Table 1 – Land Description

*The legal description of Section 24 land holdings includes most of the SE ¼ of Section 24, T17N R13W of the New Mexico Prime Meridian and includes the N1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, and W1/2 SE1/4. The Company owns 60% of this portion of the Project.

The Crownpoint area is in the immediate vicinity of Crownpoint, New Mexico. The Hosta Butte area is located approximately 4 miles southwest of Crownpoint, New Mexico.

Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the Project. The Project is 100% owned by the Company except for SE ¼ of Section 24, T17N, R13W which is 60% owned by the Company and 40% owned by NuFuels and is comprised of the mineral estate (excluding hydrocarbons) over approximately 3,020 acres, subject only to a 3% gross proceeds royalty to NZU, a 2% net proceeds royalty to enCore on uranium mined from the Project and 2% net smelter returns royalty to enCore on other minerals mined from the Project.

On April 9, 2025, Former Verdera acquired NME BC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of enCore and owner of NME, which holds multiple uranium projects in New Mexico including Crownpoint and Hosta Butte projects.

Surface Rights

Surface rights are separate from the mineral rights on the Project. The surface rights of the property area are partially controlled by the royalty-holder, NZ Uranium (NZU), NuFuels (the 40% owner of the SE ¼ of Section 24 Crownpoint Property), and certain private property holders. The surface rights have not been removed from development and are not under other restrictions. The property is outside of the Navajo Reservation and is situated on the western edge of the small town of Crownpoint. Applicable legislation provides the owners of the mineral estate surface access, as well as a dispute resolution mechanism.

Chain of Title

The NZ Land Company (NZ) was formed in 1908 and took deed and management of the land grants. NZ Uranium LLC (NZU) was spun off to manage the lands within the known uranium trend of New Mexico and Arizona in 2002. Tigris optioned the Project in May 2010 and exercised the option in May, 2011. Tigris acquired a 60% Interest in the SE ¼ of Section 24 Crownpoint Property and 100% of the Hosta Butte Property, the Crownpoint Properties located in Section 19 and 29. The remaining 40% interest in the Crownpoint SE ¼ of Section 24 property is held by NuFuels. The property is not subject to any liens or other encumbrances except for royalties as subsequently discussed.

On March 18, 2025, Former Verdera entered into a share purchase agreement with enCore Energy Corp. (enCore) for the acquisition of NME BC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of enCore and owner of NME, which holds multiple uranium projects in New Mexico including Crownpoint and Hosta Butte projects.

Former Verdera issued 50,000,000 Former Verdera Preferred Shares to enCore, representing approximately 73% of current issued and outstanding shares of Former Verdera. enCore received a 2% net proceeds royalty on uranium and a 2% net smelter returns royalty on other minerals extracted and sold from the properties and a non-refundable cash payment of US$350,000. The acquisition closed on April 9, 2025.

Royalties

The Company owns the mineral estate outright with the exception of SE ¼ of Section 24 in the Crownpoint project where they hold 60% of the mineral estate covering 120 acres known as the Walker There are no annual payments, maintenance, or other requirements to be met to maintain the mineral estate subject only to a 3% gross proceeds royalty to NZ Uranium, LLC (NZU), a 2% net proceeds royalty to enCore on uranium mined from the Project and a 2% net smelter returns royalty on other minerals extracted and sold from the Project.

Taxes

Uranium production in New Mexico is subject to a mineral severance tax which is currently taxed at a rate of 3.5% based on 50% of the gross value or an effective rate of 1.75 % of the gross value (Peach et al, 2008) and (http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/rpd-41215.pdf).

Uranium production in New Mexico is also subject to a Conservation Tax. The conservation tax was not imposed on the uranium industry until 1975. The conservation tax rate was 0.18% in 1975 and was increased to 0.20% in 1977. There have been no significant changes to the conservation tax as it relates to the uranium industry since 1977 (Peach et al, 2008).

Uranium Production in New Mexico Resources is also subject to an excise tax was imposed in 1966 at a rate of .75% of the amount of money or the reasonable value of severed or processed resources (Peach et al, 2008).

The State of New Mexico imposes a gross receipts tax, 5% on average, on total amount of money or other consideration received from the above activities. Although the Gross Receipts Tax is imposed on businesses, it is common for a business to pass the Gross Receipts Tax on to the purchaser either by separately stating it on the invoice or by combining the tax with the selling price. The gross receipts tax will be realized with the Project through its application for services performed by contactors, vendors, and consultants. (https://www.tax.newmexico.gov/governments/gross-receipts-tax/).

Accessibility and Local Resources

The Crownpoint Project is located on the northern flank of an unnamed mountain range which consists of plateaus and steep, incised canyons, just northwest of the Continental Divide. The Crownpoint Project lies north of the Puerco River and Hosta Butte, the two most prominent geographic features in the area. The mountain peaks are as high as 7900 feet within two miles south of the Crownpoint Project with elevations in the immediate project area of about 6700 feet above mean sea level. Vegetation consists of low desert sage, pinion pines, and thin grasses in an arid, high desert climate. The Crownpoint Project is generally accessible year-round, although access to the Hosta Butte portion of the Crownpoint Project would be more difficult in the winter and/or following precipitation events which saturate the soils.

The Crownpoint Project is accessed from the south by Highway 371 and from the north by Highway 57 at Crownpoint, New Mexico. Highway 9 goes west from Crownpoint, just to the north of the Crownpoint Project area. Paved secondary roads provide access to the NuFuels facility on Section 24. From the NuFuels facility the Hosta Butte portion of the Crownpoint Project is accessible via a county gravel road which turns to the south approximately 2 miles west of Crownpoint. The road continues east becoming a private dirt road then turns to the north in Section 11 and continues to the Crownpoint Project area.

The largest nearby population center is Albuquerque, New Mexico, with an approximate population of 565,000 residents. Albuquerque is located approximately 100 miles to the east on Highway 40 and provides a transportation and supply hub for the area. Grants, New Mexico is approximately 50 miles east of the Crownpoint Project and Gallup, New Mexico lies approximately 50 miles to the west. The Crownpoint Project is approximately 10 miles from the Navajo Reservation and is situated on the west and southwest of the small town of Crownpoint.

In the 1970s a mine site was developed by Conoco and several warehouse and office buildings were constructed in Section 24, T17N, R13W on the lands now controlled by NuFuels and within the mineral holdings of enCore. As part of the original mine three shafts were sunk and the original mine plan called for underground extraction with surface processing. These shafts were subsequently reclaimed.

History

The property is part of the checkerboard of deeded railroad sections, which include surface and mineral rights. Congress chartered the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company (the "A&P") in 1866. The A&P was purchased in bankruptcy proceedings by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, commonly called the "Frisco." Frisco and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company formed a joint venture in 1880 and used the old A&P charter to build a railroad line, acquiring millions of acres of federal grant fee lands in New Mexico and Arizona with surface and mineral rights. Frisco incorporated New Mexico and Arizona Land Company (NZ) in 1908 in what the Territory of Arizona was then to hold its grant lands until they could be sold.

Uranium was discovered on the grant lands in New Mexico in 1968. Conoco and Westinghouse initially explored and developed this property for underground mining in the late 1970s. Three shafts were developed on the Section 24 location. The properties were explored extensively and had also been subjected to extensive successful ISR pilot testing by Mobil Oil Company in the 1970’s on the nearby Section 9, T16N, R13W. With falling demand and prices in the uranium sector in the 1980’s, Conoco elected to close the operations and cap the shafts. All the facilities and data were maintained and have been acquired by NuFuels.

While these former owners of the project did development for the project, no production has ever occurred on the property.

In the 1980's, NZ turned its principal focus from rural to urban real estate investment and development. After a period of aggressive real estate investing, NZ expanded into bridge financing of real estate. New emphasis was placed on the liquidation of NZ's historic assets.

After a series of mergers and changes in controlling parties, Robert M. Worsley purchased the remaining rural assets in March 2002. The original incorporated name of NZ was retained and formed into a limited liability corporation. NZU was spun off to control the lands in the uranium trend of New Mexico and Arizona in 2002 (Pelizza, 2004).

An Option Agreement was executed between NZU and Tigris in May 2010. The Option Agreement with NZU was for the acquisition by Tigris of a 60% Interest in the Crownpoint Property, SE ¼ of Section 24, and 100% of the Hosta Butte Property, the Crownpoint Properties located in Section 19 and 29. The remaining 40% interest in the Crownpoint Section 24 property is held by NuFuels. (https://laramide.com/projects/crownpoint-churchrock-uranium-project). In May 2011, Tigris, a subsidiary of enCore, exercised its option for the mineral rights and therefore owned the mineral rights outright before their transfer to NME (Texas), a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore, pursuant to an internal reorganization.

On March 18, 2025, Former Verdera entered into a share purchase agreement with enCore for the acquisition of NME BC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of enCore and owner of NME (Texas), which holds multiple uranium projects in New Mexico including Crownpoint and Hosta Butte projects.

Former Verdera issued 50,000,000 Former Verdera Preferred Shares to enCore, representing approximately 73% of current issued and outstanding shares of Former Verdera. enCore received a 2% net proceeds royalty on uranium and a 2% net smelter returns royalty on other minerals extracted and sold from the properties and a non-refundable cash payment of US$350,000. The resulting aggregate royalty on the projects is thus 5%. The acquisition closed on April 9, 2025.

