe as a locus for drilling from the surface since the throat is usually associated directly with the center of the collapse.

Mineralization

Mineralization extends vertically both inside and outside the pipe over about 1,500 vertical feet, but high-grade mineralization has been found mainly in the collapsed portions of the Coconino, Hermit, and Esplanade horizons and at the margins of the pipe in fracture zones. Sulfide zones are found scattered throughout the pipe but are especially concentrated (within a sulfide cap) near the Toroweap-Coconino contact, where the cap averages 20 feet thick and consists of pyrite and bravoite, and iron-nickel sulfide. The mineralization assemblage consists of uranium-pyrite-hematite with massive copper sulfide mineralization common in and near high-grade zones. The strongest mineralization appears to occur in the lower Hermit-upper Esplanade horizons in an annular fracture zone.

The two metals of interest within the Canyon breccia pipe are uranium and copper. Since the rocks making up the breccia within the pipe are all sedimentary rocks, mineralization typically occurs within the matrix material (primarily sand) surrounding the larger clasts.

Uranium mineralization at Canyon is concentrated in six stratigraphic levels or zones (Cap, Upper, Main, Main-Lower, Juniper I, and Juniper II) within a collapse structure ranging from 80 ft. to 230 ft. wide with a vertical extension from a depth of 650 ft. to over 2,100 ft., resulting in approximately 1,450 feet of mineralization. Intercepts range widely up to several tens of feet with grades in excess of 1.0% U3O8.

Consistent with other breccia pipe deposits, uranium at Canyon Mine occurs largely as blebs, streaks, small veins, and fine disseminations of uraninite/pitchblende (UO2). Mineralization is mainly confined to matrix material, but may extend into clasts and larger breccia fragments, particularly where these fragments are composed of Coconino sandstone. Uranium mineralization occurs primarily as uraninite and various uranium phase minerals with lesser amounts of brannerite and uranospinite.

Copper mineralization occurs in concentrations within the Main and Main-Lower zones that have a reasonable prospect for eventual economic extraction. It is also present in the Juniper zones, but at much lower concentrations than the Main zone.

Mineralization can be disseminated throughout the matrix material (commonly replacing calcite cement) with higher-grade mineralization typically occurring as vug fills, blebs, or streaks within the matrix and sometimes zoning the breccia clasts. The highest grade copper mineralization either completely replaces the matrix cement or replaces the matrix material all together. Copper mineralization occurs primarily as tennantite, chalcocite and bornite with lesser amounts of covellite. Pyrite and sphalerite are also found throughout the pipe. Silver is commonly associated with the copper mineralization in the main zone. Assay values of silver in excess of one ounce per ton are common where copper grades are high. Arsenic is present where tennantite mineralization occurs. Additionally, lower quantities of Zn, Pb, Mo, Co, Ni, and V are present and scattered throughout the pipe.

Mineral Resource Estimate

Mineral Resource estimates were prepared for the Canyon deposit using both historical surface drill hole gamma and assay data and gamma and assay data collected during underground drilling in 2016 and 2017. A model of the breccia pipe host was constructed based on drill logs and constrains the Mineral Resource. Mineralization wireframes for U3O8 were based on assays and gamma data at a nominal cut-off grade of 0.15%. Low and high-grade copper wireframes were based on nominal cutoff grades of 1% and 8% respectively. Values for U3O8 and copper were interpolated into blocks using inverse distance squared or ordinary kriging. Resources are presented a 0.36% U3O8 Eq equivalent cut-off grade for zones that contain both uranium and copper mineralization (Main and Main-Lower) and at a 0.29% U3O8 Eq cut-off grade for zones that contain only uranium mineralization (Cap, Upper, Juniper I, and Juniper II).

There are no Mineral Reserves estimated at the Canyon deposit at this time. Additional underground drilling conducted by the Company in 2016 and 2017 allowed for the classification of measured and indicated mineral resources, and the inclusion of a copper Mineral Resource. In October 2017, RPA estimated the Mineral Resources for both uranium and copper, shown in the following tables.










