8-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

Current Report

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): February 21, 2025

enCore Energy Corp.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

British Columbia	001-41489	N/A
(State or other jurisdiction<br> <br>of incorporation)	(Commission File Number)	(IRS Employer<br> <br>Identification No.)
101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 450,
---	---
Corpus Christi, TX	78401
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (361) 239-5449

Not Applicable

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

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

☐	Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
☐	Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
---	---
☐	Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
---	---
☐	Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
---	---

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

Title of each class:	Trading Symbol	Name of each exchange on which registered:
Common Shares, no par value	EU	The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC<br> <br>TSX Venture Exchange

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

Emerging growth company ☐

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

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On February 21, 2025, a subsidiary of enCore Energy Corp. (the “Company”) entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the Uranium Loan Agreement (the “Amendment”) with Boss Energy Limited (“Boss Energy”) which, effective February 26, 2025, amends the Uranium Loan Agreement, dated December 5, 2023, (as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated January 31, 2024, the “Agreement”) to revise the schedule of Repayment (as defined in the Agreement) of the Oustandings (as defined in the Agreement) as follows:

1.	On or before February 26, 2025, the Company must pay to Boss Energy 118,000 pounds of Outstandings at $100.54 per pound in cash, which includes 18,000 pounds of Outstandings as interest;
2.	On or before June 27, 2025, the Company must pay Boss Energy an additional 100,000 pounds of Outstandings at $100.54 per pound plus interest; and
---	---
3.	No later than March 15, 2025, Boss Energy must notify the Company of its election to be paid back in Loan Material (as defined in the Agreement), in cash, or in a combination thereof for the Outstandings due on or before June 27, 2025.
---	---

The Amendment also included updated redelivery and repayment methods.

The Company and Boss Energy are engaged in a joint venture at the Company’s Alta Mesa In-Situ Recovery Uranium Project and Central Processing Plant (the “Alta Mesa Project”) in South Texas.

Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.

On February 27, 2025, the Company issued a press release to announce that it has filed four technical report summaries (individually, a “TRS” and collectively, the “TRSs”) on EDGAR for the South Texas Integrated Properties Project in Texas (the “South Texas Project”), the Gas Hills Uranium Project in Wyoming, the Alta Mesa Project and the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project in Texas. The press release is incorporated by reference into this Current Report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1, and furnished to, and not filed with, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K.

Item 8.01. Other Events.

On February 27, 2025, the Company issued a TRS for each of: the South Texas Project, the Gas Hills Uranium Project, the Alta Mesa Uranium Project and the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project. Each of the TRSs were prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K of the Securities Act of 1933 as promulgated by the SEC. A copy of each TRS and the related qualified person consents are filed as exhibits to this Current Report on Form 8-K and are incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01.	Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits:

Exhibit	Description
23.1	Consent of Christopher McDowell, P.G.
23.2	Consent of Ray Moores, P.E.
23.3	Consent of SOLA Project Services, LLC
96.1	Technical Report Summary on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA, dated February 13, 2025 and effective as of December 31, 2024.
96.2	Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA, dated February 4, 2025 and effective as of December 31, 2024.
96.3	Technical Report Summary on the Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, dated February 19, 2025 and effective as of December 31, 2024.
96.4	Technical Report Summary Initial Assessment on the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA, dated February 19, 2025 and effective as of December 31, 2024.
99.1*	Press Release dated February 27, 2025.
104	Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document)

* This Exhibit is intended to be furnished to, and not filed with, the SEC pursuant to General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K.

SIGNATURES

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

	ENCORE ENERGY CORP.
	By:	/s/ Robert Willette
		Robert Willette
		Chief Legal Officer
Dated: February 27, 2025

EX-23.1

Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL, P.G.

I, Christopher McDowell, P.G. of Western Water Consultants Inc., dba, WWC Engineering, consent to all references to my name and any quotation from, or summarization of, and my contributions to, Sections 1-15 and 23-27 of the technical report summary entitled “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA” dated February 13, 2025 with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “South Texas Technical Report”) and the technical report summary entitled “Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA” dated February 4, 2025 with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “Gas Hills Technical Report”), prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

i)	This Current Report on Form 8-K (the<br>“8-K”) of enCore Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and
ii)	The Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-273173), and any amendments or supplements thereto.
---	---

I further consent to the filing of the South Texas Technical Report and the Gas Hills Technical Report as Exhibit 96.1 and 96.2, respectively, to the 8-K.

Date: February 27, 2025

By:	/s/ Christopher McDowell
Name:	Christopher McDowell, P.G.

EX-23.2

Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF RAY MOORES, P.E.

I, Ray Moores, P.E. of Western Water Consultants Inc., dba, WWC Engineering, consent to all references to my name and any quotation from, or summarization of, and my contributions to, Sections 16-22 and my contributions to Sections 1-5 and 24-27 of the technical report summary entitled “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA” dated February 13, 2025 with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “South Texas Technical Report”) and Sections 1-5, 16-22 and 24-27 of the technical report summary entitled “Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA” dated February 4, 2025 with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “Gas Hills Technical Report”), prepared by me, included or incorporated by reference in:

i)	This Current Report on Form 8-K (the<br>“8-K”) of enCore Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and
ii)	The Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-273173), and any amendments or supplements thereto.
---	---

I further consent to the filing of the South Texas Technical Report and the Gas Hills Technical Report as Exhibit 96.1 and Exhibit 96.2, respectively, to the Company’s 8-K.

Date: February 27, 2025

By:	/s/ Ray Moores
Name:	Ray Moores, P.E.

EX-23.3

Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF SOLA PROJECT SERVICES, LLC

We consent to the use of our name, or any quotation from, or summarization of the technical report summary entitled “S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary for the Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA” dated February 19, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024 (the “Alta Mesa Technical Report”) and the technical report summary entitled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Technical Report Summary for the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA” dated February 19, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024 (the “Mesteña Grande Technical Report”) that we prepared, included or incorporated by reference in:

i)	This Current Report on Form 8-K (the<br>“8-K”) of enCore Energy Corp. (the “Company”) being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and
ii)	The Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-273173), and any amendments or supplements thereto.
---	---

We further consent to the filing of the Alta Mesa Technical Report and the Mesteña Grande Technical Report as Exhibits 96.3 and 96.4, respectively, to the 8-K.

Date: February 27, 2025

By:	SOLA Project Services, LLC<br> <br><br><br><br>/s/ Stuart Bryan Soliz
Name:	Stuart Bryan Soliz
Title:	Partner

EX-96.1

Exhibit 96.1

This technical report titled “TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE SOUTH TEXAS INTEGRATED URANIUM PROJECTS, TEXAS, USA”, dated February 13, 2025, has been prepared under the supervision of, and signed by, the following Qualified Persons:

/s/ Christopher McDowell, P.G.
SME Registered Member, Registration No. 4311521<br><br><br>Professional Geologist, Texas No. 15284
/s/ Ray Moores, P.E.
Professional Engineer, Wyoming No. 10702
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page i
---	---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
1.1  Property Description	1
1.2  Ownership	1
1.3  Geology and Mineralization	1
1.4  Exploration Status	2
1.5  Mineral Resource Estimates	2
1.6  Economic Analysis	5
1.7  QP Conclusion and Recommendations	5
1.8  Summary of Risks	6
2.0   INTRODUCTION	7
2.1  Registrant/Issuer of Report	7
2.2  Terms of Reference	7
2.3  Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations	7
2.4  Personal Inspection	7
2.4.1  QP Qualifications	7
3.0   RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS	9
4.0   PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION	10
4.1  Location and Size	10
4.1.1  Rosita CPP	10
4.1.2  Butler Ranch	10
4.1.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area	10
4.1.4  Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area	10
4.1.5  Rosita South - Cadena	11
4.2  Permitting and Encumbrances	11
4.3  Property Risk Factors	16
4.4  Royalties (Confidential)	17
5.0   ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	18
5.1  Topography, Elevation, Vegetation and Climate	18
5.2  Accessibility and Proximity to Population Centers	19
5.2.1  Rosita CPP and Rosita South - Cadena	19
5.2.2  Butler Ranch	19
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page ii
---	---
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
---
5.2.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	19
---	---
5.2.4  Upper Spring Creek - Brown	20
5.3  Surface Rights and Property Infrastructure	20
5.3.1  Rosita CPP	20
5.3.2  Butler Ranch	20
5.3.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	21
5.3.4  Upper Spring Creek - Brown	21
5.3.5  Rosita South - Cadena	21
6.0   HISTORY	22
7.0   GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION	27
7.1  Regional Geology	27
7.1.1  South Texas Gulf Coastal Plan	27
7.1.2  Project Stratigraphy	28
7.2  Local Geology and Mineralization	31
7.2.1  Butler Ranch	31
7.2.2  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	32
7.2.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brown	36
7.2.4  Rosita South - Cadena	39
7.3  Hydrogeology	42
7.3.1  Butler Ranch	42
7.3.2  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	42
7.3.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brown	43
7.3.4  Rosita South - Cadena	43
7.4  Geotechnical Information	43
8.0   Deposit Type	44
9.0   EXPLORATION	47
9.1  Exploration Target	47
9.1.1  Butler Ranch Exploration Target	47
9.1.1.1   Exploration Target	47
9.1.1.2   Methodology	47
9.1.1.3   Exploration Target Estimate	48
10.0  Drilling	50
10.1 Drilling Programs	50
10.1.1  Butler Ranch	50
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page iii
---	---
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
---
10.1.2  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	50
---	---
10.1.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area	51
10.1.4  Rosita South - Cadena	52
11.0  SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	54
11.1 Typical and Standard Industry Methods	54
11.2 Butler Ranch	54
11.2.1  Down-hole Geophysical Logging	54
11.2.2  Coring	55
11.2.3  Drill Cuttings	55
11.2.4  Analyses and Security	55
11.2.5  Quality Control Summary	55
11.2.6  Opinion on Adequacy	55
11.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	55
11.3.1  Geophysical Logging	56
11.3.2  Core Sampling	56
11.3.3  Data Storage and Transfer	57
11.3.4  Opinion on Adequacy	57
11.4 Upper Spring Creek - Brown	57
11.4.1  Down-hole Geophysical Logging	57
11.4.2  Coring	58
11.4.3  Drill Cuttings	58
11.4.4  Analyses and Security	58
11.4.5  Quality Control Summary	59
11.4.6  Opinion on Adequacy	59
11.5 Rosita South - Cadena	59
11.6 QP’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures	60
12.0  DATA VERIFICATION	61
12.1 Butler Ranch	61
12.2 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	61
12.2.1  Review of PFN Tool Calibration and Grade Calculations	61
12.2.2  Comparison of Core and PFN Assay Results	62
12.2.3  Review of PFN Logs	62
12.2.4  Opinion on Adequacy	62
12.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brown	62
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page iv
---	---
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
---
12.3.1  Geophysical Logging and PFN Calibration	64
---	---
12.3.2  Core Assays and Disequilibrium Analysis	64
12.3.3  Opinion on Adequacy	65
12.4 Rosita South - Cadena	65
12.5 Limitations	65
12.6 QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy	65
13.0  MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	66
13.1 Summary of Project Areas	66
13.2 Butler Ranch	66
13.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	66
13.3.1  Laboratory Assay of Core Samples	66
13.3.2  Physical Analysis of Core Sample	66
13.3.3  Mineralogical Analysis	67
13.3.4  Leach Amenability Testing	67
13.4 Upper Spring Creek - Brown	68
13.5 Rosita South - Cadena	68
13.6 QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy	58
14.0  MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	69
14.1 Prospects for Economic Extraction	69
14.2 Cutoff Selection	69
14.3 Mineral Resource Assumptions, Parameters and Methods	69
14.3.1  Upper Spring Creek - Brown, and Rosita South - Cadena	69
14.3.2  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	70
14.3.2.1 Polygon Resource Estimation	70
14.3.2.2 Assumptions	71
14.3.3  Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates	71
14.3.3.1 Project Resource Classification	72
14.4 Site-by-Site<br>Summaries	73
14.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate	74
14.6 QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate	75
15.0  MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	76
16.0  MINING METHODS	77
16.1 Mine Designs and Plans	77
16.1.1  Patterns, Wellfields and Mine Units	77
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page v
---	---
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
---
16.1.2  Monitoring Wells	78
---	---
16.1.3  Wellfield Surface Piping System and Header Houses	78
16.1.4  Wellfield Production	78
16.1.5  Production Rates and Expected Mine Life	78
16.2 Mining Fleet and Machinery	78
17.0  PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS	80
17.1 Processing Facilities	80
17.2 Process Flow	80
17.2.1  Ion Exchange	80
17.2.2  Production Bleed	80
17.2.3  Elution Circuit	83
17.2.4  Precipitation Circuit	83
17.2.5  Product Filtering, Drying and Packaging	83
17.3 Water Balance	84
17.4 Liquid Waste Disposal	84
17.5 Solid Waste Disposal	84
17.6 Energy, Water and Process Material Requirements	84
17.6.1  Energy Requirements	84
17.6.2  Water Requirements	84
18.0  INFRASTRUCTURE	85
18.1 Roads	86
18.2 Laboratory Equipment	86
18.3 Electricity	90
18.4 Water	90
18.5 Holding Ponds	90
19.0  MARKET STUDIES	91
20.0  ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL<br>INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	92
20.1 Environmental Studies	92
20.1.1  Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species	92
20.1.2  Cultural and Historic Resources	92
20.1.3  Waste Disposal and Monitoring	93
20.2 Project Permitting Requirements	93
20.3 Current Permitting Status	94
20.3.1  Upper Spring Creek - Brown	94
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page vi
---	---
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
---
20.3.2  Financial Assurance	94
---	---
20.3.3  Upper Spring Creek - Brevard	95
20.3.4  Rosita South -Cadena	95
20.3.5  Site Monitoring	96
20.4 Social and Community	96
20.5 Project Closure	96
20.6 Adequacy of Current Plans	97
21.0  CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	98
21.1 Capital Cost Estimation (CAPEX)	98
21.2 Operating Cost Estimation (OPEX)	101
21.3 Adequacy of Cost Estimates	102
22.0  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	104
22.1 Assumptions	104
22.2 Cash Flow Forecast and Production Schedule	104
22.3 Taxation and Royalties	105
22.4 Sensitivity Analysis	105
23.0  ADJACENT PROPERTIES	108
24.0  OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	109
25.0  INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	110
25.1 Conclusions	110
25.2 Risks and Opportunities	110
26.0  RECOMMENDATIONS	113
27.0  REFERENCES	114

List of Tables

Table 1-1	South Texas Uranium Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary	2
Table 1-2	South Texas Uranium Project Inferred Resource Summary	5
Table 6-1	Historical Operations Summary	23
Table 9-1	Butler Ranch Exploration Target Estimate of Lbs. U3O8	48
Table 14-1	Methods, Parameters, and Cutoff Summary by Project Area	72
Table 14-2	Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area	72
Table 14-3	South Texas Uranium Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary	73
Table 14-4	South Texas Uranium Project Inferred Resource Summary	74
Table 21-1	Wellfield Construction Assumptions for Analysis.	99
Table 21-2	CAPEX Cost Summary	100
Table 21-3	Chemical Inputs Considered in the Evaluation	101
Table 21-4	OPEX Cost Summary	103
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page vii
---	---
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
---
Table 22-1.	Net Present Value Discount Rate Sensitivity	105
---	---	---
Table 22-2	Cashflow Summary Table	106
Table 23-1	Adjacent South Texas Uranium Projects	108
List of Figures
Figure 1-1	South Texas Project Area Location Map	3
Figure 1-2	South Texas Uranium Province	4
Figure 4-1	Butler Ranch Project Area Location Map	12
Figure 4-2	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Project Area Location Map	13
Figure 4-3	Upper Spring Creek - Brown Project Area Location Map	14
Figure 4-4	Rosita South Cadena Project Area Location Map	15
Figure 7-1	South Texas Regional Stratigraphic/Hydrostratigraphic Column	29
Figure 7-2	Brevard Project Area Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map	33
Figure 7-3	Brevard Project Area Cross-Section A-A’	34
Figure 7-4	Brevard Project Area Cross-Section F-F’	35
Figure 7-5	Brown Project Area Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map	37
Figure 7-6	Brown Project Area Cross-Section	38
Figure 7-7	Cadena Project Area Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map	40
Figure 7-8	Cadena Project Area Cross-Section	41
Figure 8-1	Conceptual Uranium Roll Front Model	45
Figure 8-2	Roll-Front Uranium Deposition Process in the Oakville Sandstone	46
Figure 9-1	Butler Ranch Project Area Exploration Target Map	49
Figure 12-1	Brevard Comparison of Grade Sums, PFN vs. Lab Assay	63
Figure 17-1	Process Flow at the Rosita CPP	81
Figure 17-2	Typical Process Flow at the Satellite Facilities	82
Figure 18-1	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Infrastructure and Map	87
Figure 18-2	Upper Spring Creek - Brown Infrastructure Map	88
Figure 18-3	Rosita South - Cadena Infrastructure Map	89
Figure 22-1	Pre-tax NPV Sensitivity to Price, OPEX and CAPEX	107
Figure 22-2	Post-Tax NPV Sensitivity to Price, OPEX and CAPEX	107
List of Appendices
Appendix A	Certificate of Qualified Persons
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page viii
---	---
1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
---	---

This independent Technical Report (Report) was prepared by Christopher McDowell P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. (Authors or QP) of Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC) for enCore Energy Corp. (enCore) in accordance with National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101 Standards) and the Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K (S-K 1300). The effective date of this report is December 31, 2024.

The purpose of this Report is to disclose the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects (Project). The term PEA in the Report is consistent with an Initial Assessment (IA) with economics under S-K 1300. Mr. McDowell and Mr. Moores are Qualified Persons (QPs) under NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

1.1	Property Description

The Project consists of five project areas: the Rosita Central Processing Plant (Rosita CPP), Butler Ranch Uranium ISR Project (Butler Ranch), Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area ISR Uranium Project (USC - Brevard or Brevard), Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area ISR Uranium Project (USC - Brown or Brown), and Rosita South Cadena ISR Project (RS - Cadena or Cadena). The Project is located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak and Duval Counties, Texas, USA (Figure 1-1). The Rosita CPP will serve as the central location and uranium processing facility for the Project, with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities. The Rosita CPP will process all the mineral mined on each of the other project areas. The Project is located in the South Texas Uranium Province (STUP) (Figure 1-2), which is part of the South Texas coastal plain portion of the Gulf of Mexico Basin (GMB) and the Gulf Coast Uranium Province (GCUP) which includes the STUP.