Historical mineral resources estimates for the property are known in the vicinity, but the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report were unaware of any historical estimates specific to the current holdings.

Infrastructure

Within the Crownpoint portion of the Crownpoint Project there is line power and telephone service. Access to the site is available on paved public roads and there is a local airport in Crownpoint. The Hosta Butte site is more remote and would require the development of access and utilities.

In the 1980s Conoco developed the infrastructure to support underground mining within the Crownpoint area of the Crownpoint Project. This included the sinking of 3 mine shafts, mine water treatment facilities, offices, shops, warehousing, and related facilities and appurtenances. At that time the infrastructure was adequate to support Conoco’s operation. The facility has been well maintained and, although the mine shafts have been capped at the surface, the remaining infrastructure to support mine development are in place. The remaining infrastructure is on lands held by NuFuels within enCore’s mineral holdings in Section 24, T17N, R12W.

Climate

The Project is located on the Northwestern Plateau climatological subdivision of New Mexico. The region is semiarid continental, with the mean annual precipitation averaging 10.2 inches (NUREG - 1580, 1997). Precipitation typically is concentrated during summer and early fall, occurring as thundershowers of short duration. Approximately 50 percent of the precipitation falls in July through October. The mean monthly rainfall during the remainder of the year totals only 0.5 inches. Temperatures in the region are represented by data from the nearby Crownpoint station. Because of the relatively high elevation of the project area, temperatures greater than 90°F occur infrequently, only 12 times per year on average. The extreme maximum temperature recorded at Crownpoint is 97°F. Because of the high elevation and relatively infrequent cloud cover in the project area, radiant cooling is substantial and results in an average of 143 days of the year with temperatures below freezing. Extremely low temperatures are rare, with the lowest on record being - 17°F. The mean annual temperature is 51°F. The coldest month is January, and the warmest month is July. The frost-free growing season lasts 140 days, extending from early May to early October. The mean freeze-free period lasts about 22 days longer than the growing season. However, large variations in the freeze dates occur from year to year.

Maximum precipitation occurs during the summer thunderstorm season. The data indicates that approximately one-half of the annual precipitation total falls during July, August, and September. Most of the winter precipitation occurs as snow. Based on mean snowfall estimates for nearby locations, including Crownpoint, and on actual 1975 snowfall amounts for Gallup and Chaco Canyon National Monument, the estimated yearly average snowfall for the project area is 26 inches.

Geology, Mineralization and Deposit

Regional Geologic Setting

Uranium mineralization within the Crownpoint Project areas are in the Grants Uranium Region. The Grants Uranium Region is located in northwestern New Mexico and is part of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. The Grants Uranium Region has been a prolific producer of uranium in the United States (McLemore and Chenoweth, 1991). With production as early as 1948, over 347 million lbs U₃O₈ has been produced from the region mainly during the years 1953 through 1990.

Regional subsidence has preserved about 3,000 feet of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Sediments in the San Juan Basin. Stratigraphically, this series of sediments accumulated as a major transgressive sequence. The Triassic dominantly contains aeolian massive cross-bedded dune sands that continued into the early Jurassic period. In the late Jurassic, major uplifts occurred to the west in the vicinity of the present Mogollon rim of Arizona causing deposition of massive arkosic, alluvial-fan deposits across northeastern Arizona and into northwestern New Mexico.

The Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison formation contains the majority of uranium deposits in the region and was emplaced during this type of depositional regime. During deposition of this regional alluvial-fan, abundant volcanic activity also occurred which were deposited as interbedded tufts over the entire area of the San Juan Basin. At the beginning of the Cretaceous, a major subsidence occurred throughout the Rocky Mountain Geosyncline and Cretaceous seas that transgressed the Jurassic continental deposits. During the Jurassic period abundant vegetation was present. Decay of vegetation produced humic and fulvic acids, which then migrated and were concentrated in channel sands upon burial. In addition to the vegetal material, volcanic tufts that were deposited within the sands yielded uranium into the groundwater. Where reductants and humate concentrated, uranium was reduced, adsorbed, and precipitated from the groundwater resulting in the concentration of mineralization.

Through subsequent uplift and remobilization of groundwater, oxidized solutions re-mobilized the uranium in and concentrated it into rolls or stacked mineralized zones during both the Cretaceous and Tertiary. The Westwater Canyon Member shows a regional pattern of alteration from hematite at a distance from the redox front to limonite in proximity to the front, and finally pyrite at and behind the front.

Structure

The sedimentary rocks of the San Juan Basin form a gently dipping monocline in the Grants-Gallup area known as the Chaco Slope (Brister and Hoffman, 2002). The beds generally dip to the north with localized variations due to undulations and minor deformation. The beds in the project area are gently dipping to the north. Stratigraphic correlations of drill logs, by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report, show the dip at both the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte areas to be about 3 degrees to the north northeast. There is a mapped fault in the extreme southeast portion of Section 3, T16N, R13W which displaces mineralization in the Hosta Butte area. No significant faulting was observed based on stratigraphic correlations in the Crownpoint area of the Crownpoint Project

Local Geology

Figure 2 – Geologic Map, shows the regional surficial geology in the vicinity of the Crownpoint Project. At both the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte area within the Crownpoint Project surficial exposures are Cretaceous in age. The Jurassic Morrison Formation, which is the primary uranium host, is found at depth within the immediate project area but is exposed approximately 25 miles to the south of Crownpoint.

Figure 2 Geological Map

Figure 3 – Type Log, shows the subsurface stratigraphy. This Type Log is from Section 24, T17N, R13W. The Cretaceous Mancos Shale Formation is exposed at the surface and persists to a depth of approximately 1,600 feet to the contact with the Cretaceous Dakota Formation. The Mancos Shale is dominantly a shale unit, but also contains sandstone and coal members.

The Cretaceous Dakota Formation overlies the Morrison Formation and consists of fine to medium grained, well sorted sandstone with siltstone and shale interbeds. The Formation is about 160 feet thick and occasionally hosts uranium mineralization (McCarn, 1997). Within the Crownpoint Project area the Dakota Formation unconformably overlies the Brushy Basin Shale Member of the Morrison Formation which in turn overlies the Westwater Canyon Member. The Type Log, Figure 2 shows the Brushy Basin is about 70 feet thick and consists mostly of mudstone with thin sandstone lenses.

The Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison Formation is the principal host of uranium mineralization in the vicinity of the Crownpoint Project. The Type Log, Figure 2, shows the Westwater Canyon to be approximately 360 feet thick. The Westwater Canyon member is conformably underlain by the Recapture Shale member of the Morrison Formation. Generally drilling within the Crownpoint Project extended into but did not fully penetrate the Recapture Shale.

The authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report reviewed the geologic and lithologic drill hole logs, as well as internal geologic reports and cross sections, for the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte areas of the Crownpoint Project. Based on this review the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report concluded:

Mineralization

The mineral deposits at Crownpoint and Hosta Butte are roll-front deposits in which uranium mineralization is concentrated at the boundary of oxidized and reduced sandstone units (i.e., redox front) within the host formation. The Crownpoint and Hosta Butte areas occur along sub-parallel redox fronts within the Westwater Canyon and are separated by 2 to 3 miles in which the Westwater Canyon is characteristically oxidized and absent mineralization. Mineralization is locally controlled by stratigraphic variations in the individual zones affecting permeability and consequent ground water flow and geochemical conditions relating to the presence or absence of reluctant.

Figure 3 Type Log

Crownpoint Area

The Crownpoint database represents down hole data from a total of 482 drill holes of which 93 are barren and the remaining 389 drill holes contain mineralization above the minimum cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈. Within the 389 mineralized drill holes, 873 individual intercepts were present. Figure 4 – Crownpoint Drill Hole and Cross Section Location Map, shows the surface or plan location of drill holes within the Crownpoint area of the Project along with the location of selected cross sections which display the subsurface geology and mineralization in profile.

The historic database, used as the primary data source, consists of eU₃O₈ radiometric data by half foot increments which was originally developed by Conoco and has been verified by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report. For the mineral resource model and estimation, the data was screened. Mineralized intercepts were diluted to a minimum thickness of 2 feet. After dilution only those intercepts having minimum grade of 0.02 % eU₃O₈ and a minimum GT of 0.10 were used in the estimation. A summary of mineralization reflected in the drill holes follows.

Mineralization Thickness and Grade

Crownpoint mineralized thickness ranges from the minimum of 2 feet to over 40 feet. Average thickness of all intercepts was 7.6 feet. Average GT of all intercepts was 0.77 ft%. Grade varies from the minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈ to a maximum grade by intercept of 0.38 % eU₃O₈. However, individual half foot grades did exceed 2% eU₃O₈. Individual mineralized trends may persist for several thousand feet with trend width typically in the range from 100 up to 400 feet.

Mineralization in Section 24, T17N, R13W, occurs in all four of the major zones within the Westwater Canyon.

Mineralization in Section 19, T17N, R12W, occurs within the B, C, and D zones.

Mineralization in Section 29, T17N, R12W, occurs in all four of the major zones within the Westwater Canyon.