71



Canyon Mine Mineral Resources – Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) 
 
Classification
Zone
Cut-off Grade % U3O8 Eq(8)
Tons (000)

Grade % U3O8

Pounds U3O8 (000)

 
 
Canyon Measured Resources (M)
Main
0.36
6

0.43
%
56

 
Canyon Indicated Resources (I)
Main
0.36
94

0.89
%
1,669

 
Juniper I
0.29
38

0.94
%
709

 
Total (M & I)
139

0.88%

2,434

 
Canyon Inferred Resources
Cap
0.29
---

---

---

 
Upper
0.29
9

0.43
%
78

 
Main-Lower
0.36
5

0.20
%
20

 
Juniper I
0.29
2

0.57
%
25

 
Juniper II
0.26
1

0.35
%
9

 
Total Inferred Resources
18

0.38%

134

Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    For the Main and Main-Lower zones, a 0.36% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U3O8 Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. In all other zones only uranium was reported and a 0.29% U3O8 cut-off grade was applied. (The %U3O8 Eq grade term is not the same as the eU3O8 % grade term with indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report. For details see the Canyon Technical Report).
(3)    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$60 per pound and a copper price of US$3.50 per pound.
(4)    A copper to U3O8 conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U3O8 grades (U3O8 Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting for the Main and Main-Lower zones.
(5)    Process recoveries used were 96% for U3O8 and 90% for Cu, based on preliminary metallurgical test work.
(6)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(7)    Tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower zones.
(8)    Note that the Tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower zones.

Canyon Mine Mineral Resources – Copper(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) 

 
Classification
Zone
Cut-off Grade % U3O8 Eq
Tons (000)
Grade % Cu
Pounds Cu (000)
 
 
Canyon Measured Resources (M)
Main
0.36
6
9.29%
1203
 
Canyon Indicated Resources (I)
Main
0.36
94
5.70%
10,736
 
Total (M & I)
Main
0.36
101
5.93%
11,939
 
Canyon Inferred Resources
Main-Lower
0.36
5
5.90%
570
Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    Mineral Resources are estimated at a uranium equivalent (%U3O8 Eq) cut-off grade of 0.36% U3O8 Eq.

72



(3)    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$60 per pound and a copper price of US$3.50 per lb.
(4)    A copper to U3O8 conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U3O8 grades (U3O8 Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.
(5)    Process recoveries used were 96% for U3O8 and 90% for Cu, based on preliminary metallurgical test work.
(6)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.
(7)    Tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower Zones.

Two cut-off grades were used for the resource estimate. For the uranium and copper bearing zones, a 0.36% uranium equivalent (%U3O8 Eq) cut-off grade was used. For the uranium-only zones, a 0.29% eU3O8 cut-off grade was used. The two cut-off grades account for separate process campaigns with different unit costs.

Present Condition of the Property and Work Completed to Date

At the Canyon Project, all surface facilities are in place. During 2017, an underground drilling program was completed, shaft sinking continued, and a large water tank was installed. As of March 8, 2018 shaft sinking had been completed. The final depth of the shaft is approximately 1,470 feet below ground surface. Shaft stations are developed at depths of 1,000 feet (elevation 5,506 feet above sea level), 1,220 feet (elevation 5,286) and 1,400 feet (elevation 5,106). Construction of the main mine sump is underway.

During 2017, laboratory and bench scale metallurgical test work was carried out at the White Mesa Mill and at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization ("ANSTO"), an independent testing firm in Australia. The copper is expected to be processed using acid leach followed by solvent extraction (the same method used for uranium). Following solvent extraction, a saleable copper product is expected to be produced by either electro-winning or copper sulfate crystallization. To recover copper from the Canyon mineralized material, some modifications to White Mesa Mill process circuits are expected to be required. The copper modifications are expected to include using the existing vanadium solvent extraction circuit for copper extraction, the addition of a roaster to improve copper recovery, and the addition of either an electro-winning circuit or copper sulfate crystallization circuit. Preliminary bench test work indicates that acid leaching after roasting pre-treatment is expected to result in average copper and uranium recoveries of approximately 92% and 91% respectively. Using optimum roasting and leaching conditions, it is expected that for a continuous operation, recoveries will improve and uranium recoveries will match the nominal 96% currently experienced at the White Mesa Mill. Production copper recoveries are expected to be in the 90% range.

The Canyon Project was acquired by the Company in June 2012, through the acquisition of the US Mining Division from Denison. The cost of the Canyon Project has been fully impaired, and as of December 31, 2017, the total cost attributable to the Canyon Project and its associated equipment on the financial statements of the Company was nil.