Mineral rights for the Project are all private (fee) mineral leases and/or owned by URI, Inc. Fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. Section 4 discusses the different mineral leases and property ownership for each project area. All costs associated with these leases are confidential.

1.2	Ownership

This Project is owned and operated by enCore. enCore has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners at the Project.

1.3	Geology and Mineralization

The Project resides in the GMB. The GMB extends over much of South Texas and includes the Texas coastal plain, GCUP and STUP where the Project is located. The coastal plain is bounded by the Rocky Mountain uplift to the west and drains into the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast. The coastal plain is comprised of marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic through Cenozoic.

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

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 1

and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The roll-front deposits at Brevard are slightly different from the other roll-front deposits at Butler Ranch, Brown, and Cadena, which is discussed in further detail in Section 7.2.3.

1.4	Exploration Status

To date, enCore holds data from 4,523 drill holes that have been completed by enCore and previous uranium companies on and nearby the five project areas (Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard, Brown, and Cadena) held by enCore. Data from the drilling, including survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade of uranium intercepts, have been incorporated into enCore’s database.

1.5	Mineral Resource Estimates

The in-place resources were estimated separately for each project area. Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 list the Project resources by the project area.

Table 1-1   South Texas Uranium Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary

ProjectArea	GT Cutoff	Average GT	Uranium (lbs U3O8)
Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area
Measured	0.3	0.59	800,000
Indicated	0.3	0.40	38,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-	-	838,000
Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area
Measured	0.3	1.17	1,339,000
Indicated	0.2	2.15	720,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-	-	2,059,000
Rosita South - Cadena
Measured	0.3	0.80	615,000
Indicated	0.3	0.42	15,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-	-	630,000
Project Totals
Measured			2,754,000
Indicated			773,000
Total Measured and Indicated			3,527,000

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.
---	---
6.	There are no measured or indicated resources at Rosita CPP or Butler Ranch.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 2
---	---

Figure 1-1 South Texas Project Area Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 3

Figure 1-2 South Texas Uranium Province

(USGS 2015)

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 4

Table 1-2   South Texas Uranium Project Inferred Resource Summary

Project Area	GT Cutoff	Average GT	U3O8 (lbs)
Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area
Total Inferred	0.2	1.35	308,000

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	There are no inferred resources at Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard or Cadena.
---	---
1.6	Economic Analysis
---	---

This PEA indicates a pre-tax net present value (NPV) of $104.3 million at an 8 percent discount rate compared to an after-tax NPV of $81.8 million at an 8 percent discount rate.

The mine plan and economic analysis are based on the following assumptions:

•	NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 compliant<br>estimate of Mineral Resources and a recovery factor of 80 percent,
•	A variable<br>U3O8 sales price ranging from $78.37/lb up to $92.04/lb with an overall average<br>U3O8 sales price of $87.05/lb,
---	---
•	A mine life of 9 years (6 years production followed by 3 years of restoration/surface reclamation), and<br>
---	---
•	A pre-income tax cost including royalties, state and local taxes, operating<br>costs, and capital costs of $43.12/lb.
---	---

Costs for the Project are based on actual costs from enCore’s currently operating south Texas in situ recovery (ISR) projects, economic analyses for similar ISR uranium projects, and WWC’s in house experience with mining and construction costs. All costs are in U.S. dollars (USD). The Authors believe that general industry costs from similar projects adequately provide a ± 30 percent cost accuracy which is in accordance with industry standards for a PEA. As additional data are collected for the Project and the wellfield and plant designs are advanced, estimates can be refined.

This analysis is based on measured and indicated mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Given the speculative nature of mineral resources, there is no guarantee that any or all of the mineral resources included in this PEA will be recovered. This PEA is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the Project will be realized.

1.7	QP Conclusion and Recommendations

The Authors conclude that the ISR amenable mineral resources as determined by this report show sufficient economic and technical viability to move to the next stage of development. Key conclusions and recommendations are as follows:

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 5
•	The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources at the Project to indicate favorable conditions for<br>future extraction.
---	---
•	Rosita CPP is fully permitted and currently producing.
---	---
•	Continue to obtain and maintain private mineral leases along with surface use agreements.
---	---
•	enCore should advance the process to obtain the necessary regulatory authorizations required to operate the Project.<br>
---	---
1.8	Summary of Risks
---	---

The Project does have some risks similar in nature to other mineral projects and uranium projects in particular. Some risks are summarized below and are discussed in detail in Section 25.0:

•	Variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques,<br>
•	Environmental, social and political acceptance of the Project could cause delays in conducting work or increase the<br>costs from what is assumed,
---	---
•	Risk associated with delays or additional requirements for regulatory authorizations,
---	---
•	Risk associated with the uranium market and sales contract,
---	---
•	Risk associated with uranium recovery and processing, and
---	---
•	Changes in the mining and mineral processing recovery.
---	---

To the Authors’ knowledge there are no other significant risks that could materially affect the PEA or interfere with the recommended work programs.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 6
2.0	INTRODUCTION
---	---
2.1	Registrant/Issuer of Report
---	---

This report titled “TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE SOUTH TEXAS INTEGRATED URANIUM PROJECTS, TEXAS, USA” was prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 standards. The effective date of this Report is December 31, 2024.

This independent Report was prepared for enCore by WWC, a Texas registered geoscience firm, under the supervision of Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. This Report includes the Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard, Brown and Cadena project areas. The project areas are located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak and Duval Counties, Texas, USA. The Rosita CPP will serve as the central location of the Project with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities. For the purposes of this Report, the satellite facilities are considered material to the Rosita CPP. Minerals are mined at the project areas and is then transported to the Rosita CPP for processing.

enCore is incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, with the principal office located at 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX 78401.

2.2	Terms of Reference

The Project is owned and operated by enCore. This Report has been prepared for enCore to report mineral resources for the Project. The Project includes multiple project areas located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak and Duval Counties, Texas.

2.3	Data Sources, Units of Measurement and Abbreviations

The information and data presented in this Report were gathered from various sources listed in Chapter 27.0 of this Report.

Uranium mineral resource estimates for the Project are based on data from 4,523 drill holes that included survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade/GT of uranium intercepts.

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

2.4	Personal Inspection

Mr. McDowell most recently visited Butler Ranch, Brevard, and Brown on November 5, 2021 and the Rosita CPP and Cadena on February 7, 2024. Mr. Moores became involved with the Project after Mr. McDowell’s inspection and has not personally inspected the properties. He has relied on photos and descriptions of the properties provided to him by Mr. McDowell as well as from enCore personnel. While he did not inspect the properties, Mr. Moores has some familiarity with the area and has been to the Corpus Christi area for other reasons, most recently in 2013.

2.4.1  QP Qualifications

Christopher McDowell, P.G. is the independent qualified person responsible for the preparation of this Report and the mineral resource estimates herein. Mr. McDowell is a Qualified Person

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 7

(QP) under NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 Standards responsible for the content of this Report and a Professional Geologist with 9 years of professional experience in uranium geology and ISR uranium mining. Mr. McDowell is responsible for development of sections 1-15 and 23-27 of this Report.

Ray Moores, P.E. is the independent qualified person responsible for the preparation for this Report and the technical and economic analysis herein. Mr. Moores is a QP under NI 43-101 Standards with 22 years of industry experience including 16 years direct experience with ISR uranium mining, feasibility, and licensing. Mr. Moores is responsible for development of sections 1-5, 16-22, and 24-27 of this Report.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 8
3.0	RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
---	---

The Authors have fully relied upon information on uranium commodity price forecasts from TradeTech’s 4^th^ quarter 2023 market Outlook Report. This information is used in Section 19.0 of this Report. WWC Engineering received this information from enCore in November 2024.

The Authors have relied on information provided by enCore regarding property ownership, title, and mineral rights; regulatory status and environmental information, including liabilities on the Project.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 9
4.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
---	---
4.1	Location and Size
---	---

The Project includes the Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard, Brown, and Cadena project areas located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak and Duval Counties, Texas, USA. The locations of the project areas are depicted in Figure 1-1, while Figures 4-1 through 4-4 depict the project areas in more detail. Each project area is described in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.5. Mineral rights for the Project are all private (fee) mineral leases and/or owned by URI, Inc. Fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners and details of these leases are confidential.

4.1.1 Rosita CPP

The Rosita CPP is located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 13.7 miles east of Freer and approximately 60 miles west of Corpus Christi (Figure 1-1) at latitude 27.830423 and longitude -98.403543 (decimal degrees). This facility represents the central location of the Project and includes the central processing facility where resin from each satellite facility will be processed. The Rosita CPP is supplied with uranium-loaded ion exchange resin from ISR mining at one or more of the project areas. The Rosita CPP initiated production in 1990 and produced 2.65 million pounds of U3O8 from 1990 to 1999. The Rosita CPP restarted operations in 2023. This plant was originally constructed as an up-flow ion exchange facility in 1990, and its conversion to a CPP was completed in 2023. At the Rosita CPP, resin is processed, and uranium is recovered, precipitated as a slurry, and is then dried and packaged.