Figure 4 – CP Drill Hole Location Map

Hosta Butte Area

The Hosta Butte database set represents down hole data from a total of 135 drill holes. Of those 135 drill holes 42 were barren and 93 of the drill holes contained mineralization meeting cutoff criteria as described for the Crownpoint area. Within the 93 mineralized drill holes, 155 individual intercepts were present.

Mineralization Thickness and Grade

Hosta Butte mineralized thickness ranges from the minimum of 2 feet to over 33 feet. Average thickness of all intercepts was 7.4 feet. Average GT of all intercepts was 0.83 ft%. Grade varies from the minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈ to a maximum grade by intercept of 0.52 % eU₃O₈. However, individual half foot grades did exceed 2% eU₃O₈. Individual mineralized trends may persist for 2,000 thousand feet or more along trend with a width typically in the range of 100 to 300 feet.

Mineralization in Section 3, T16N, R13W, occurs in the B, C, and D zones within the Westwater Canyon.

Additional Areas of Mineralization - Hosta Butte Sections 9 and 11, T16N, R13W

Drilling on Sections 9 and 11 demonstrate the presence of uranium mineralization, but these areas are not yet adequately defined to support a CIM compliant mineral resource estimate. However, drill data from these sections do demonstrate that the host formation, the Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison Formation, is present and gamma anomalies are present in both sections. Of the 14 holes for which data is available for Section 9, T16N, R13W, 6 have anomalous mineralization in some cases up to 10 feet thick, however, the highest grade encountered was 0.029 % eU₃O₈.

On Section 11, T16N, R13W, data is available from 31 drill holes that shows:

Deposit Types

Mineral deposits within the project area have been described in the literature as re-distributed uranium mineralization, secondary, and roll-type uranium mineralization. (McLemore, 2010). Mineralization is discordant, asymmetrical, and irregularly shaped and is typically elongated parallel to depositional features. Varying rates of ground water flow controlled by sedimentary facies changes in each stratigraphic zone in the Westwater Canyon produced staked mineralized zones near one another, but not necessarily vertically above or below one another (Peterson, 1980). Mineralization may be found as irregular pods or as the classic c-shaped roll-fronts as depicted in the following figure.

Figure 4 – Typical Roll Front (From McLemore, 2010)

Referring to Figure 4 (McLemore and Chenoweth, 1991), oxidation and reduction zones are shown for the project area in general and the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte areas specifically. In the intervening area between the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte mineralization the host formation is oxidized. The Crownpoint and Hosta Butte mineralization occurs along separate redox fronts which are sub-parallel to one another and trending generally from southeast to northwest.

Permitting and Licensing

The Atomic Energy Act and Licensing

The NRC is the primary regulatory authority over uranium recovery operations throughout the State of New Mexico, including ISR operations. In 1954, Congress, through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (“AEA”), empowered the Atomic Energy Commission (“AEC”), now NRC, to regulate AEA materials (i.e., source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials). Under its AEA authority, the AEC/NRC promulgated 10 C.F.R. Part 40 and, later, Appendix A to Part 40 to implement a regulatory program for uranium recovery operations. At the time of Appendix A’s issuance, conventional mining techniques (underground and open pit) were assumed to be the primary source of uranium production in the United States, and Appendix A was written to reflect that assumption. As ISR techniques have become the prevalent form of uranium recovery in the United States, the NRC has applied relevant portions of Appendix A to ISR licensing as “relevant and appropriate”. ISR uranium recovery licensees also are required to comply with relevant 10 C.F.R. Part 20 radiation protection standards.

Portions of the Project are included within NuFuels’ Source Materials License SUA-1580 for the in-situ recovery (ISR) of uranium which was issued by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in January 1988. The portion of the Crownpoint Project that is within the SUA-1580 license area includes Crownpoint: all the Section 24, T17N, R13W; all of the Section 29, T17N, R13W; and the SW1/4 of the Section 19, T17N, R13W mineral holdings. Both ISR operations and a central processing facility are licensed at the Crownpoint location. None of the Hosta Butte mineral holdings are within the SUA-1580 license area. If enCore were to operate any form of uranium recovery facility, they would be required to obtain a Source Materials License from the NRC and an aquifer exemption.

As part of the NRC licensing process, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), (NUREG -1580, 1997) was completed that included the Crownpoint area. The NuFuels’ license area is located on private lands, federal mining claims, Allotted and surface Trust land, so both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were cooperating agencies with respect to the Crownpoint EIS.

The license and EIS were litigated through courts ending in the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the license. Ultimately the opponents petitioned the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the opponents' petition to review the March 2010, 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. This upheld HRI’s (i.e., NuFuels’) NRC license to conduct ISR uranium mining at the Churchrock/Crownpoint project on November 15, 2010.

Safe Drinking Water Act UIC Permits and Aquifer Exemptions

Underground injection is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 146.3 as “the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled or driven well ....”. Thus, all ISR uranium recovery injection well activities are included. To assure ground water protection, a federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program was established under the authority and standards of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. This federal program establishes minimum requirements for effective state UIC Programs.

To avoid the burden of dual federal and state (or Indian tribal) regulation, the SDWA allows for the permits issued by the UIC regulatory programs of states and Indian tribes determined eligible for treatment as states to suffice in place of a UIC permit required under the SDWA. States that USEPA has determined to have regulations, laws, and resources in place that meet the federal requirements are referred to as Primacy States. These Primacy States are authorized to run the UIC Program and a UIC permit from a state with primacy suffices in lieu of an EPA-issued permit on the condition the EPA grants, upon request by the permitting state, an aquifer exemption modifying the permitting state’s UIC program. New Mexico has been granted primacy for their UIC program and NMED has jurisdiction under the New Mexico Water Quality Act to regulate UIC activities.

The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) administers the EPA approved state UIC program and there the UIC permit is also referred to as a Discharge Plan (DP). The DP assures site-specific compliance with the Ground and Surface Water Quality Regulations. Section 24, T17N, R13W is private land and would require a DP from the NMED.

The Navajo Nation claims regulatory jurisdiction over a significant portion of the Company’s property. The Navajo Nation has been determined eligible for treatment as a state but has not submitted a UIC Class III program for EPA approval. As such, an operator would need to submit a UIC permit application directly to EPA. Despite procedural differences, the substantive requirements of the EPA UIC permit review is very similar to the NM ED. All properties in the Project excluding Crownpoint Section 24, T17N, R13W would require EPA UIC permits.

A USDW is defined as an aquifer, or portion thereof, which serves as a source of drinking water for human consumption or contains enough water to supply a public water system. A USDW also is defined to contain fewer than 10,000 mg/liter of total dissolved solids. Within this definition, however, some aquifers or portions of aquifers, which can meet the broad regulatory definition of a USDW, may not reasonably be expected to serve as a current or future source of drinking water. As a result, the UIC program regulations allow EPA to exempt mineralized portions of an aquifer from delineation as a USDW and allow for injection into such aquifers or portions thereof.

The USEPA must approve an Agreement States application for aquifer exemption designation for each mine site before any ISR recovery can occur. If a permittee wishes to inject into a USDW for the purpose of recovering minerals (e.g., uranium), a demonstration must be made that the proposed aquifer meets the exemption criteria of 40 C.F.R. 146.4. All properties within the Project would require an Aquifer Exemption from the USEPA.

Before their NRC-licensed ISR uranium recovery operations can commence at any site, a licensee must have obtained a UIC permit and an aquifer exemption for the aquifer or portion of the aquifer wherein ISR mining operations will occur. No UIC permits or Aquifer Exemptions have currently been issued for the Project.

Underground injection is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 146.3 as “the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled or driven well ....”. Thus, all ISR uranium recovery injection well activities are included. To assure ground water protection, a federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program was established under the authority and standards of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. This federal program establishes minimum requirements for effective state UIC Programs.

To avoid the burden of dual federal and state (or Indian tribal) regulation, the SDWA allows for the permits issued by the UIC regulatory programs of states and Indian tribes determined eligible for treatment as states to suffice in place of a UIC permit required under the SDWA. States that USEPA has determined to have regulations, laws, and resources in place that meet the federal requirements are referred to as Primacy States. These Primacy States are authorized to run the UIC Program and a UIC permit from a state with primacy suffices in lieu of an EPA-issued permit on the condition the EPA grants, upon request by the permitting state, an aquifer exemption modifying the permitting state’s UIC program. New Mexico has been granted primacy for their UIC program and NMED has jurisdiction under the New Mexico Water Quality Act to regulate UIC activities.

The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) administers the EPA approved state UIC program and there the UIC permit is also referred to as a Discharge Plan (DP). The DP assures site-specific compliance with the Ground and Surface Water Quality Regulations. Section 24, T17N, R13W is private land and would require a DP from the NMED.

The Navajo Nation claims regulatory jurisdiction over a significant portion of enCore’s property. The Navajo Nation has been determined eligible for treatment as a state but has not submitted a UIC Class III program for EPA approval. As such, an operator would need to submit a UIC permit application directly to EPA. Despite procedural differences, the substantive requirements of the EPA UIC permit review is very similar the NM ED. All properties in the Crownpoint Project excluding Crownpoint Section 24, T17N, R13W would require EPA UIC permits.