The Company’s Planned Work

During 2018, the Company plans to complete the construction of the main mine sump at the Canyon Project before mid-year 2018, after which time field activities will have been completed. The Company plans to continue to carry out engineering, procurement and construction management activities in 2018, including additional bench and pilot plant scale metallurgical test work of the uranium/copper mineralization, as well as pursue any additional permitting actions that may be required to recover copper at the White Mesa Mill. The timing of our plans to extract and process mineralized materials from this project will be based on the results of this additional evaluation work, along with market conditions, available financing and sales requirements.


73



The Roca Honda Project

rocahondaa02.jpg

Except as noted concerning land tenure and permitting efforts, the following technical and scientific description of the Roca Honda Project is based on a technical report titled "Technical Report on the Roca Honda Project, McKinley County, State of New Mexico, U.S.A." dated October 27, 2016, prepared by Robert Michaud, P.Eng., Stuart E. Collins, P.E., and Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., all of Roscoe Postle Associates (“RPA”) and Harold Roberts, then Executive Vice President of the Company, in accordance with NI 43-101 (the “Roca Honda Technical Report”). The purpose of the Roca Honda Technical Report was to update the Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") of the Project in light of changes in the Project ownership interest and the acquisition of additional mineral property. Each of the authors of the Roca Honda Technical Report is a “qualified person” and all but one is “independent” of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. Harold R. Roberts, P.E., was Executive Vice President, Conventional Operations of the Company at the time he co-authored the PEA; however, the independent authors of the Report have assumed overall responsibility for all items of the technical report, and the Report is therefore an independent technical report under NI 43-101. The Roca Honda Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov. The Roca Honda Project does not have known reserves, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be exploratory in nature, despite currently ongoing permitting activities.

We acquired most of the Roca Honda Project on August 29, 2013 as a result of our acquisition of Strathmore. Certain adjacent properties (the "Adjacent Properties") (which now form part of the Roca Honda Project) were acquired from Uranium Resources, Inc. ("URI") in June 2015.





74



Property Description and Location

The Roca Honda Project is an underground uranium project that is being permitted by the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Strathmore Resources, U.S. Ltd. as operator of Roca Honda Resources, LLC (“RHR”). RHR was established on July 26, 2007, when Strathmore formed a limited liability company with Sumitomo and transferred the property to RHR. Strathmore purchased Sumitomo's 40% interest in RHR on May 27, 2016. The Roca Honda Project is located approximately three miles northwest of the community of San Mateo, New Mexico, near the southern boundary of McKinley County and north of the Cibola County boundary, and approximately 22 miles by road northeast of Grants, New Mexico. The property is located in the east part of the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict of the Grants Mineral Belt in northwest New Mexico and comprises nearly all of Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and a narrow strip of Section 11, the New Mexico State Lease, consisting of Section 16, and the fee mineral interest in Section 17, all in Township 13 North – Range 8 West (T13N-R8W), New Mexico Principal Meridian. Mineralized material from the Roca Honda Project will be shipped by highway truck to the White Mesa Mill, where it will be processed for the recovery of uranium. The Roca Honda Project does not have known reserves, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be exploratory in nature.

rocahondaexistingshaftmap.jpg

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Roca Honda property is located approximately 17 miles (22 miles by road) northeast of Grants, New Mexico. The southern part of the property, which are on Sections 16 and 17, can be reached by traveling north from Milan, New Mexico on State Highway 605 toward the town of San Mateo to mile marker 18 and then north on a private gravel road. Access rights from Highway 605 onto Section 16 have been subject to temporary agreements with the surface owner, Fernandez Company, the latest of which expired on December 31, 2015. When the Company acquired the mineral rights to Section 17 in the URI transaction, it acquired surface access rights to Section 17 and Section 16, which the Company believes provides all necessary access. The Company is in discussions with the surface owner to determine whether any further access rights may be required.

75




The north part of the project can be reached by traveling 23.5 miles from Milan, New Mexico, on paved public Highway 605, and then west on US Forest Service roads to the southeast corner of Section 10. There are numerous drill roads that provide access to different portions of Sections 9 and 10, many of which will require maintenance. Old drill roads were previously established across the property, and an electrical line transects the northern half of Section 16 in the project area. The line continues on the west side of the project area into Section 17, where it terminates, and on the east side of Section 16 through the northwest quarter of Section 15 and along the southern section boundary of Section 10. There is a concrete lined, 14-foot diameter, 1,478-foot deep shaft, which was sunk by Kerr-McGee on Section 17 (the "Existing Shaft"). The Existing Shaft would need to be completed to a final depth of approximately 1,600 feet for use in future mine activities. No milling operations are expected to occur on the site.