4.1.2 Butler Ranch

The Butler Ranch project consists of approximately 743 acres located in a rural area of Karnes County, Texas, approximately 44 miles south of San Antonio (Figure 1-1). It is centered at the approximate location of latitude 28.887336 and longitude -98.059851 (decimal degrees). Butler Ranch is comprised of four different nonconnected property leases over approximately 10 miles in the western part of the county (Figure 4-1).

4.1.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area

USC - Brevard is located 6 miles northeast of the Ray Point Mining District in the GCUP/STUP and is situated in Bee and Live Oak counties, Texas approximately halfway between San Antonio and Corpus Christi (Figure 1-1). Brevard is situated at latitude 28.567478 and longitude -98.024910 (decimal degrees). Three properties form the Brevard project area (Benham, Brevard, and Johnston) and total approximately 1,110 acres (Figure 4-2).

4.1.4 Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area

The Brown project is located approximately 12 miles south-southwest of Three Rivers, Texas at the intersection of FM 889 and County Road 135 in Live Oak County latitude 28.287518 and longitude -98.214002 (decimal degrees) (Figure 1-1 and Figure 4-3). Brown includes three properties totaling approximately 247 acres. The two properties (Brown and Geibel) located to the south and east of FM 889 are collectively referred to as the Brown property and the property to the west of FM 889 is the Geffert property. URI, Inc. owns both surface and mineral rights for the former Brown and Geffert properties and owns surface and leases mineral rights for the former Giebel property at this project area.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 10

4.1.5 Rosita South - Cadena

Rosita South - Cadena is located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 11.5 miles east of Freer and approximately 64 miles west of Corpus Christi (Figure 1-1 and Figure 4-4) at latitude 27.807052 and longitude -98.453480 (decimal degrees). Cadena includes two project areas totaling 395.46 acres.

4.2	Permitting and Encumbrances

To the QP’s knowledge, there are no unusual encumbrances to the project areas. However, there are general regulatory and permitting liabilities, depending on the specific project area.

Potential environmental liabilities for the Project fall under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which regulate mining operations and the extraction of minerals and provides mine permits and radioactive material licenses. No environmental liabilities are currently present at the Project.

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

•	The TCEQ will require enCore to apply for and obtain a radioactive material license pursuant to Title 30 Texas<br>Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 305 and 336. enCore has established that the satellite projects described in this report will be incorporated as amendments to the existing Radioactive Materials License, RO3653, that covers the Company’s<br>Kingsville Dome and Rosita CPP’s. The application to amend the existing Radioactive Materials License must address a number of matters including, but not limited to, site characteristics (ecology, geology, topography, hydrology, meteorology,<br>historical and cultural landmarks and archaeology), radiological and non-radiological impacts, environmental effects of accidents, decommissioning, decontamination and reclamation. The Company has submitted<br>the amendment application for a portion of the Brown project area that is currently under technical review by the TCEQ.
•	To produce uranium from subsurface deposits, an operator must obtain an area permit and production area authorization<br>(PAA) pursuant to the Texas Water Code, Chapter 27. Underground injection activities cannot commence until the TCEQ has issued an area permit and PAA to authorize such activities. In addition, all portions of the proposed production zone in<br>groundwater with a total dissolved solids concentration less than 10,000 mg/L, which will be affected by mining solutions, are included within an aquifer exemption approved by TCEQ and the EPA. The PAA application may be developed concurrently with<br>or after the area permit application. As additional production areas are proposed to be activated within the area permit, additional PAA applications must be submitted to the TCEQ for processing and issuance before injecting within the production<br>area. In 2024, the Company was issued the Area Permit for a portion of the Brown project area by the TCEQ, Permit Number: UR03095
---	---
•	In 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the RRC jurisdiction to regulate surface mining for coal and uranium. No surface<br>mining for uranium is currently conducted at the Project, but uranium exploration for ISR operations is administered by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of the RRC. Active uranium exploration sites are inspected monthly (RRC, 2022). The<br>RRC requires exploration permits for any uranium exploration in the state.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 11
---	---

Figure 4-1 Butler Ranch Project Area Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 12

Figure 4-2 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Project Area Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 13

Figure 4-3 Upper Spring Creek - Brown Project Area Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 14

Figure 4-4 Rosita South Cadena Project Area Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 15
•	Texas state law does not provide any agency with the authority to regulate the use or production of groundwater unless<br>the location lies within a groundwater conservation district (GCD). Butler Ranch is located in the Evergreen Underground GCD, Brevard is located in the Bee Groundwater Conservation District and Live Oak Underground GCD, Brown is located in the Live<br>Oak Underground GCD, and Cadena and Rosita reside in the Duval County GCD. Activities authorized by TCEQ under the Class III Area Permit are not subject to the jurisdiction of the GCD. The GCD will require a permit for water use required for<br>industrial uses not covered by the Class III area permit according to the appropriate GCD rules and regulations.
---	---
•	Class I and III injection wells are also regulated by the TCEQ. Therefore, enCore will need to acquire the<br>appropriate permits in order to construct and operate these wells.
---	---

4.3 Property Risk Factors

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

•	Drill Hole Reclamation

o The drilling, reclamation and abandonment of uranium exploration holes on any of the leases is permitted by the RRC. Potential future environmental liability as a result of the mining must be addressed by the permit holder jointly with the permit granting agency. Permits have bonding requirements for ensuring that the restoration of groundwater, the land surface and any ancillary facility structures or equipment is properly completed. It is the opinion of the QP that uranium exploration holes present a low risk of impacting development of the resources.

•	Oil and gas horizontal pads and development

o Large horizontal well pads could limit surface accessibility, placement of wellfields and the ability to recover resources through ISR. It is the opinion of the QP that oil and gas development present a low risk of impacting development of the uranium resources.

•	Industrial wells impacting aquifers

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

•	Commercial wind power

o Commercial wind power could limit surface accessibility and impact optimal placement of wellfields. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low risk that commercial wind power could limit development of uranium resources.

•	Commercial solar power

o Commercial solar power could limit surface accessibility and impact optimal placement of wellfields. It is the opinion of the QP that there is a low risk that commercial solar power could limit development of uranium resources.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 16
4.4	Royalties (Confidential)
---	---

Due to the confidentiality of royalties in private agreements, specific royalty data are not included in the Report. Royalties may be provided upon request.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 17
5.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
---	---
5.1	Topography, Elevation, Vegetation and Climate
---	---

The Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard, Brown, and Cadena project areas are located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak, and Duval Counties in South Texas. The physiographic settings for each of the project areas are similar and located in the coastal plain/prairies and interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), 1987). Nearly flat strata in the coastal plain/prairies transitions to strata tilted towards the Gulf of Mexico. Surface stratigraphy includes deltaic sands and muds near the coast transitioning to unconsolidated sands and muds in the interior (BEG, 1987).

The Gulf Coastal Plain is part of a passive continental margin along the Gulf of Mexico. The tectonic setting yields low-relief and a relatively flat landscape along the coast from Mexico and Texas to Mississippi. Thick formations of Quaternary and Tertiary fluvial clastic sediments were deposited on the continental shelf from the Mississippi Embayment (Galloway et al., 1979).

The surface is characterized by rolling hills with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. Changes in relief typically range from 10 to 100 ft near the coast to upwards of 200 ft of relief further inland. Ground surface elevations at the project areas range from a low of 180 ft above mean sea level (msl) at Butler Ranch to a high of 470 ft above msl at Cadena.

Livestock grazing and open pastures with woodlands are common in the region and is typical for this type of habitat in the Southern Great Plains Eco-region. Vegetation consists primarily of mesquite and post oak woods, forests and grassland mosaic vegetation/cover types (BEG, 2000). Native and introduced grasses and woody species such as honey mesquite, blackjack oak, eastern redcedar, black hickory, live oak, sandjack oak and cedar elm are common for this cover type.

Shrub species in the region include hackberry, yaupon, poison oak, American beautyberry, hawthorn, supplejack, trumpet creeper, dewberry, coral-berry, little bluestem, silver bluestem, sand lovegrass, beaked panicum, three-awn, spranglegrass and tickclover. Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the drainages, are grasslands and meadow grasslands with some seeded grasslands and improved pastures for agriculture (Texas Parks & Recreation, 2022).

The region’s subtropical climate temperatures in the summer range from about 75° to 95°F, although highs above 100°F are common; winter temperatures range from about 45° to 65°F. Humidity is generally over 85 percent (%) year-round and commonly exceeds 90% during the summer months. Average annual rainfall ranges from about 26 to 30 inches. The climate is characterized by a warm desert-like to subtropical climate. Periods of freezing temperatures are generally very brief and infrequent (U.S. Climate Data, 2022). Tropical weather systems from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the Project with large rainstorms and wind.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 18
5.2	Accessibility and Proximity to Population Centers
---	---
5.2.1	Rosita CPP and Rosita South - Cadena
---	---

The Rosita CPP and Rosita South - Cadena are served by Texas State Highway 44 as depicted on Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-4. Texas State Highway 44 is a State maintained, two-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Two different County Roads (CR 330 and CR 333) from Highway 44 are used as access to the Rosita CPP. County Road 330 provides access from Highway 44 while County Road 333 provides access to the Rosita CPP from County Road 330. From County Road 333 a private road is utilized into the Rosita CPP site. Cadena can also be accessed from County Roads (CR 321 and CR 3196). Commercial airlines serve both San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Many of the local communities have small public airfields and there are numerous private airfields in the region.