A USDW is defined as an aquifer, or portion thereof, which serves as a source of drinking water for human consumption or contains enough water to supply a public water system. A USDW also is defined to contain fewer than 10,000 mg/liter of total dissolved solids. Within this definition, however, some aquifers or portions of aquifers, which can meet the broad regulatory definition of a USDW, may not reasonably be expected to serve as a current or future source of drinking water. As a result, the UIC program regulations allow EPA to exempt mineralized portions of an aquifer from delineation as a USDW and allow for injection into such aquifers or portions thereof.

The USEPA must approve an Agreement States application for aquifer exemption designation for each mine site before any ISR recovery can occur. If a permittee wishes to inject into a USDW for the purpose of recovering minerals (e.g., uranium), a demonstration must be made that the proposed aquifer meets the exemption criteria of 40 C.F.R. 146.4. All properties within in the Crownpoint Project would require an Aquifer Exemption from the USEPA.

Before their NRC-licensed ISR uranium recovery operations can commence at any site, a licensee must have obtained a UIC permit and an aquifer exemption for the aquifer or portion of the aquifer wherein ISR mining operations will occur. No UIC permits or Aquifer Exemptions have currently been issued for the Crownpoint Project.

Clean Air Act

The New Mexico Environment Department, under the federal Clean Air Act and delegation from EPA, has a permit required from the Air Quality Bureau (AQB). The AQB has authority over air quality in all New Mexico except facilities on Tribal Lands. ISR facilities do not have the potential to create large amounts of fugitive dust or the emission of hazardous air pollutants. However, prior to construction a notice of intent would need to be filed with the Air Quality Bureau for review to assure that a permit is not required. Similar air quality permit requirements would be required by the Navajo Nation for all areas within the Crownpoint Project excluding Section 24, T17N, R13W.

Surface Rights

Much of the surface and mineral estates are separate at both the Hosta Butte and Crownpoint properties of the Project. Excluding Crownpoint Section 24, T17N, R13W, the surface at the Project is owned by the U.S. government in trust for the Navajo Nation. Access and surface use for trust land will require a permit from the BIA as provided for in 25 CFR Part 169 of their regulations. Being a federal government action, like the NRC licensing process, the BIA permitting process would be subject to NEPA.

Water Rights

Under New Mexico law, new water rights are initiated, or existing water rights are changed in point of diversion, or in purpose or place of use, under the administrative authority of the Office of the State Engineer (“OSE”). Water rights for the purpose of conducting ISR operations have been granted to NuFuels for the Section 24, T17N, R13W portion of the Crownpoint area. OSE water rights are not required for all other properties within the Crownpoint Project.

Exploration

To the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, no relevant exploration work has been conducted on the property in recent years. In the Crownpoint Project area uranium mineralization is at depths more than 1,500 feet from the surface. The deposition of mineralization is stratigraphically and geochemically controlled. These depositional characteristics are not easily discoverable at depth by other exploration techniques other than drilling.

The Company has not completed any added drilling or other form of exploration on the Crownpoint Project.

Drilling

No Drilling has been conducted on the Crownpoint Project by the Company or on its behalf.

Data available for the preparation of this report included historic data developed by previous owners of the property, predominantly Conoco Minerals Corp. in the 1970’s. This data was verified by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report and is considered reliable for the purposes of estimating mineral resources.

Drilling within the Crownpoint area focused on portions of three sections 19 and 29, T17N, R12W and Section 24 T17N, R13W. Within the Crownpoint area 482 rotary drill holes and 37 core holes were completed. Refer to Figure 3.

Drilling within the Hosta Butte area also included three sections, 3, 9, and 11, T16N, R13W. However, the drilling at Hosta Butte focused primarily on Section 3 with 133 rotary holes and 2 cores holes completed. In Sections 9 and 11, T16N, R13W, 14 rotary drill holes and 32 rotary drill holes were completed, respectively.

All drill holes, rotary and core, were logged with downhole geophysical logging equipment for natural gamma, resistivity, and spontaneous self-potential (SP). It is standard practice to derive equivalent uranium values from natural gamma geophysical logs. The Department of Energy maintains standard calibration facilities for this purpose in Grand Junction, Colorado, Casper, Wyoming, and Grants, New Mexico.

Select intervals in the core holes were selected for chemical assay. Sample handling and analytical procedures employed for core samples are described in Section 11 of this report. Portions of the cores have been preserved and have been donated to the Core Research Center (CRC) of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) located at the Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado. Select cores were examined by the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report in preparation of this report, as discussed in the Technical Report.

All drilling was vertical. The formation is relatively flat lying (refer to Section 7) dipping at about 3 degrees to the north northeast. Downhole drift surveys were completed on most of the drill holes and were reviewed by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report. Generally, the drill holes tended to drift slightly to the south southwest and perpendicular to the regional dip. The maximum downhole drift observed in review of the drill data was approximately 30 feet in holes completed to approximately 2,500 feet. True depth corrections were made in the drill hole data bases for the project areas. The depth correction was on the order of 10 feet for a 2,000-foot drill hole. Given that the drilling was vertical or near vertical and with a formational dip of 3 degrees or less the thickness of mineralization as measured from the geophysical logs is below 1 percent less the true thickness and was not corrected for while estimating mineral resources.

Crownpoint Area

The Crownpoint data set is composed of a total of 482 drill holes of which 93 are barren and the remaining 389 drill holes contain mineralization above the minimum cutoff. Within the 389 mineralized drill holes, 873 individual intercepts were present. Drill hole spacing within the areas of mineral resource were a nominal average of 150 feet. The historic database, used as the primary data source, consists of eU₃O₈ radiometric data by half foot increments which was originally developed by Conoco and has been verified by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report. The dataset was screened for the mineral resource estimation. Mineralized intercepts were diluted to a minimum thickness of 2 feet. Following dilution only those intercepts having minimum grade of 0.02 % eU₃O₈ and a minimum GT of 0.10 ft% were used in the estimation. A summary of mineralization reflected in the drill holes follows.

Mineralization Thickness and Grade

Crownpoint mineralized thickness ranges from the minimum of 2 feet to over 40 feet. Average thickness of all intercepts was 7.6 feet. Average GT of all intercepts was 0.77 ft%. Grade varies from the minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈ to a maximum grade by intercept of 0.38 % eU₃O₈. However, individual half foot grades did exceed 2% eU₃O₈. Individual mineralized trends may persist for several thousand feet along trend with a width typically in the range from 100 up to 400 feet.

Hosta Butte Area

The Hosta Butte data set is composed of a total of 135 drill holes. Of those 135 drill holes 42 were barren and 93 of the drill holes contained mineralization meeting cutoff criteria as described for the Crownpoint area. Within the 93 mineralized drill holes, 155 individual intercepts were present. Drill hole spacing within the areas of mineral resource were a nominal average of 250 feet.

Mineralization Thickness and Grade

Hosta Butte mineralized thickness ranges from the minimum of 2 feet to over 33 feet. Average thickness of all intercepts was 7.4 feet. Average GT of all intercepts was 0.83 ft%. Grade varies from the minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈ to a maximum grade by intercept of 0.52 % eU₃O₈. However, individual half foot grades did exceed 2 % eU₃O₈. Individual mineralized trends may persist for 2,000 thousand feet or more along the trend having a width typically in the range of 100 to 300 feet.

Additional Areas of Mineralization - Hosta Butte Sections 9 and 11, T16N, R13W

Drilling on Sections 9 and 11 demonstrate the presence of uranium mineralization, but these areas are not yet adequately defined to support a CIM compliant mineral resource estimate. However, drill data from these sections do demonstrate that the host formation, the Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison Formation, is present and gamma anomalies are present in both sections.

Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security

The majority of the sample data available for the evaluation of resources for the Crownpoint Project is the historic geophysical log data. The original geophysical logs have been preserved and were reviewed by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report.

All drill holes, rotary and core, were logged with downhole geophysical logging equipment for natural gamma, resistivity, and spontaneous self-potential (SP). It is standard practice to derive equivalent uranium values from natural gamma geophysical logs. The Department of Energy maintains standard calibration facilities for this purpose in Grand Junction, Colorado, Casper, Wyoming, and Grants, New Mexico.

With respect to historic core handling procedures, written procedures for core handling and sample analysis were available along with the original core data records and assay sheets. The zones of interest within the recovered cores were determined by the geophysical logs and scanning of the cores with a scintillometer and then split core samples were taken for analysis. All the samples were assayed using either a Beta Gamma Scaler or an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer in-house at the mine site. Quality control of the on-site assay equipment was provided through an independent laboratory, Hazen Research, which completed fluorometric analysis of select samples including many of the higher-grade samples. Original assay sheets were available for 32 of the 39 cores holes.

Hazen Research (aka Hazen Analytical Laboratory) was then and is now a recognized laboratory of chemical analyses and metallurgical testing. They are an independent facility. The Hazen Analytical Laboratory holds certifications from various state regulatory agencies and from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to their website, Hazen maintains a large stock of standard reference materials from the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST), the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), the EPA, and other sources. These materials are used to monitor the accuracy and precision of analytical results.