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

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

The Roca Honda Project area is sparsely populated, rural and largely undeveloped. The predominant land uses include low density grazing and cultivation, and recreational activities such as hiking, sightseeing, and seasonal hunting. The Roca Honda property has moderately rough topography in Sections 9 and 10 and consists of shaley slopes below ledge-forming sandstone beds, as mesas, that dip 7° to 11° northeast. Elevations range from 7,100 feet to 7,800 feet. Section 9 consists mostly of steep slopes in the west and south, with a large sandstone mesa in the north central part. Section 10 consists mostly of the dip-slope of a sandstone bed that dips from 8° to 11° east. Sections 16 and 17 have less topographic relief, with elevations ranging from 7,100 to 7,300 feet and easterly dipping slopes. Vegetation in the Roca Honda Project area consists of grasses, piñon pine and juniper trees.

Ownership

Prior to May 27, 2016, the Roca Honda Project (excluding the Adjacent Properties) was held by RHR, a joint venture owned by Energy Fuels’ wholly-owned subsidiary Strathmore Resources, (US) Ltd. (60%) and Sumitomo’s subsidiaries SC Clean Energy and Summit New Energy Holding, LLC (together, 40%). On May 27, 2016 the Company acquired Sumitomo's 40% interest in RHR, and the Roca Honda Project is now held entirely by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Strathmore Resources, (US) Ltd. As consideration for the 40% interest, the Company issued to Sumitomo 1,212,173 common shares of the Company and agreed to pay $4.5 million of cash upon the first commercial production of uranium from the Roca Honda Project. The Adjacent Properties were acquired from URI in June 2015.

The Roca Honda property covers an area of 4,440 acres, and includes 63 unpatented lode mining claims in Sections 9 and 10, 64 unpatented claims in Sections 5 and 6, 36 unpatented claims in Section 8, one adjoining New Mexico State General Mining Lease in Section 16, and the fee minerals interest in all of Section 17. The mining claims also extend onto a 9.4 acre narrow strip of Section 11. The New Mexico State Lease was acquired by David Miller (the former Strathmore CEO) on November 30, 2004, and subsequently transferred to Strathmore. Strathmore then relinquished the Lease and acquired it again in December 2015 (State Mining Lease No. HG-0133) for a new 15-year term expiring on December 14, 2030. The "Roca Honda" Claims in Sections 5 and 6 were staked by Miller and Associates in September 2004 and assigned to RHR on August 28, 2013. Strathmore acquired the Adjacent Properties, comprised of the "Roca Honda" claims in Section 8 and the fee mineral interest in Section 17 on June 26, 2015 from URI.

The State Mining Lease (No. HG-0133) issued by the New Mexico State Land Office for Section 16 covers an area of 638 acres. The surface of Section 16 is leased to Fernandez as rangeland for grazing. The area covered by the Fernandez lease is also referred to as “Lee Ranch”. The Mining Lease has a primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary term, each with rentals to be paid in advance, and will not expire until December 14, 2030. It can be held for the next two years (primary term) by paying only $1.00 per acre annually.

The State lease stipulates a 5% gross returns royalty to the State of New Mexico "less actual and reasonable transportation and smelting or reduction costs, up to 50% of the gross returns" for production of uranium, which is designated a "special mineral" in the lease. New Mexico mining and private royalties on value of minerals extracted are shown below:

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

Under the rights acquired in the URI transaction, a gross royalty of 1% is payable to the surface owner.


76



Permitting and Licensing

The Roca Honda Project is at an advanced stage of permitting. A Draft EIS was completed by the USFS in February 2013. In March 2015 the USFS initiated the scoping process for a new mine dewatering alternative to be addressed in a Supplement to the EIS. In September 2016, an additional scoping process to incorporate Section 17 (the "Adjacent Properties") and development drilling into the mine plan was initiated by the USFS. The Supplement to the EIS is expected to be completed in 2018 with a Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) scheduled to be completed in 2019.