The nearest community is San Diego, Texas which is approximately 16 miles southeast of the Rosita CPP and Cadena. San Diego, Texas has a population of approximately 3,700 people. The nearest major city is Corpus Christi, Texas. It is located approximately 70 miles east of the Rosita CPP and has a population of approximately 317,863 people (US Census 2020). Federal and Texas State highways link these and other cities/communities to the Rosita CPP.

5.2.2	Butler Ranch

Butler Ranch is served by Texas Highway 181 as depicted on Figure 1-1. Texas Highway 181 is a State maintained, four-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Multiple county roads from Highway 181 lead to the Butler Ranch project area. At Butler Ranch, there are crown-and-ditched mixed gravel and pavement access roads to the area. In addition to the designated routes, there are a few tertiary or ‘two-track’ roads that traverse the area for recreation and grazing access, as well as various other uses, including mineral and petroleum exploration.

Butler Ranch is located in a rural farmland area. Karnes City, Texas is approximately 7 miles east of the project area and has a population of about 3,000 people. The nearest major city is San Antonio, Texas. It is located approximately 40 miles northwest of Butler Ranch with a population of 1.43 million people (US Census, 2020). Federal and Texas state highways link all these cities to Butler Ranch (Figure 1-1).

5.2.3	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

USC - Brevard is served by Texas State Highway 72 as depicted on Figure 4-2. Highway 72 is a state-maintained, two-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Two different county roads (CR 147 and CR 231) from Highway 72 can be used to access Brevard.

The nearest community in the vicinity is Pawnee, approximately 5 miles north of Brevard. The Pawnee Census Designated Place (CDP) has a population of 85 people (US Census 2020). Three Rivers in Live Oak County is located approximately 12 miles southwest of Brevard. Three Rivers has a population of 1,474 people (US Census 2020). Brevard is located halfway between San Antonio and Corpus Christi, the nearest major cities. San Antonio, which is located approximately 60 miles northwest, has a population of 1,434,625 people (US Census, 2020). Corpus Christi, which is located approximately 60 miles southeast. U.S. and State highways link these and other surrounding cities to Brevard.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 19
5.2.4	Upper Spring Creek - Brown
---	---

USC - Brown is served by U.S. Interstate Highway 37 (I-37) as depicted on Figure 1-1. I-37 is a state-maintained, four-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Access to this highway from the west and northeast is U.S. Highway 72, access from the east and southwest is U.S. Highway 59. The area can also be accessed from the south via U.S. Highway 281 leading to U.S. Highway 37. Multiple county roads from U.S. Highways 281 and 59 lead to the Brown. Once on Brown, there are crown-and-ditched mixed gravel and pavement access roads to the area. The physical address of the property is 216 County Road (CR) 135, George West, in Live Oak County, Texas. Brown is located approximately 6.75 miles south-southwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 281 and Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 889.

The nearest town in the vicinity is George West and is located approximately 6 miles northeast of Brown. George West has a population of 2,191 people (U.S. Census, 2020). Three Rivers is located approximately 12 miles north-northeast and has a population of 1,474 (U.S. Census, 2020). The nearest major city is Corpus Christi, Texas, which is located approximately 55 miles southeast. U.S. and State highways link these and other surrounding cities to the project area.

5.3	Surface Rights and Property Infrastructure

Equipment, supplies and personnel needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Specialized equipment for the wellfields is often available in Texas but may need to be acquired from outside of the state. The local economy for all project areas is geared toward oil and gas exploration, energy production, and ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily. As a result of energy development since the early 1900s, all the project areas have existing or nearby electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.

Generally, the local and regional infrastructure is in place for all project areas including roads, power and maintenance facilities. The exceptions include local access roads, wellfield development, local power and well control facilities that must be constructed. Specific information about the available infrastructure for each project area is described below.

5.3.1	Rosita CPP

enCore currently owns and operates the Rosita CPP within their Rosita ISR project radioactive materials license and injection permit boundaries. Site infrastructure includes the Rosita CPP and associated infrastructure, electric transmission lines, water supply, ponds, and several paved and well-graded county roads that traverse the area providing access to the property. The remaining unused lands are primarily undeveloped farmland.

5.3.2	Butler Ranch

enCore leases the surface and mineral rights at Butler Ranch and has access to the land for exploration and development.

Site infrastructure consists of residential buildings, undeveloped farmland, and retention ponds. Several paved and well-graded county roads traverse the area providing access to each property. Several electric transmission lines run adjacent to these roads and by the individual properties. Non-potable water will be supplied by water supply wells at or near the site. There

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 20

is an existing water supply well at Butler Ranch, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection.

5.3.3	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

enCore has or will obtain legal access to the land surface through confidential agreements.

Site infrastructure consists of land to support cattle ranching and agriculture. Several paved county roads provide access to Brevard. An overhead electric transmission line and underground phone line run parallel to CR 140. Non-potable water will be supplied by water supply wells at or near the site. There are two existing water supply wells at Brevard, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. A public water system, El Oso Water Supply Corporation, also serves the area. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection.

5.3.4	Upper Spring Creek - Brown

enCore owns both surface and mineral rights at the Brown and Geffert properties. enCore leases minerals located beneath the Giebel property and has access to the land for exploration and development.

Site infrastructure consists of residential buildings, undeveloped farmland, and retention ponds. Several paved and well-graded county roads traverse the area providing access to each property. Several electric transmission lines run adjacent to these roads and by the individual properties. Non-potable water will be supplied by water supply wells at or near the site. There is an existing water supply well at Brown, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection.

5.3.5	Rosita South - Cadena

enCore has obtained legal access to the land surface through confidential agreements.

Site infrastructure consists of residential buildings and land to support ranching and agriculture. Several paved and well-graded county roads traverse the area providing access to the property. Several electric transmission lines run adjacent to these roads to supply power to residential areas. No water supply sources have been developed for this site.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 21
6.0	HISTORY
---	---

The Project is located in the STUP. This province produced over 70 million pounds of U3O8 from 1954 through 1994. In recent years, mining companies have shifted from surface mining to ISR. Since 1975, the State of Texas has required the reclamation of surface mining operations (Nicot et al. 2010).

Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Adams and Smith 1981). The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey (Bunker and MacKallor 1973). The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande. This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett (Jackson Group), Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations (Larson 1978). Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975. The uranium market experienced lower demand and price in the late 1970s and in 1980 there was a sharp decline in all Texas uranium operations (Eargle and Kleiner 2022).

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, exploration for uranium in South Texas had evolved towards deeper drilling targets within the known host sandstone formations (Carothers 2011). Deeper exploration drilling was more costly and excluded many of the smaller uranium mining companies from participating in the down-dip, deeper undrilled trend extensions. Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) and others. Mobil had found numerous deposits in South Texas in the past, including the O’Hern, Holiday-El Mesquite and several smaller deposits, mostly in Oligocene-age Catahoula Formation tuffaceous sands. ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County. They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt. Lucas Goliad Formation deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line (Carothers 2011).

Ownership, control, and operation of the Project areas has varied greatly since the 1960s. Table 6-1 summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed, and the results of the work. Table 6-1 also summarizes historic drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period. Cited references and supporting literature can be found following Table 6-1 and in Section 27.0.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 22

Table 6-1   Historical Operations Summary

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No.of Drillholes)	Results of Work
Rosita ISR Uranium Central Processing Plant and Wellfield
1990 - 1999	Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI)	Uranium production	N/A	Production from the<br>plant totaled 2.65 million pounds during this time period.
2021	enCore	Acquisition	N/A	enCore acquires the<br>assets of Westwater Resources, Inc. (previously URI) in the United States, and URI becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore.
Butler Ranch ISR Uranium Project
1961	Susquehanna Western Inc.	First mill constructed in 1961	N/A	Open pit mining of<br>uranium started in Karnes County in 1960, the first mill operational in 1961.
1961-1981?	Susquehanna Western Inc., Century Geophysical, Conoco, and Westinghouse/Geoscience	Exploratory drilling	1,934	During the indicated<br>time period a total of 1,934 holes were drilled at the project by the various companies.
2014	URI	URI acquired the project from Rio Grande Resources	N/A	In 2014, URI<br>acquired the project from Rio Grande Resources as part of a land exchange. Over 50 years, prior to the acquisition by Rio Grande Resources, the separate leases were owned by several companies. Rio Grande Resources acquired all leases for the Butler<br>Ranch project area. The separate leases were previously owned by several companies including Susquehanna Western, Homestake, Conoco, Wyoming Minerals corporation (WMC), and Kerr-McGee.
2021	enCore	Acquisition	N/A	enCore acquires the<br>assets of Westwater Resources, Inc. (previously URI) in the United States, and URI becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore.
Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area ISR Project
1968	Humble Oil Company	Exploration	Unknown	Exploratory drilling<br>of the Brevard and Johnston properties was performed and a geologic cross-section through the properties was prepared.
mid-1970s	WMC	Exploration and delineation	200+	WMC drilled over 200<br>holes to delineate the mineralization on the Benham property.
1979	WMC	Permit application	N/A	In 1979, WMC applied<br>for an ISR mining permit for the Benham property.
1982	Intercontinental Energy Corporation (IEC)	Acquisition	N/A	By 1982 IEC had<br>acquired the following properties: Brevard (previously “House”), Benham and Johnston (previously “Perry”). The mineralization at the Brevard, Johnston, and Benham properties were also mapped.
1983	IEC	Permit Release	N/A	IEC requests that<br>the State of Texas release IEC from all mining permit requirements as the Benham project was not activated.
1984	IEC	Lease expiration	N/A	In 1984, the leases<br>on the Benham and Johnston properties expired.
2007	Signal Equities, LLC. (Signal)	Acquisition of leases	N/A	In 2007, Signal<br>begins acquiring leases for Brevard.
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 23
---	---