The great majority of the geophysical logs for Crownpoint were completed by Conoco Minerals using company owned and operated logging units. Less than 5% of the total logs were completed by Geoscience Logging, a commercial vendor. Conoco operated Mount Sopris logging units which were very common in the industry at the time exploration and development was active at these projects. Mount Sopris is still active in the industry as of February 2022. The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, Beahm, worked for two separate major uranium producers in the 1970’s and 80’s who operated Mount Sopris equipment and is very familiar with their operation and calibration procedures. While at the site the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, Beahm, met with a former operator of the logging units and discussed Conoco’s general procedures. The procedures included field calibration check of the equipment prior to the logging of each hole is documented on the logs. Routine calibration of the units was performed at the Grants, New Mexico facility operated by the Department of Energy (DOE). Full calibration of the units was done at the more extensive DOE facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. This was done whenever major changes were made to the units (new probes, cabling etc.). K factors, deadtimes and water correction factors were recorded on all the internal calculation sheets and many of the log sheets.

In the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s opinion, the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures are reliable and adequate.

Data Verification/ Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Crownpoint

Drill cores were donated to the USGS Core Research Center (CRC) located at the Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, Colorado. The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, Beahm, visited the CRC on May 7, 2012 and reviewed the cores and selected 20 samples from core holes geographically distributed within the Project. The selected samples were sealed in plastic sample bags and labeled by hole, depth, and original sample number. A record of this information was also created. On the same day the samples taken the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report were shipped by Federal Express to Intermountain Labs (IML) in Sheridan, Wyoming for assay. PACE (aka IML) confirmed delivery with a chain of custody by noon the following day. IML is a certified laboratory according to the American Association for Laboratories Accreditation ISO/IEC 17025-2005, certification number 1971.01.

In addition to being able to examine the cores at the CRC, the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report was able to observe how the cores were preserved. Each half foot of core was sealed in plastic. The bags were labeled for each sample with hole number and depth and stored in core boxes each containing approximately 10 feet of core. The core boxes were also labeled as to hole number and depth. Lost core intervals were marked with wooden blocks which recorded the lost interval. In many of the mineralized zones the bulk of the core was consumed by metallurgical testing. For these portions of the core, approximately 100 grams of prepared sample was preserved in a re-sealable envelope. The envelopes were labeled with hole number and sample number. All sample numbers were unique.

Note that the availability of cores at the CRC can be searched on their website (https://www.usgs.gov/core-research-center). When doing this the core intervals which contained the mineralized zones are not listed. Special permission is needed to examine the cores in their “Hot Room” and access to this portion of the cores required knowledge of the specific zones of interest and the respective hole and core box number.

To independently verify the historic electronic database, a sampling of the geophysical logs, including all the core holes, was interpolated using the half amplitude method (Dodd, 1967). The tabulation and correlation shows the comparisons for 37 drill holes containing 104 mineralized intercepts. The correlation includes application of the appropriate K Factor, deadtime, and water factor. The results are predictable in that the half amplitude method more precisely defines the bed boundaries resulting in a lessor interpolated mineralized thickness than the computer routines. Both methods typically yield similar grade thickness (GT) and thus the half amplitude method has a slightly higher grade than the computer routine. The results for Crownpoint are that the independent analog interpretation yielded a total GT within 3% of the computer database. It is the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s conclusion that use of the database will result in an estimation of mineral resources with essentially the same mineral content but with higher tonnage and lower average grade than would be obtained if all data was interpolated form the original logs.

The authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report conclude that the electronic drill hole database available for the Crownpoint portion of the Project is reliable for the purpose of estimating mineral resources.

Hosta Butte

The majority of the geophysical logs for Hosta Butte were completed by Conoco Minerals using company owned and operated logging units. A limited number of logs were completed by Geoscience Logging, a commercial vendor, but they represent less than 5% of the total logs. Conoco operated Mount Sopris logging units which were very common in the industry at the time exploration and development was active at these projects. Mount Sopris is still active in the industry as of January 2022. The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, Beahm, worked for two separate major uranium producers in the 1970’s and 80’s who operated Mount Sopris equipment and is very familiar with their operation and calibration procedures. While at the site the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report met with a former operator of the logging units and discussed Conoco’s general procedures. The procedures included: 1) field calibration check of the equipment prior to the logging of each hole as documented on the logs, 2) routine calibration of the units at the Grants, New Mexico facility operated by the Department of Energy (DOE), and 3) full calibration of the units at the more extensive DOE facility in Grand Junction, Colorado whenever major changes were made to the units (new probes, cabling etc.). K factors, deadtimes, and water factors were recorded on all the internal calculation sheets and on many of the log sheets.

To independently verify the historic electronic database, a sampling of the geophysical logs, including all the core holes, were interpolated using the half amplitude method (Dodd, 1967). The tabulation and correlation shows the comparisons for 20 drill holes containing 27 mineralized intercepts. The results are predictable in that the half amplitude method more precisely defines the bed boundaries resulting in a lessor interpolated mineralized thickness than the computer routines. Both methods typically yield similar grade thickness (GT) and thus the half amplitude method has a slightly higher grade than the computer routine. Initially the comparison was made using the appropriate corrections for K Factor, deadtime, and water factor. The initial results showed that the water factor had not been applied to the database. When the water factor was applied, the results for Hosta Butte show that the independent analog interpretation yielded a total GT within 1% of the computer database. It is the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s conclusion that use of the database should be adjusted for the appropriate water factor (1.12). With this correction, the estimation of mineral resources—with essentially the same mineral content—yields an increase to the total eU₃O₈ pounds and average grade.

The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report concludes that the electronic drill hole database available for the Hosta Butte portion of the Project is reliable for the purposes of estimating mineral resources.

Core Assays

Historic written procedures for core handling and sample analysis were available with the core data records. The cores were split through the zones of interest determined by the geophysical logs and scanning of the cores with a scintillometer. All the samples were assayed using either a Beta Gamma Scaler or an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer at the mine site. Quality control of the on-site assay equipment was provided through an independent laboratory, Hazen Research, which completed fluorometric analysis of select samples including many of the higher-grade samples. Original assay sheets were available for 32 of the 35 cores holes. Samples from rotary drilling were collected for the sole purpose of visual lithological logging. Such samples are not suitable for assaying.

The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, Beahm, visited the CRC on May 7, 2012, and reviewed the cores and selected 20 samples from core holes geographically distributed within the Crownpoint Project. The selected samples were sealed in plastic sample bags and labeled by hole, depth, and original sample number and sent to a certified lab, IML Sheridan, Wyoming, for analysis. Confirmatory results show higher assay values than the historic results. The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report concluded that while the confirmatory data would support a positive adjustment in estimated grade of uranium. However, the use of the historic core assay data is recommended as a conservative, reasonable, and reliable for the purposes of estimating mineral resources for the Crownpoint Project.

Density

In the experience of the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, bulk unit weights in sandstone hosted uranium deposits in the Colorado Plateau typically range from 14 cubic feet per ton to 17 cubic feet per ton. In 2012, a bulk unit weight of 16 cubic feet per ton or 2.439 tons per cubic meter was assumed for mineral resource calculations of the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte Uranium Project. This assumption was thought to be conservative and was based on data from feasibility studies prepared by previous operators of the Crownpoint Project but was not independently confirmed other than to review the density data available from the core drilling.

A unit weight of 15 cubic feet per ton, or 2.286 tons per cubic meter, was used in 2018 by Laramide Resources Ltd. to evaluate the adjacent Crownpoint Uranium Project (Mathisen 2018). The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report has reviewed the November 2018 technical report by Laramide and concurs that a unit density of 15 cubic feet per ton is a reasonable value for resource calculations of this Project. The unit is well supported in the adjacent property and is reasonable based past mining experience with similar sandstone hosted uranium deposits. As such, 15 cubic feet per ton or 2.287 tons per cubic meter was used in the calculation of the resources for the Technical Report.

Summary

The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report has reviewed the historic procedures followed by the previous operator of the project, Conoco Minerals, including procedures for rotary and core drilling, geophysical logging and log interpretation, sampling, and assays. In addition, the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report has reviewed and verified the work product that was developed for the project including the original geophysical and lithologic logs, sampling records, and original core assay records. It is the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s opinion that the procedures, practices, and analytical equipment utilized and/or employed on the Crownpoint Project were consistent with the general industry standards and practices at that time. The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report further concluded that the data utilized in the Technical Report is accurate and reliable for the purposes of the Technical Report.

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report has reviewed the historical metallurgical testing and the location of the core holes in the Crownpoint portion of the project and can conclude that the core holes were located such as to reflect the geographical distribution of the mineralization and adequately represent the deposit.

Acid Leach

Metallurgical test results are only available for the Crownpoint portion of the project. The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report is not aware of metallurgical test results for the Hosta Butte portion of the project.

The metallurgical testing of Crownpoint was performed by Hazen Research of Golden, Colorado. In the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s opinion, Hazen Research is a reputable firm who was then and is still recognized as one of the premier metallurgical research and testing facilities in the US. Leaching was tested under a variety of conditions primarily with sulfuric acid as the leaching agent. Residual or non-soluble uranium in the test sample assays for 16 separate tests ranged from 0.0007 to 0.024 % U₃O₈ resulting in recoveries ranging from as high as 99.6 % to a low of 87.6%. The testing concluded that the mineralized material is very amenable to acid leaching and estimated that recoveries would exceed 96%. The reports did not identify any deleterious elements or constituents that could have a material effect on the economic extraction of uranium by acid leaching. Sulfuric acid consumption was relatively low at approximately 65 pounds per ton.