Other major permits required for the Roca Honda Project include a Permit to Mine to be issued by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, a Discharge Permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department, and a Mine Dewatering Permit issued by the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. The Mine Dewatering Permit was approved in December 2013 but appealed by the Acoma Pueblo in January 2014. RHR subsequently proposed a new alternative for discharging treated mine water that would benefit a number of downstream users including the Acoma Pueblo. As a result, the Acoma Pueblo agreed to withdraw the dewatering permit appeal in March 2015. The dewatering permit will need to be revised to reflect a higher dewatering rate with the addition of Section 17 to the mine plan.

The two other major permits that are in the agency review stage are the draft Discharge Permit expected in late 2018, and the Permit to Mine expected in 2019 following approval of the Final EIS by the USFS. Permit approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are also required for discharge of treated mine water associated with mine activities. Applications for these two permits are also presently undergoing agency review.

As the project has not yet been developed or operated, we are not aware of any environmental liabilities of any significance.

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

Geological Setting

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

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

The uranium found in the Roca Honda Project area is contained within five sandstone units of the Westwater Canyon Member. Zones of mineralization vary from approximately one foot to 30 ft. thick, 100 ft. to 600 ft. wide, and 200 ft. to 3,000 ft. in length. Uranium mineralization in the Project area trends west-northwest, consistent with trends of the fluvial sedimentary structures of the Westwater Canyon Member, and the general trend of mineralization across the Ambrosia Lake sub-district.

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

History

Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc. (“Kerr-McGee”) staked the Roca Honda Project unpatented mining claims in Sections 9 and 10 in June 1965. Kerr-McGee, its subsidiaries, and successor in interest Rio Algom had held the claims until the property was acquired by Strathmore on March 12, 2004. Energy Fuels acquired a 100% interest in Strathmore in September 2013, assuming Strathmore’s 60% ownership interest in RHR and becoming the project operator. Strathmore purchased Sumitomo's 40% interest in RHR on May 27, 2016.

Drilling on the property began in 1966. Kerr-McGee performed a number of rotary drill hole exploration programs from 1966 to 1985. In Section 9, the first drill hole was completed in July 1966. Discovery was made in drill hole number 7 completed on August 2, 1970,

77



which encountered mineralization at a depth of 1,900 ft. From 1966 to 1982, a total of 187 drill holes were completed for a total of 388,374 ft.

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

In Section 16, the first drilling was in the 1950’s by Rare Metals, which drilled 13 holes, including two that intercepted high-grade uranium mineralization at depths of 1,531 ft. and 1,566 ft. No records of the total drilled footage were located. Subsequently, Western Nuclear acquired a mining lease for Section 16 from the State and began drilling in 1968, with the first drill hole completed on August 17, 1968. The second drill hole intercepted high-grade uranium mineralization at a depth of 1,587 ft. From 1968 through September 1970, Western Nuclear drilled 63 holes totaling 121,164 feet, not including six abandoned holes totaling 7,835 ft. Two of the drill holes reported cored intervals, but the cores and analyses were not available. From the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s, a total of 725 drill holes totaling over 1,425,000 feet were completed on the six Sections (5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 16) of the Roca Honda property. More than 500 holes totaling over 841,900 feet were also drilled in Section 17 by Kerr-McGee and Western Nuclear. In June 2015, Energy Fuels acquired a 100% interest in the mineral properties controlled by URI (Sections 8 and 17).

RHR drilled four pilot holes on Section 16, of which three were completed as monitor wells totaling 8,050 feet for environmental baseline and monitoring purposes in Section 16 from June through November 2007. One drill hole was located outside of known mineralization, and three holes were located within mineralized areas. The entire thickness of the Westwater Sandstone, except for zones with no recovery, was cored in the pilot holes for these wells. The cores are PQ diameter (3.345 in.) and were taken principally for laboratory testing of hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, density, and chemical analysis.

In November 2011, a core hole was drilled at the Section 16 shaft location. The hole was drilled to a depth of 2,053 ft. Core was tested for numerous geotechnical properties.

No historic mineral extraction has occurred on the property.

Mineralization

Uranium mineralization consists of unidentifiable organic-uranium oxide complexes. The uranium in the project area is dark grey to black in color, and is found between depths of approximately 1,450 feet and 2,600 feet below the surface.