Table 6-1   Historical Operations Summary (continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of<br><br><br>Drillholes)	Results of Work
2008 - 2011	Signal	Exploration and delineation	793	From 2008 to 2011,<br>Signal drilled a total of 793 holes at Brevard. These included: 338 drillholes on the Brevard property, 135 on the Benham, 162 on the Johnston, and 158 on a neighboring property. The drilling performed by Signal identified mineral horizons at each<br>of the properties. Signal began exploration of the properties under RRC Exploration Permits 137 and 1371.
2010	Signal	UIC Class III Mine Area Permit -<br><br><br>UR03080	N/A	Fully licensed<br>Class III Mine Area Permit granted by the TCEQ
2010	Signal	Class I Waste Disposal Well - WDW-428 and<br>WDW-429	N/A	Signal’s waste<br>disposal wells permitted by TCEQ
2011	Signal	UIC Production Area Authorization -<br><br><br>UR03080-PAA1	N/A	Signal’s PAA<br>approved by TCEQ
2011	Signal	Radioactive Material License - R06065	N/A	Signal’s<br>Radioactive Materials License granted by TCEQ
NA	Signal	TCEQ Aquifer Exemption - UR02307	N/A	Signal’s<br>Aquifer Exemption verified by TCEQ
2017	Signal	Mineral resource estimate	N/A	In 2017, Resource<br>Evaluation, Inc. used a polygonal method to prepare a mineral resource estimate for Signal. (unpublished)
2019	Signal	License termination	N/A	Signal submitted a<br>letter to the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requesting full termination of their license for Brevard as a result of uranium market conditions.
2019	TCEQ	License termination	N/A	TCEQ submits the<br>Final Completion Review Report (CRR) for the Signal license to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The TCEQ states in their letter that the sites may be released for unrestricted use.
2021	enCore	Acquisition	N/A	On May 7, 2021,<br>the Brevard project area was acquired from Signal by enCore and renamed the Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area Project.
2021-<br><br><br>present	enCore	Acquisition	N/A	enCore begins<br>negotiation and securing key mineral leases and surface use agreements for the Brevard project area.
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 24
---	---

Table 6-1   Historical Operations Summary (continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of<br><br><br>Drillholes)	Results of Work
Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area ISR Uranium Project
1970s	U.S. Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel)	U.S. Steel, permitted, delineated and produced uranium into the 1970s	Unknown	U.S. Steel permitted<br>the project as an open pit mine and designated the project as the Boots-Brown Project. Production ceased in the 1970s and the site was reclaimed.
2001	State of Texas	Reclamation Release	N/A	In 2001, the State<br>of Texas released the project area from reclamation status to unrestricted use.
2010	Signal	Signal initiated a delineation drilling program.	309<br>delineation<br>holes	In 2010, Signal re-evaluated the U.S. Steel Brown Project. This re-evaluation included drilling delineation holes. 226 delineation holes were drilled on the Brown property and 83 delineation<br>holes were drilled on the Giebel property.
2011	Signal	Signal received Radioactive Materials license R06065.	N/A	From 2010 to 2015,<br>Signal conducted permitting and licensing activities that resulted in the issuance of the necessary permits and radioactive materials license from the TCEQ authorizing the extraction of uranium using ISR.
2015	Signal	UIC Class III Mine Area Permit	N/A	Fully licensed<br>Class III Mine Area Permit granted by the TCEQ
2019	Signal	License Termination	N/A	Signal submitted a<br>letter to the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requesting full termination of their license for the Brown project area as a result of uranium market conditions. Release for unrestricted use was approved by TCEQ and U.S.<br>NRC.
2020	enCore	Acquisition	N/A	enCore acquires the<br>Brown database from Signal.
2021 - 2023	enCore	Brown ISR project area acquired and renamed Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area ISR Uranium Project	N/A	From 2021 to 2023,<br>enCore acquired the surface and mineral properties for the Brown and Geffert property parcels that form the core of the Brown Area of the Upper Spring Creek Project. enCore also successfully acquired key mineral leases for the project<br>area.
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 25
---	---

Table 6-1   Historical Operations Summary (continued)

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of<br><br><br>Drillholes)	Results of Work
Rosita South - Cadena Area
1970s	Mobil	Exploration	874	813 electric<br>logs/lithology logs completed by Mobil. Mobil identified several trends in the Cadena area.
1970s -<br><br><br>1980s	Moore Energy	Exploration, resource calculations	156	Moore Energy<br>continued delineation of Mobil’s trends. These were presumed to be extensions of the same trends that URI mined at Rosita. 242 electric logs/lithology logs were drilled by Moore Energy. 23 Princeton Gamma Tech logs and 5 core holes were drilled<br>by Moore Energy. Core was analyzed by Core Lab Analyses. An agitation leach report based on the 5 cores was prepared by Fisher, Harden & Fisher.
2005	High Plains Uranium (HPU)	HPU purchased data package by Moore Energy for the Cadena area from UEC	N/A	HPU purchased the<br>Moore Energy data package for the Cadena area. HPU purchased 4,329 acres of private minerals and surface rights at Cadena and prepared a mineral resource estimate.
2006	HPU and URI	Proposed joint venture (JV)	457	Proposed JV to<br>restart and expand development on the Rosita and Cadena projects. Terms of the JV were not met, and HPU retained Cadena.
2021	enCore	Acquisition	N/A	enCore acquires the<br>assets of Westwater Resources, Inc. (previously URI) in the United States, and URI becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore.
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 26
---	---
7.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
---	---
7.1	Regional Geology
---	---
7.1.1	South Texas Gulf Coastal Plan
---	---

The Project is located in the GCUP, which lies along the Gulf of Mexico Basin (Figure 7-1). The Texas portion of the GCUP where uranium mining has historically occurred is also referred to as the STUP. The Project lies within both the GCUP and the STUP.

The regional deposition of sediments has been controlled by structural features, including the San Marcos Arch and the Rio Grande Embayment (Figure 1-2). The San Marcos Arch is a region of higher elevation and less subsidence; it serves to divide the Rio Grande Embayment to the southwest from the Houston Embayment to the northeast. To the northwest, the Balcones Fault Zone separates the Llano Uplift from the Rio Grande and Houston embayments. Numerous mapped normal faults run roughly parallel to the Texas coastline in the region, but no regionally-mapped faults are present in the immediate vicinity of the Project.

The Project is located within the Rio Grande Embayment. The geology of this area was concisely described by McClain (1959):

“Southwest Texas is situated on the southwestern flank of a large basin, the central part of which is now occupied by the Gulf of Mexico. The long axis of this basin is near the shore of and parallel with the present Texas coastline. Strikewise along this southwest flank there are alternating areas that have received a preponderance of sediments, having had a relative subsidence to accommodate them and intervening areas of relative stability which have generally thinner sedimentary sections. The Rio Grande Embayment, with the present-day Rio Grande River being near or shortly to the south of its axis, has received an added thickness of sediments. During times of advance of the sea it was deeper than the adjacent areas, so that rivers brought more sediments into it and deposited them farther inland. During times of recession the area remained relatively low and the rivers continued to flow into and across it, depositing great quantities of sediments.”

Within the Rio Grande Embayment, deposits thicken and dip towards the Gulf of Mexico. The uranium-bearing deposits in the STUP include sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Lower Pliocene (youngest). These permeable deposits are interbedded with claystones, mudstones and siltstones.

Regionally, uranium deposits are hosted by four formations: the Jackson Group (Eocene), Catahoula Formation (Oligocene/Miocene), Oakville Sandstone (Miocene) and Goliad Formation (Pliocene) (Nicot et al. 2010).

The Jackson Group was deposited in nearshore and shore environments and the aquifers are brackish. The Oligocene Frio Clay overlies the Jackson Group. The overlying Catahoula Formation is composed of fluvial deposits and in many areas has low permeability and serves as the Catahoula Confining System. Where groundwater is present, in the shallowest portions of the Catahoula Formation, it is brackish and forms part of the Jasper Aquifer. The Oakville Sandstone overlies the Catahoula Formation and is also fluvial in origin. The Oakville Sandstone comprises the majority of the Jasper Aquifer. Water quality is brackish except in outcrops. The Lagarto Clay (also called the Fleming Formation) forms the Burkeville Confining Unit, a leaky

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 27

aquitard that separates the Jasper Aquifer from the overlying fluvial Goliad Formation and associated Evangeline Aquifer.