All data with respect to metallurgical testing is of a historic nature and/or may be implied by results from adjacent properties and cannot be directly verified by the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report. However, the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report is familiar with the testing procedures followed and with the independent facilities that completed the testing. As such, the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report concludes that the data is reliable for the purposes of this report.

Alkaline Leach

The viability of alkaline ISR recovery was evaluated by Mobil Exploration and Production Corp. through several tests and a pilot plant located about 3.8 miles northwest of the Company’s Sec 24 T17N R13W portion of its Crownpoint uranium deposit (Vogt, 1984). Following the detailed laboratory testing the pilot plant was successful in producing uranium at a rate that compares favorably with similar current ISL projects. The results of the pilot project demonstrated that the Westwater sandstone hosted uranium mineralization are amenable to alkaline leach chemistry for uranium recovery.

As part of its 1990-1991 ISR-mine permitting work, URI, the parent company of URI, Inc., conducted core drilling across the SE ¼ of Section 24 property. Drill core was studied to determine physical characteristics of the rock, as well as demonstrate the amenability of the mineralized sandstone to ISR of uranium and to determine leach chemistry and expected recovery rates. Testing was also completed to demonstrate that the groundwater could be restored to pre- mining conditions.

Tests were conducted on one cored hole, DH-24-CP8 (4.71/99.45) recovered from the mineralized Jmw-B sand from the Westwater Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation. Core tests were performed by Hazen Research Inc. of Golden, Colorado, to predict which ions and trace elements would be elevated during recovery operations. Two column leach tests were performed on core from CP-8 by URI’s laboratory in Kingsville, Texas: one at a rate simulating actual leachate flow rates and the other at an accelerated leachate flow rate; and the analytical work was performed by Jordan Laboratories of Corpus Christi, Texas. Water utilized in the leach tests was recovered from aquifers containing uranium mineralization.

Results of the core and leach studies indicate that the Crownpoint deposits are amenable to ISR techniques utilizing the local groundwater fortified with oxygen, sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃), and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) leach solutions. (Mathisen, 2018)

At the conclusion of the leaching phase, a restoration test was undertaken. A simulated reverse osmosis test was completed and showed that common ions, including HCO₃, Cl and Ca, as well as conductivity, were readily restored to baseline drinking water standards.

Moreover, results of the core and leach studies indicate that the Crownpoint deposits are amenable to ISR techniques utilizing the local groundwater fortified with oxygen, sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃), and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) leach solutions.

The data and test results of URI’s alkaline leach testing are of a historic nature and have not been inspected or verified by the Company or the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report of this technical report. The reader should be cautious as there are no assurances the results of the testing will provide for economic recovery of uranium from the Company’s Crownpoint property. However, these results do affirm the conclusions of the pilot ISR project operated by Mobil Exploration and Production in Section 9 (Vogt, 1984).

Mineral Resource Estimates

The mineral resource estimation by geological interpretation methodology described herein have been employed by the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report for similar projects within sandstone hosted uranium mineralization, while working at operating mines with similarly hosted uranium mineralization. The primary method utilized in estimating uranium mineral resources is the GT contour method which is the CIM method recommended for sandstone hosted deposits such as those within the Project.

The Crownpoint Project is within a well-known mining district. The previous owner had sunk underground shafts and was prepared to start operations in the 1980’s when the commodity price fell sharply. Currently, portions of the Crownpoint Project are within NuFuels’ licensed area for ISR. Although some local opposition is expected, the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report is not aware of any factors including environmental, permitting, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other factors which would materially affect the mineral resource estimate, herein.

The estimate of mineral resources includes the Crownpoint area located in portions of Sections 24, Township 17 North, Range 13 West; Sections 19 and 29, Township 17 North, Range 12 West; and the Hosta Butte area Sections, 3, 9, and 11, Township 16 North, Range 13 West. For the Hosta Butte area mineral resources are calculated only for Section 3. Drilling on Sections 9 and 11 demonstrate the presence of uranium mineralization but these areas are not yet adequately defined to support a CIM compliant mineral resource estimate.

Mineral Resource Summary

The mineral resource calculations presented herein have been completed in accordance with CIM Standards and SK 1300 regulations. Based on the drilling density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic correlation and modeling of the deposit, the mineral resource estimate herein meets CIM criteria as an Indicated Mineral Resource. This tabulation shows the total Indicated Mineral Resource and the portion thereof controlled by the Company, i.e., 100% of Hosta Butte and Crownpoint Sections 19 and 29, and 60% of Crownpoint SE ¼ of Section 24. The quantity of Indicated Mineral Resource at a 0.02% eU3O8 grade cutoff and 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 ft% GT cutoffs is provided in Table 14.3 to illustrate the effect of varying cutoffs. The Indicated Mineral Resource estimate at a 0.02% eU3O8 grade cutoff and variable GT cutoffs, 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 ft% GT, is provided in Table 14.3, to illustrate the sensitivity of GT cutoff on the estimate. Although each GT cutoff scenario has reasonable prospects of economic extraction the 0.50 ft% GT cutoff for the Indicated Mineral Resource is recommended by the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report, based upon typical US ISR industry practices. Estimated Indicated Mineral Resources at a 0.02% eU3O8 grade cutoff and 0.50 ft% GT are summarized in Table 2. A discussion of individual resource areas follows. For the summary, only the preferred cutoff criteria is shown.

Table 2 – Total Indicated Mineral Resources

*GT cutoff: Minimum Grade (% eU₃O₈) x Thickness (Feet) for Grade > 0.02 % eU₃O₈.

Notes:

1. S-K 1300, NI 43-101, and CIM definitions were followed for definition of Mineral Resources.

2. In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at minimum GT cut-off of 0.50.

3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$83 per pound.

4. Bulk density is 15 ft³/ton.

5. Metallurgical Recovery 80%.

6. Estimated grades are based on ISR recovery.

7. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

10. Mineral Resource estimate prepared by Carl Warren with an effective date of February 25, 2025.

11. To the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, there are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources, other than the noted potential for local opposition.

In addition to the above Indicated Mineral Resource, Inferred Mineral Resources may be projected, primarily as extensions of the Indicated Mineral Resource, along the geologic trends of the mineralization. By CIM definition, Inferred Mineral Resources are the part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade, or quality can be calculated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. Based on the drill density, the apparent continuity of the mineralization along trends, geologic correlation and modeling of the deposit, the following Mineral Resource calculation meets CIM criteria as an Inferred Mineral Resource. The quantity of Inferred Mineral Resource is projected at a 0.02% eU₃O₈ grade cutoff and estimated at 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 ft% GT cutoffs using the sensitivity analyses of the indicated portions of the resource. A summary of total Inferred Mineral Resource for the preferred scenario is provided in Table 3. This tabulation shows the total Inferred Mineral Resource and the portion thereof controlled by the Company, i.e., 100% of Hosta Butte and Crownpoint Sections 19 and 29, and 60% of Crownpoint SE ¼ of Section 24. A discussion of individual resource areas follows. The Inferred Mineral Resource tabulation was completed at a grade cutoff of .02 % eU₃O₈ and a GT cutoff of 0.50 ft%. The authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report expect that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with additional drilling, however, it is not certain that additional exploration will result in discovery of an economic mineral resource on the property and/or demonstrate the continuity of mineralization within the areas of inferred mineral resources necessary for these areas to be classified as indicated mineral resources.

Table 3 – Total Inferred Mineral Resources

*GT cutoff: Minimum Grade (% eU₃O₈) x Thickness (Feet) for Grade > 0.02 % eU₃O₈.

Notes:

1. S-K 1300, NI 43-101, and CIM definitions were followed for definition of Mineral Resources.

2. In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at minimum GT cut-off of 0.50.

3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$83 per pound.

4. Bulk density is 15 ft³/ton.

5. Metallurgical Recovery 80%.

6. Estimated grades are based on ISR recovery.

7. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

10. Mineral Resource estimate prepared by Carl Warren with an effective date of February 25, 2025.

11. To the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, there are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources, other than the noted potential for local opposition.

Crownpoint Area

Mineral resources were calculated by stratigraphic horizon referred in this report as zones, based on geologic interpretation and correlation. These resources are reported at various cutoff grades for Indicated Mineral Resources, to illustrate the effect of varying cutoffs on the mineral resource. The preferred cutoff of 0.50 ft% GT is shaded in each table. The Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource quantities for the Crownpoint Area of the Crownpoint Project are presented in Tables 4 and 5 for Total Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources, respectively. Which is inclusive of the 40% undivided interest in Crownpoint SE ¼ of Section 24 that is not controlled by the Company.

Table 4 – Indicated Mineral Resources Crownpoint Area

Notes:

1. S-K 1300, NI 43-101, and CIM definitions were followed for definition of Mineral Resources.

2. In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at minimum GT cut-off of 0.50.

3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$83 per pound.