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

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

The mineralization is typically confined to sandstones in the Westwater Canyon Member, although there is some overlap into the shales that divide the sandstones, and also some minor extension (less than 10 feet) into the underlying Recapture Member. The mineralization is contained in the Westwater Canyon Member sandstones across the Project area, but in Sections 9 and 16, the mineralization is typically found in the upper sandstones (A, B1, and B2), as it is in Section 17, also. In Section 10, the A and B1 sandstones pinch out in some areas due to thickening of the overlying Brushy Basin Member. Mineralization is in the middle and western portions of Section 10, and is typically in the lower sandstones (sands C and D).

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

Mineral Resource Estimates

RPA prepared an updated PEA in 2016 and an NI 43-101 compliant Mineral Resource estimate for the Roca Honda Project is set out in the Roca Honda Technical Report. The Mineral Resource estimate, which has remained unchanged from the 2015 PEA effective as at February 4, 2015, is summarized in the following table. Mineral Resources are constrained by wireframes generated around individual mineralized zones within five sand horizons designated as A, B1, B2, C, and D sands.



78



Roca Honda Mineral Resources – Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4) 

 
Classification
Tons (000)
Grade % eU3O8
Pounds eU3O8 (000)
 
 
Roca Honda Measured Resources (M)
208
0.477%
1,984
 
Roca Honda Indicated Resources (I)
1,303
0.483%
12,580
 
Roca Honda Total (M & I)
1,511
0.482%
14,564
 
Roca Honda Inferred Resources
1,198
0.468%
11,206
Notes:
(1)    The Mineral Resource estimate in this table complies with the requirements of NI 43-101, and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards and do not represent reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7. Mineral resources that are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. See “Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Disclosure of Mineral Resources,” above.
(2)    Mineral Resources are estimated at a uranium cut-off grade of 0.19% eU3O8.
(3)    Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound U3O8.
(4)    Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Energy Fuels acquired the mineral rights to the Section 17 property adjacent to its main Roca Honda project in 2015.  An historical estimate for the Section 17 property was completed by Uranium Resources Inc. (“URI”) in 2007. URI estimated that the Section 17 property contained approximately 510,000 tons at a grade of 0.37% U3O8 for 3.8 million pounds of uranium. This historical estimate is based on over 500 surface drill holes and was calculated using the circle tangent method.  A density of 15 cu ft./ton was used.

RPA and the Company do not consider this historical estimate to be current mineral resources or reserves as defined under NI 43-101. While Energy Fuels has reviewed all the drill hole data associated with this estimate, a qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify this historical resource as current mineral resources or mineral reserves in accordance with NI 43-101.  This historical estimate was unclassified.  The Company believes this historical estimate is relevant, as the methodology was well documented and utilized industry standard practice.  However, the methodologies used do not reflect current best industry practices.  The Company does not consider these historical estimates to be equivalent to current mineral resources or mineral reserves as defined in NI 43-101, nor has the Company completed sufficient work to confirm a NI 43-101 compliant resource.  Therefore, the historical estimates cannot, and should not, be relied upon as NI 43-101 resources or reserves.

Present Condition of the Property and Work Completed to Date

Old drill roads were previously established across the property, and an electrical line transects the northern half of Section 16 in the project area. The line continues on the west side of the project area into Section 17, where it terminates, and on the east side of Section 16 through the northwest quarter of Section 15 and along the southern section boundary of Section 10. Three monitor water wells were drilled by RHR in 2007, and are located on Section 16. Other items installed by RHR include a permanent electrical weather station and a high volume TSP and PM10 air samplers. Three, dry man-made impoundments are also located on Section 16. More than 400 historic drill exploration holes were completed on the property from the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s. Except for the existing shaft on Section 17, there are no mine workings, existing tailings ponds, waste deposits or other improvements or facilities at the site.

No additional exploration work has been conducted on the Roca Honda Project since November 2011, when a core drill hole was completed at the proposed shaft location in Section 16 for geotechnical studies.

The Roca Honda Project was acquired by the Company in August 2013, through the Company’s acquisition of Strathmore. As of December 31, 2017, the total cost attributable to the Roca Honda Project on the financial statements of the Company was $22.8 million.

The Company’s Planned Work

The Company intends to continue its permitting and related activities at the Roca Honda Project during 2018. Approximately $0.8 million is budgeted for permitting efforts in 2018. The Company plans to integrate the Adjacent Roca Honda Properties into the permitting efforts underway for the Roca Honda Project properties.