Figure 1-2 shows the bedrock geology in the region. A generalized STUP stratigraphic column is shown in Figure 7-1.

7.1.2	Project Stratigraphy

Several formations are present at the surface across the project areas in addition to quaternary sediments. Mineralization at the Project occurs in the Goliad Sand, Oakville Sandstone and Jackson Group strata.

Tertiary-aged geologic formations underlying the Project from youngest to oldest include the Goliad Sand (Pliocene), Lagarto Clay, Oakville Sandstone (Miocene, undivided), Catahoula Formation (Oligocene, Miocene), Frio Clay/Frio Formation (Early Oligocene), and Jackson Group/Whitsett Formation (Eocene). These formations dip toward the Gulf of Mexico.

Uranium deposits in the STUP are contained within fault-controlled roll fronts deposited in these formations. The following summarizes the relevant regional geologic formations of tertiary-age strata from oldest to youngest.

Jackson Group (Eocene)

The Jackson Group is part of a major progradational cycle that also includes the underlying Yegua Formation. From oldest to youngest, the Jackson Group includes: the Caddell, Wellborn, Manning, and Whitsett Formations. Total thickness of this unit averages 1,100 ft and is characterized by a complex distribution of lagoon, marsh, barrier-island, and associated facies. The Fayette fluvio-deltaic system in Central and East Texas provided the sand transported to the region by longshore drift in a somewhat similar paleogeography to the current Gulf coast. The lower part of the Jackson Group consists of a basal 100 ft sequence of marine muds (Caddell Formation) overlain by 400 ft of sand including the Wellborn/McElroy Formation and Dilworth Sandstone, Conquista Clay, and Deweesville/Stones Switch Sandstone. The middle portion of the Jackson Group consists of 200 to 400 ft of mostly muds, which includes the Dubose Clay Member. Several sand units are present in the 400 to 500 ft thick upper section, including the Tordilla/Calliham Sandstone overlain by the Flashing Clay Member. Jackson Group units including the Dilworth and younger are considered the Whitsett Formation (Nicot et. al. 2010).

Frio Clay (Vicksburg Group Equivalent)

The Frio Clay is predominantly bentonitic and slightly calcareous clay with small amounts of sand and sandy silt. The Frio Clay is poorly outcropped in Live Oak County, as it is almost completely covered by the Catahoula Tuff in some places. It is primarily composed of clays and silty clays, with smaller portions of sands and selenite. The Frio Clay dips to the southeast and also thickens with sand beds thickening and becoming more numerous. These deeper sands make up a substantial portion of the formation at depth and contain large amounts of oil and gas. The Frio Clay is up to 200 feet thick in the region (Anders and Baker 1961).

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 28

Figure 7-1 South Texas Regional Stratigraphic/Hydrostratigraphic Column

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 29

Catahoula Formation (Catahoula Tuff)

The Miocene-Oligocene Catahoula Formation is predominantly a tuffaceous clay and tuff, and contains sandy clay, bentonitic clay, irregularly distributed lenticular sands, and conglomerate. The Catahoula Formation outcrops in a broad and irregular belt across northern Live Oak County that ranges from approximately 5 to 11 miles across (Anders and Baker 1961). The Catahoula Formation dips to the southeast, ranges in thickness from approximately 400 to 700 feet, and unconformably overlies the Frio Clay.

Oakville Formation

The Miocene Oakville Formation outcrops in most of central Live Oak County and is a major aquifer and uranium-producing unit in the region. It is primarily composed of clastic sediments forming interbedded sands and clays (Baker 1979). The Oakville Formation represents a major fluvial bed-load system with high percentages of fine to coarse-grained sand (Galloway et al. 1982). It dips to the southeast and ranges in thickness from approximately 200 to 500 feet. The Oakville Formation unconformably overlies the Catahoula Tuff.

Lagarto Clay (Fleming Formation)

The Miocene Lagarto Clay (also known as the Fleming Formation) is primarily composed of clay, silty calcareous clay, silty clays, and interbedded sand. In areas where thick sands are present, it is difficult to distinguish the Lagarto Clay from the underlying Oakville Sandstone and the overlying Goliad Sand. The Lagarto Clay dips to the southeast, ranges from 0 to approximately 1,000 feet thick in the region, and conformably overlies the Oakville Sandstone (Anders and Baker 1961).

Goliad Formation (Goliad Sand)

The Pliocene-Miocene Goliad Formation is primarily composed of sandstone with some interbedded clays and gravels. In some areas, the sands are cemented with caliche, resulting in differential erosion and formation of a scarp at the contact with the softer, underlying Lagarto Clay. The Goliad Formation dips to the southeast, is approximately 500 feet thick, and is a major aquifer and uranium-producing unit in the region. The Goliad Formation unconformably overlies the Lagarto Clay (Anders and Baker 1961).

The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene. However, the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene due to recent research revealing the presence of indigenous Pliocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands and the lower Goliad fluvial sands correlating with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera of Miocene age (Baskin and Hulbert 2008). The Geology of Texas map published by BEG in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene and describes the Goliad Formation as clays, sandstones, marls, caliches, limestones and conglomerates with a thickness of 100 ft to 500 ft. Above the Goliad Formation lies Quaternary sediments, Beaumont Clay, Lissie Formation, Montgomery Formation and the Willis Sand, which are composed of sand, gravel, silt, and clay.

Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons, which are separated vertically by confining beds comprised of silt, mudstone and clay.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 30

Quaternary Undifferentiated Sediments

The Quaternary Pleistocene and Holocene sediments are mainly alluvial deposits composed of sand, gravel, silt, and clay. Although some units have been identified, including the Willis Sand, Lissie Formation, and Beaumont Clay, the Quaternary sediments are undifferentiated in most locations. The Quaternary sediments are 0 to 70 feet thick and unconformably overlie the Goliad Sand, Lagarto Clay, Oakville Sandstone, and Catahoula Tuff. The most extensive Quaternary sediments are found in river and stream valleys (Anders and Baker 1961).

7.2	Local Geology and Mineralization
7.2.1	Butler Ranch
---	---

At Butler Ranch, uranium mineralization occurs in numerous mineral trends within Jackson Group sandstone units and the Whitsett Formation. Total thickness of the Jackson Group averages 1,100 ft in Karnes County but is thinner at Butler Ranch. The Frio Formation overlies the Jackson Group and is primarily comprised of the Frio Clay and ash beds. This Formation is approximately 60 to 80 ft in total thickness and contains ash beds up to 10 ft thick. Overlying the Frio Formation is the Catahoula Formation which is approximately 80 to 100 ft in thickness.

In addition to quaternary rocks, both the Whitsett and Catahoula Formations are present at surface. Figure 1-2 shows the surface geology in the STUP.

Deposition of sediments at Butler Ranch is typical of the Gulf’s coastal plains. Sediments were deposited along coastal plains as uplift occurred to the north and west. Sediments were then transported downstream and were deposited in fluvial and deltaic systems including the Catahoula Formation. In addition, sea level fluctuations led to several transitional sequences. The Frio Clay is an example of a transgressive sequence where marine clays were deposited. In contrast, the Jackson Group is a progradational sequence where deposits consist of lagoonal, marsh, barrier-island, and other associated near shoreline facies.

The mineralized deposits and roll front trends occur within sand units identified by Conoco as Tordilla Deposits, and include the Dubose, Dilworth and Stoneswitch (Deweesville) trends/deposits of the Eocene Jackson Group.

The Tordilla sand member of the Jackson Group is the host zone for mineralization. Tordilla sands are characterized by very fine- to medium-size grains that vary in permeability, depending upon the amount of clay present. The contact between the Tordilla sand and the underlying Dubose clay, a massive carbonaceous silty clay, is clear and easily identifiable. The Fashing clay overlies the Tordilla sand and consists of a massive carbonaceous silty clay. The overlying Frio Formation consists primarily of tuffaceous and bentonitic silty clays with indistinct contacts between clay units. Above the Frio are tuffaceous silts and clays of the Catahoula Formation (Conoco Interoffice Communication, June 6, 1978). As observed on the electric logs, development of sandstone units at Butler Ranch can vary from very thin, silty, fine-grained sands to thick, well developed, fine to medium-grained sands. Transition between these sands can be abrupt.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 31
7.2.2	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard
---	---

Drilling at USC - Brevard has encountered the Fleming Formation (Lagarto Clay or Oakville Clay), the Oakville Sandstone, and the Catahoula Formation, as well as areas of unidentified sediments overlying the Oakville Sandstone. The Oakville Formation outcrops at the surface at Brevard. The Oakville Formation unconformably overlies the Catahoula Formation, which provides underlying confinement. Consistent with the regional geology, sediments at Brevard dip toward the Gulf of Mexico, from the northwest to the southeast at 1-1.5% (less than 1°). Figure 7-2 shows the locations of geologic cross sections at the property; Figures 7-3 through 7-4 show the geologic cross sections.