4. Bulk density is 15 ft³/ton.

5. Metallurgical Recovery 80%.

6. Estimated grades are based on ISR recovery.

7. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

10. Mineral Resource estimate prepared by Carl Warren with an effective date of February 25, 2025.

11. To the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, there are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources, other than the noted potential for local opposition.

Table 5 – Inferred Mineral Resources Crownpoint Area

Notes:

1. S-K 1300, NI 43-101, and CIM definitions were followed for definition of Mineral Resources.

2. In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at minimum GT cut-off of 0.50.

3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$83 per pound.

4. Bulk density is 15 ft³/ton.

5. Metallurgical Recovery 80%.

6. Estimated grades are based on ISR recovery.

7. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

10. Mineral Resource estimate prepared by Carl Warren with an effective date of February 25, 2025.

11. To the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, there are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources, other than the noted potential for local opposition.

Hosta Butte Area

Mineral resources were calculated by zone or horizon, based on geologic interpretation and correlation. Mineral resources are reported at various cutoff grades for Indicated Mineral Resources, to illustrate the effect of varying cutoff on the mineral resource. The preferred cutoff of 0.50 ft% GT is shaded in the respective tables. The Inferred and Indicated Mineral Resources tabulated for the Hosta Butte Area of the Project are presented in Tables 6 and 7 for Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources, respectively. These Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource quantities are the subject of the independent “Mineral Resource Audit – Crownpoint and Hosta Butte Uranium Project, McKinley County, New Mexico, USA” dated January 17, 2022. Inferred Mineral Resources are reported only at the 0.10 ft% GT cutoff.

Table 6 – Indicated Mineral Resources Hosta Butte Area

Notes:

1. S-K 1300, NI 43-101, and CIM definitions were followed for definition of Mineral Resources.

2. In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at minimum GT cut-off of 0.50.

3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$83 per pound.

4. Bulk density is 15 ft³/ton.

5. Metallurgical Recovery 80%.

6. Estimated grades are based on ISR recovery.

7. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

10. Mineral Resource estimate prepared by Carl Warren with an effective date of February 25, 2025.

11. To the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, there are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources, other than the noted potential for local opposition.

Table 7 – Inferred Mineral Resources Hosta Butte Area

Notes:

1. S-K 1300, NI 43-101, and CIM definitions were followed for definition of Mineral Resources.

2. In Situ Mineral Resource are estimated at minimum GT cut-off of 0.50.

3. Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$83 per pound.

4. Bulk density is 15 ft³/ton.

5. Metallurgical Recovery 80%.

6. Estimated grades are based on ISR recovery.

7. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Pounds and tons as reported are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

10. Mineral Resource estimate prepared by Carl Warren with an effective date of February 25, 2025.

11. To the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s knowledge, there are no known legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of the mineral resources, other than the noted potential for local opposition.

Resource Estimation Methods

Geologic Model

Geologic interpretation of the mineralized host sands was used, along with the intercepts that met the minimum cutoff grade and thickness, to develop a geologic framework or model within which to quantify the mineral resources at the Project. Each intercept was evaluated based on its geophysical log expression and location relative to adjacent intercepts. Whenever possible, geophysical logs were used to correlate and project intercepts between drill holes. The mineralized envelope was created by using the top and bottom of each intercept that was within the geologic host sands. The intercepts that were used to make this envelope were then used in the resource model via inverse distance squared GT contour method.

Drill spacing within the Crownpoint Project is not uniform. Drill spacing in the Crownpoint Area was completed roughly on 200-foot centers with the nominal average spacing between drill holes in the resource areas at approximately 150 feet. Drill spacing at Hosta Butte area varies from roughly 200-foot centers to over 400-foot centers, with the nominal average drill spacing within the mineral resource areas at approximately 250 feet. Drilling depths at Crownpoint are typically in the range of 2,000 feet. Drilling depths at Hosta Butte is deeper at approximately 2,400 feet on average.

The current geologic and resource model reflects 4 major sand zones over the stratigraphic thickness of approximately 360 feet of the Westwater Canyon. The Westwater Canyon is roughly divided by the CP shale with the B zone immediately above the shale and the C zone immediately below the shale. The A and D zones are the upper and lower most sands of the Westwater Canyon, respectively. Within the Crownpoint Area all four zones are mineralized with the B and D zones being the most prolific and the A zone being the weakest. At Hosta Butte there was not sufficient mineralization in the A zone to support a mineral resource calculation. The D zone was the most strongly mineralized followed by the C and B zones.

Once the data was separated by zone an initial radius influence of 100 feet was applied to each drill hole to establish an initial geologic limit to the projection of mineralization. Refinement of the geologic limit and projection of mineralization along trend was then based on specific correlation and interpretation of geophysical logs on a hole-by-hole basis. The 100-foot radius was determined by correlating geophysical logs across or perpendicular to the observed mineralized trend. Mineralization is clearly anisotropic and can be projected greater distances along trend. For the classification of Indicated Mineral Resource the projection of mineralization along trend was limited to 300 feet. For Inferred Mineral Resources the maximum projection along trend was double to 600 feet.

GT Contour Method

The Indicated Mineral Resource model was completed using the inverse distance squared GT (Grade x Thickness) Contour Modeling Method for each of individual mineralized zones of the deposit. The Contour Modeling Method, also known as the Grade x Thickness (GT) method, is a well-established approach for estimating uranium resources and has been in use since the 1950’s in the US. The technique is most useful in estimating tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies where lateral extent of the mineralized body is much greater than its thickness, as was observed with the data at Crownpoint and Hosta Butte.

For tabular and roll front style deposits the GT method provides a clear illustration of the distribution of the thickness and average grade of uranium mineralization. The GT method is particularly applicable to the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte deposits as it can be effective in reducing the undue influence of high-grade or thick intersections as well as the effects of widely spaced, irregularly spaced, or clustered drill holes. This method also makes it possible for the geologist to fit the contour pattern to the geologic interpretation of the deposit.

For each zone within the Crownpoint and Hosta Butte areas of the project, limits of mineralization were determined by interpretation of the drill data. Within these limits the GT and T (Grade x Thickness and Thickness) were contoured. Although an automated contouring program was used to produce the model surface itself, 3-dimensional (3D) limits were established where appropriate to constrain the model. For example, drill holes with GT values several times the average were limited in their influence by manually constructing a set of break lines in the model. The volume of the 3D model is then calculated using CAD program software. To that volume, a bulk unit weight of 15 cubic feet per ton is applied to calculate the pounds of eU₃O₈. Similarly, the tons are of mineralization are calculated using the same methodology for constructing a 3D model of mineral Thickness (T) within the same area. Grade is then calculated by dividing GT model eU₃O₈ pounds by T model calculated mineralized tons.

The GT contour method is used as common practice for Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource modelling for similar sandstone-hosted uranium projects (“Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves”, adopted by CIM November 23, 2003, p 51.). It is the opinion of the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report that the GT contour method, when properly constrained by geologic interpretation, provides an accurate estimation of contained pounds of uranium.

The current drill hole database consists of:

The uranium quantities and grades are reported as equivalent U₃O₈ (eU₃O₈), as measured by downhole gamma logging. The industry standard protocol for reporting uranium in sandstone hosted deposits in the US has been validated for the Crownpoint Project.

Cutoff Criteria

It is the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s opinion that the recommended minimum cutoff grade of 0.02 % U₃O₈ and a GT of 0.50 as the cutoff criteria for the estimation of the total in situ mineral resource within the Crownpoint Project is consistent with average cutoff grades used for US based ISR properties that use alkaline leach recovery chemistry. This is the mining method that is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for NuFuels’ adjacent Crownpoint ISR Project. Additionally, Mobil Exploration and Production Corp. conducted an ISR pilot test on Section 9, nearby to the Company’s properties covered in the Report (Vogt, 1984). The outcomes of the pilot project demonstrated the amenability of the Westwater Morrison formation hosted uranium mineralization bodies to ISR uranium recovery using alkaline based leach chemistry.

Commodity Price and Operating Costs

Uranium does not trade on an open market like other commodities. Buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. The following is from the Cameco’s web site. Cameco is among the world leaders in uranium production. (https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price)

Cameco calculates industry average prices from the month-end prices published price by UxC and Trade Tech and publishes these prices on their web site. Cameco states a current (September 2025) long term price of $83.00. The authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report have also reviewed uranium prices from recently published PEA and PFS studies for uranium projects and found that commodity prices in excess of US$83.00 were common. Examples include:

Thus, the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report conclude that the use of a long-term commodity price $83.00 per pound price is reasonable for the purposes for this IA is reasonable and that recent studies cited reference a price range of US$75 to US$86 per pound. The authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report further conclude that production costs for comparable projects are in the range of US$36.70 to US$49.00 per pound, with a median cost of approximately US$42.50 per pound. While the commodity price and the production costs are expected to vary, it is the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s opinion that use of these factors is reasonable for establishing cutoff criteria based on reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. https://laramide.com/projects/crownpoint-churchrock-uranium-project/

Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction

To assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction all areas of mineralization in excess of 0.02% eU₃O₈ was first considered and then economic cutoff criteria was applied considering ISR extraction including minimum GT and minimum pounds per pattern as follows.