79



The Sheep Mountain Project

Unless otherwise stated (concerning land tenure and permitting efforts), the following technical and scientific description of the Sheep Mountain Project is derived from a technical report titled “Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA, Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report”, dated April 13, 2012 and, prepared by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G., Principal Engineer of BRS Inc. in accordance with NI 43-101 (the “Sheep Mountain Technical Report”). The author of the Sheep Mountain Technical Report is a “qualified person” and is “independent” of the Company within the meaning of NI 43-101. The Sheep Mountain Technical Report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. The Sheep Mountain Project does not have known reserves, and is therefore considered under SEC Industry Guide 7 definitions to be exploratory in nature.

Project Description and Location

The Sheep Mountain Project is an underground and open pit uranium project. The Sheep Mountain Project was acquired on February 29, 2012, as a result of the Company’s acquisition of Titan. The Sheep Mountain Project is located eight miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province at the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin in central Wyoming. The project is located in portions of Sections 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, Township 28 North, Range 92 West.

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the Congo Pit, a proposed open pit uranium extraction facility, and the reopening of the existing Sheep Underground facility. Although alternatives were considered, the recommended recovery method in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report includes the processing of extracted materials via an on-site heap leach facility. Material from the underground and open pit operations are expected to be commingled at the stockpile site located near the underground portal and in close proximity to the pit. At the stockpile, the mineralized material will be sized if needed, blended, and then conveyed via a covered overland conveyor system to the heap leach pad where it will be stacked on a double lined pad for leaching. The primary lixiviant will be sulfuric acid. Concentrated leach solution will be collected by gravity in a double lined collection pond and then transferred to the mineral processing facility for extraction and drying. The final product produced will be uranium concentrate (U3O8, also known as “yellowcake”). Since the Sheep Mountain Technical Report was completed, Energy Fuels has acquired the White Mesa Mill and the Nichols Ranch Plant, which creates the option to transport loaded resin to either of those facilities for stripping, and to the White Mesa Mill for drying, and packaging of yellowcake.

sheepmountainproposeda02.jpg

80



The preferred alternative for the development of the Sheep Mountain Project begins the operation with the open pit and heap leach facility and brings the underground component of the project into operation about five years later such that the forecasted end of extraction for both the open pit and underground components coincide. This approach defers a substantial amount of initial capital, minimizes risk, and allows for a gradual startup of site activities while maximizing resource recovery. Having the end of extraction coincide for both operations also optimizes the fixed costs of personnel and facilities. A preliminary feasibility study (“PFS”) for the project has been completed in accordance with NI 43-101, which includes the preliminary design and sequencing of the open pit and underground operations and the heap leach mineral processing facility. Designs and sequencing are inclusive of pre-production, production, and decommissioning and reclamation.

The current design for the Congo Pit includes typical highwall heights in the range of 100 to 400 feet, and reaches a maximum depth of 600 feet in localized areas in the southeast pit corner. The open pit design employs similar design parameters and mining equipment configurations to those used successfully in past Wyoming conventional operations. Highwall design is based upon the performance of past projects in the Sheep Mountain and Gas Hills districts, and includes an average highwall slope of 0.7:1, which reflects the average of a 10-foot bench width and 50-foot wall at a 0.5:1 slope.

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

In 2013, we submitted a revised PO to the BLM, which included redesign of the heap leach processing area and the option to potentially transport the mineralized material to an off-site processing facility. The revision to the PO is expected to give us more flexibility in processing the resources extracted from the Sheep Mountain Project. A Record of Decision giving BLM's final approval of the revised PO was issued on January 6, 2017.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

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

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

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

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

Ownership

The mineral properties at the Sheep Mountain Project are comprised of 192 unpatented mining claims (the Company added 13 claims to the 179 reported in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report) on land administered by the BLM; approximately 640 acres of State of Wyoming leases; and approximately 630 acres of private leases on fee lands. In February 2012, Energy Fuels purchased 320 acres of private surface overlaying some of the federal minerals covered by 18 of the claims. The purchased parcel includes the SW¼ SW¼ Section 28 and SE¼, E½ SW¼, and NW¼ SW¼ Section 29, T28N, R92W. A final payment of $5,000 was made in January 2016 for the purchased parcel. The combination of land holdings (including the 13 new claims) comprises approximately 4,675 acres and gives Energy Fuels mineral rights to resources as defined in the Congo Pit and the Sheep Underground areas. After the 2012 Technical Report, the Company increased the Sheep Mountain property size by 26 unpatented mining claims (approximately 520 acres) through the

81



acquisition of Strathmore. These contiguous claims form a larger buffer, with potential for additional uranium resources, along the west side of the Project.

To maintain these mineral rights, the Company must comply with the lease provisions, including annual payments with respect to the State of Wyoming leases; private leases; BLM and Fremont County, as well as Wyoming filing and/or annual payment requirements to maintain the validity of the unpatented mining lode claims as follows. Mining claims are subject to annual filing requirements and payment of a fee of $155 per claim. Unpatented mining claims expire annually, but are subject to indefinite annual renewal by filing appropriate documents and paying the fees described above. ML 0-15536 will expire on 1/1/2024. Annual Payments to maintain ML 0-15536 are $2,560 per year. The original private lease dated November 20, 2975 between McIntosh Cattle Company and Western Nuclear Inc. (the “Private Lease”) expired 11/20/2015. Properties covered by the Private Lease include: Township 28 North, Range 92 West, 6th PM; Section 20: S½SW¼; Section 29: NW¼, SW¼SW¼; Section 30: SE¼NE¼, E½SE¼; Section 31: E½NE¼; Section 32: E½NE¼; Section 33: S½NW¼. Since the date of the Sheep Mountain Technical Report, the Company no longer holds the Private Lease, however a Surface Owner’s Agreement (originally dated January 27, 1970, as amended on April 14, 1981 and ratified by assignees on April 16, 2007) covering the same parcels and a few select claims in the Sun-Mc area is still in effect. It carries a 2% mine value royalty for any material extracted from the subject lands, but no other payment obligations.

The Sheep Mountain Project is subject to an overall sliding scale royalty of 1% to 4% due to Western Nuclear, based on the Nuclear Exchange Corporation Exchange (“NUEXCO”) Value. This royalty is currently at its maximum rate of 4%. Under Wyoming State Lease ML 0-15536, there is a royalty of 5% of the quantity or gross realization value of the U3O8, based on the total arms-length consideration received for uranium products sold.

Uranium mining in Wyoming is subject to both a gross products (county) and mineral severance tax (state). At the federal level: aggregate corporate profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates, i.e. individual mining projects are not assessed federal income tax but rather the corporate entity is assessed as a whole. For mineral properties: depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis whichever is greater. The percentage depletion tax credit for uranium is 22%, among the highest for mineral commodities, IRS Pub. 535.

Permitting and Licensing

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

Submission of the PO to the BLM was made in June 2011. The PO was accepted as complete by the BLM, and an EIS was initiated in August 2011. Energy Fuels revised the PO in July 2012, consistent with the modified plan presented in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report. In July 2013, the PO was again revised to reflect a new waste rock disposal layout for the open pit mine and an improved and more economical heap leach and processing facility. The revised PO also included the option of transporting mineralized material off-site for processing. The Final EIS was completed in August of 2016. On January 6, 2017, the BLM issued its RoD and approved the PO.

In October 2011, Titan submitted a draft revision to its existing Mine Permit 381C to WDEQ. WDEQ then provided Titan with review comments as part of its “courtesy review.” The permit revision was revised and resubmitted in January 2014. In July 2015, the revision was approved by WDEQ. The revision includes expansion of surface and underground mining operations and an updated reclamation plan consistent with current reclamation practices.

Development of an application to the NRC for a license to construct and operate the uranium recovery facility has been taken to an advanced stage of preparation. This license would allow Energy Fuels to process the mineralized material into yellowcake at the Sheep Mountain Project site. The draft application to NRC for a Source Material License was reviewed in detail by the NRC in October 2011. The NRC audit report identified areas where additional information should be provided. The review and approval process for this license by the NRC is anticipated to take approximately four years from the date submitted to the NRC. Submittal of the license application to the NRC is on hold pending the Company’s evaluation of off-site processing options for this project, and if a decision is made to proceed with an on-site uranium recovery facility, pending improvements in uranium market conditions.

The heap leach facility has been permitted through the State of Wyoming and BLM, yet still requires NRC licensing. The permitted capacity is 4 million tons of mineralized material which is 53% of the NI 43-101 Mineral Reserves declared. An expansion to the heap leach facility (including permitting) will be required in the future to process the remaining 47% of the 43-101 Mineral Reserves.



82



Geological Setting<