This screening criterion was applied to the reported Indicated Mineral resources which is supported by drilling data. The screening criterion was indirectly applied to the Inferred Mineral Resources due to extrapolation of resource areas from the areas of higher drilling density in the Indicated Mineral Resource areas into areas of limited drilling data. This extrapolation was inherently limited to areas directly adjacent to Indicated Resource.

The calculated cut-off GT for the Crownpoint Project was based on modifying factors including metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, operating costs, and other operational constraints (Table 8). Note this calculation shows the minimum grade at the minimum GT and indicates that a lower GT cutoff could be applied. At the resultant average grade of the mineral resource, 0.13 eU₃O₈, after applying the minimum GT and pounds per pattern criteria the value @ 80% recovery and a price range of US$80 to US$85 per pound is estimated at US$167.68 to US$178.16 per pound well in excess of anticipated costs.

Table 8: Minimum GT cutoff Criteria Economic Justification

Radiometric Equilibrium

General

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay products are of two general categories the first being the sub-atomic energy generating product (i.e., the radiation) and the second being the atomic isotope. Decay product isotopes are referred to as daughters and occur down what is known as a decay chain. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U₂₃₈ for the order of a million years or more the decay chain will reach equilibrium with the parent isotope; meaning that the daughter isotopes will be decaying in the same quantity as they are being created (McKay, 2007).

An otherwise equilibrated decay system may be put into a state of disequilibrium when one or more decay products are mobilized and removed from the system because of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughter isotopes. In addition, both the primary isotope of uranium U₂₃₈ and its daughters emit different forms of radiation as they decay. The primary field instruments for the indirect measurement of uranium, either surface or down-hole probes, measure gamma radiation. Within the uranium decay the gamma emitting elements are primarily Radium₂₂₆, Bismuth₂₁₄, and Uranium with Radium₂₂₆ being the dominant source of gamma radiation.

Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated, and uranium is depleted. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU₃O₈ to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1, and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.

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

DEF Determination

Disequilibrium conditions at the Crownpoint Project were evaluated based on available data from twenty-five of the core holes which had sufficient mineralized thicknesses and grades and had sufficient core recovery to be used to determine a disequilibrium factor (DEF). The data available for the evaluation consisted of radiometric equivalent data from down hole geophysical logging and core assays which included both original geophysical logs and original chemical assay sheets. This data is of a historic nature but was verified as discussed in Section 12.

The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report developed a comparison of radiometric and core data. The results show some variation in the DEF with an overall factor of 1.05 based on linear regression analysis or 1.07 based on total GT. Note the correlation of radiometric and chemical assay values was very high with a R2 coefficient of 0.99 (a coefficient of 1 is perfect correlation).

While the data would support a positive adjustment of observed uranium grades, the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report recommends that a 1:1 factor is conservative and reasonable.

Risks

The authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report are not aware of environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors which would materially affect the mineral resource estimates, provided the conditions of all mineral leases and options, and relevant operating permits and licenses are met.

Previous permitting and licensing efforts in the Crownpoint area met with significant public resistance and lack of acceptance. This resistance could lead to permitting delays, increased legal costs, or otherwise affect the Crownpoint Project’s development timeline. Additional costs and timelines would be expected for community engagement, education, awareness and public input.

Readers are cautioned that any estimate of forward cost or commodity price is by its nature forward-looking. It would be unreasonable to rely on any such forward-looking statements and information as creating any legal rights. The statements and information are not guarantees and may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and 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 and uncertainties.

Interpretation and Conclusions

Available data used in this report has been verified and in the opinion of the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report it is reliable for the purposes of estimating mineral resources for the Crownpoint Project. This data supports the mineral resource estimation and categorization for the Crownpoint Project including an Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources. A portion of the project is jointly held by NuFuels and mineral resources in this area have accounted for the relative percentage of ownership.

The portion of the Crownpoint Project with defined Indicated Mineral Resources would support a preliminary economic assessment or preliminary feasibility study (PFS).

The technical risks related to the project are low as the mining and recovery methods are proven. In the opinion of the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report, the Crownpoint Project could be developed as either ISR or conventional underground-mine operation as the economic cutoff criteria for ISR at shallow depths, under 500 feet, similar to those for conventional underground mines and the Crownpoint property contains existing underground infrastructure. It is the opinion of the authors of the Crownpoint Technical Report that the ISR method will be more straightforward to permit and offers a lower cost of production than a conventional underground. Thus, ISR is the preferred scenario.

There is a risk that the Crownpoint Project will face local resistance as was the case with previous permitting and licensing efforts. This resistance could lead to permitting delays, increased legal costs, or otherwise affect the Project’s development timeline. Additional costs and timelines would be expected for community engagement, education, awareness and public input.

The author of the Crownpoint Technical Report is not aware of any other specific risks or uncertainties that might significantly affect the mineral resource estimates. Any estimation or reference to costs and uranium prices within the context of this report over the potential life of mine are by its nature forward-looking and subject to various risks and uncertainties. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual future results may vary materially.

Recommendations

The following recommendations relate to potential improvement and/or advancement of the Crownpoint Project and fall within two categories; recommendations to potentially enhance the resource base and recommendation to advance the Crownpoint Project towards development, which may be conducted contemporaneously. It is recommended that the Company conduct a LIDAR or similar survey of both sites to identify and locate any visible hole makers, compare the locations and elevations to historical survey records, and rectify all drill hole locations to current coordinate systems.

Recommended Program to Increase Resource Base

Crownpoint

Mineralization within the Crownpoint portion of the Project is well defined by drilling. For this and other considerations discussed in this report over 90% of the mineral resources are classified as Indicated Mineral Resources. In some areas additional drilling could be recommended to possibly enhance the resource base.

Hosta Butte

For the Hosta Butte portion of the Project, drilling is sparser and as a result the mineral resources are classified as approximately 70% Indicated and 30% Inferred Mineral Resources. Referring to the GT Contour Figures included in the Technical Report for Hosta Butte, targeted drilling in the areas where Inferred Mineral Resources have been projected along the mineralized trend could enhance the resources base by elevating the resource category. In addition, specifically regarding the B Zone, in the southwest portion of Section 3, T16N, R13W, drilling is sparse 400 foot spacing or greater which is greater than the width of the B Zone trend. Drilling in this area has the potential of expanding the resource along some 1,500 to 2,000 feet in this area. In addition, a minimum of two core holes are recommended to be completed in Section 3. With one targeting the B Zone and the other the D Zone. In addition to evaluating radiometric equilibrium conditions, the cores should be tested for general engineering properties including dry density and compressive strength, porosity, and permeability, and for amenability to acid and alkaline leaching.

It is anticipated that drilling will be on the order of US$15,000 per rotary drill hole at Hosta Butte including drilling and geophysical logging costs and site supervision. Depending on the core interval lengths, core drilling would add up to US$5,000 per hole. General sample testing, assays, engineering, and metallurgical studies would cost a minimum of US$100,000. Based on a drilling program consisting of 20 rotary and 2 core holes and allowing a contingency for items such as site clearances and access the costs including testing would be on the order of US$440,000. A scoping study to assess the date recovered under this work would assess the project economics, mine plan, and regulatory approach to advance the project, and that is estimated to cost US$250,000.

Also, within the Hosta Butte area historic drilling indicates the presence of significant uranium mineralization in both the B and D Zones within Section 11, T16N, R13W. Completion of a detailed geologic investigation of for this area is recommended to determine potential targets for exploration. Specific drilling cannot be recommended until this investigation is complete. The cost of this investigation would be on the order of US$75,000. Dependent on positive recommendations from the review of the Phase 1 of work a second drilling program of the nature described for Section 11 would follow in a phased approach with an approximate cost of US$400,000.

Finally, presuming that the drilling program(s) are successful in enhancing the mineral resources the Technical Report would need to be updated.

The reader is cautioned that additional drilling may or may not enhance and/or expand the mineral resources depending upon the results of the drilling.

Recommended Programs to Advance the Project

No current preliminary economic assessment of the Project and/or feasibility study has been completed for the Project. The portions of the mineral resource base classified as Indicated Mineral Resource would support a preliminary economic assessment or preliminary feasibility study (PFS). A PFS of the project would not be dependent upon the foregoing recommendations related to the resource base as, in the author of the Crownpoint Technical Report’s opinion the resource base as defined by the Indicated Mineral Resource is adequate to support a PFS. For the PFS it is recommended that the Crownpoint area be evaluated in greater detail as the first area to be developed followed by Hosta Butte. It is further recommended that work towards a preliminary feasibility study be phased beginning with a scoping study to develop a conceptual mine plan and evaluate alternatives. These alternatives should include both ISR and conventional means of recovery. The scoping study should also define the data necessary to support the completion of a preliminary feasibility study and the determination of probable mineral reserves. Based on the results of the scoping study a preliminary feasibility study could then be completed. Finally, a Technical Report would be prepared which addresses the probable mineral reserves and all other required items.

A summary of recommended work and estimated costs follows:

Other Projects

The Company, through its subsidiaries, holds a number of other uranium properties in McKinley County, specifically the Nose Rock, West Largo, Ambrosia Lake, Treeline and Mount Taylor projects. These projects were acquired from enCore with the Crownpoint Project, and are not currently material properties of the Company.