Catahoula Formation sediments are fluvial in origin and include volcanic tuff, clays and sands. In the STUP, the Catahoula Formation is sometimes referred to as the Catahoula Tuff, reflecting the abundance of volcanic-origin tuffaceous sediments (Nicot et al. 2010). The Catahoula Formation unconformably overlies the Jackson Group. It is thin in outcrop but thickens towards the Gulf of Mexico.

The top of the Catahoula Formation is approximately 120 to 250 feet below ground surface (bgs) at Brevard. Based on regional geologic cross sections, the Catahoula Formation is expected to be approximately 950 feet thick at Brevard (Baker 1979). At Brevard, exploration drillholes have encountered approximately 350 feet of Catahoula Formation underlying the Oakville Sandstone but have not fully penetrated the Formation.

The Oakville Formation hosts the mineralization at Brevard. It was separated by Signal (AMEC Geomatrix 2009) into the Oakville clay and the Oakville sand production zones. The Oakville clay is an overlying confining layer, and the Oakville sand is the production zone.

The Oakville Formation differs notably from the Catahoula Formation because it contains a larger amount of sand (Baker 1979). The overlying Fleming Formation (also known as the Lagarto Clay), which is clay-dominant, can be difficult to distinguish from the Oakville sandstone because of their similar lithologies. Consequently, the two formations are sometimes combined and discussed together as their more formal designation, the Fleming Group.

Fluvial deposition of the Oakville Formation formed paleochannels perpendicular to the Texas coastline that have higher sand percentages and transmissivity (Nicot et al. 2010). The project area is aligned with the “George West” paleochannel, which is roughly centered on the boundary between Live Oak and Bee counties. According to Nicot et al., this paleochannel “has a particularly high sand percentage [...] next to the outcrop where most uranium mines are

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 32

Figure 7-2 Brevard Project Area Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 33

Figure 7-3 Brevard Project Area Cross-Section A-A’

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 34

Figure 7-4 Brevard Project Area Cross-Section F-F’

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 35

found” (Nicot et al. 2010). Uranium deposition in the basal portions of the Oakville Sandstone has been well-documented in the George West paleochannel (Galloway et al. 1982).

Signal described the Oakville Sand at Brevard as:

“[F]ine- to medium-grained, moderately to well sorted [and] often containing volcanic rock fragments. There is a clay approximately 5-feet thick in the lower section of the Oakville sand [...referred to...] as the “intermediate clay”. This clay, though not laterally continuous over the entire permit area, has been shown to be present throughout much of the [Brevard property mineralization].” (AMEC Geomatrix 2009)

At Brevard, AMEC’s Oakville clay unit is often exposed at ground surface and extends to a depth of as little as 30 feet bgs in the northwest corner of the project area. In some areas, up to 50 feet of interbedded sands and clays overly this unit. Underlying the Oakville clay unit, the Oakville sand ranges in thickness from 50 to 100 feet.

7.2.3	Upper Spring Creek - Brown

Brown is entirely within the surface outcrop of the Oakville Formation, which hosts mineralization. Some local areas of Quaternary alluvial deposits are present along intermittent streams. Shallow stratigraphy at the site described from exploration boreholes is characterized by organic silty clay and caliche from ground surface to a depth of approximately 20 ft. Interbedded sand and clay of the upper Oakville Sandstone are found from 20 ft to 120 ft. Fluvial gravel lenses are found between 120 ft and 130 ft. A 20 ft thick continuous clay unit is found beneath the gravel between 130 ft and 150 ft. Below the fluvial gravel and clay is a middle Oakville Sand unit between 150 ft and 250 ft. Some shallow mineral intercepts are found at 170 to 200 ft in the middle Oakville Sand, but it is uncertain if the mineralization is saturated because the Oakville groundwater level is at 170 ft. Since this interval is close to or possibly above the water table, it has been included in this report as an exploration target in the A-Sand interval. More information about exploration targets can be found in Section 9. The middle Oakville Clay occurs at 250 to 280 ft bgs and is an approximate 10-ft-thick laterally continuous confining zone for mineralization. The lower Oakville Sand occurs at approximately 290 to 400 ft bgs and is generally fine- to medium-grained, moderately to well-sorted sand. The lower Oakville Sand contains mineralization and is the injection/production zone and geologic interval to be mined. Figures 7-5 and 7-6 depict the drillholes, cross section location, and cross section at Brown.

The Catahoula Formation is encountered below the Oakville Formation at approximately 370 ft. No significant uranium mineralization has been found in the Catahoula at Brown.

Deposition of sediments at USC-Brown is typical of the Gulf’s coastal plains. Sediments were deposited along coastal plains as uplift occurred to the north and west. Sediments, including the Oakville Formation and Catahoula Formation, were then transported downstream and were deposited in fluvial and deltaic systems. In addition, sea level fluctuations led to several transitional sequences. The Frio Clay is an example of a transgressive sequence where marine clays were deposited. In contrast, the Jackson Group is a progradational sequence where

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 36

Figure 7-5 Brown Project Area Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 37

Figure 7-6 Brown Project Area Cross-Section

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 38

deposits consist of lagoonal, marsh, barrier-island, and other associated near shoreline facies (Galloway, 1976).

7.2.4	Rosita South - Cadena

At Cadena, the Goliad Formation outcrops at surface and covers most of the surface area at the project area. Quaternary deposits are present in the drainages of the Tarancahuas Creek that passes through the project area. This quaternary deposit is defined by the BEG’s state geology map as terrace deposits which are described as sand, silt, clay, and gravel of differing, various proportions and increased portions of gravel predominantly in older, higher terrace deposits.

Uranium deposits at Cadena are hosted in the sands of the Goliad Formation and depths primarily ranging from 100-300 ft bgs. Two mineralized areas are present in the project area with GTs ranging up to 3.45. Exploration drilling has identified eight mineralized sands plus an additional four potentially mineralized sands. Most are within the first few hundred feet of the surface with all the intervals within 800 feet of the surface. It is possible that continued exploration could result in increased uranium resources at the project area.

The Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map for Cadena and the cross section are located in Figures 7-7 and 7-8 respectively.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 39

Figure 7-7 Cadena Project Area Drill Hole, Mineralization, and Cross Section Location Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 40

Figure 7-8 Cadena Project Area Cross-Section

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 41
7.3	Hydrogeology
---	---
7.3.1	Butler Ranch
---	---

The project area is located within the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District and contains an aquifer system that is comprised of interbedded sand, clays, gravels, and conglomerates. The static water level in this area ranges between 50 and 100 ft bgs. Drilling in this area indicates that sands between depths of 180 and 680 ft are targeted for domestic, stock, and rig use with water from the Jackson Group Aquifer. Furthermore, these data provide validation that an aquifer system does exist at Butler Ranch in the Jackson Group.

7.3.2	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

Two rounds of pump testing were conducted at the Brevard property by SRK Consulting (SRK 2009a, SRK 2009b). The first pump test was conducted in April 2009 to evaluate the permeability of the Oakville Sand production zone and whether intermediate clay layers within the Oakville Sand would provide effective confinement. The pumping well was located approximately 600 feet from the southeast corner of the Brevard property. Observation wells were located approximately 220 feet from the pumping well, to the northwest and northeast. Observation wells were also located near the pumping well in shallower sands above intermediate clays.

The first pump test was for 24 hours at a constant rate of 8 gallons per minute (gpm), which was lower than desired. After pumping ended, recovery data were collected for 19 hours. The test found that the production zone permeability was favorable for ISR mining. Vertical variations in permeability within the production zone were not evaluated, but the report noted that if the uranium mineralization was associated with lower permeability sands it could impact uranium recovery. The intermediate clays (which are not areally extensive) were found to provide effective local operational confinement of mining fluids but would likely not be viewed as effective confining layers for regulatory purposes.

The second pump test was conducted in June 2009 and was designed to more closely reflect actual ISR mining. ISR-type wells were installed targeting the mineralized sand, the efficiency of different ISR well designs was evaluated, and a constant-rate pump test was conducted. The pumping well was completed by cementing the well casing in place, underreaming the mineralized interval, placing a well screen, and placing gravel in the annular space behind the well screen. Three monitor wells that could also serve as ISR wells were also constructed. All of the monitor wells were constructed with well screen. One monitor well was constructed using the same design as the pumping well, one was constructed the same as the pumping well but without gravel, and one was completed without underreaming or gravel. The monitor wells were located approximately 120 feet from the pumping well.

The pumping well and the three monitor wells were all capable of sustained pumping at 60 to 90 gpm. Step drawdown tests were performed in each well to evaluate well efficiency. Well efficiency of all three well designs was found to be 96 to 98 percent at 20 gpm. Two additional ISR wells were constructed near the pumping well from the first pump test to repeat that test at a higher pumping rate. These wells were capable of sustained pumping at 80 to 90 gpm, indicating that the low pumping rate during the first pump test at 8 gpm was likely a result of well construction and development issues, and not reflective of the aquifer properties.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 42

The second pump test consisted of pumping at a constant rate of 71.5 gpm for 24 hours. After pumping ended, recovery data were collected for 24 hours. The test found that the permeability of the mineralized sands were sufficiently high, and the aquifer would efficiently support the injection and recovery rates needed for ISR mining. The testing did not evaluate leaching efficiency or chemical reactions during mining that might affect aquifer permeability. Testing confirmed that the intermediate clays could provide operational confinement for mining fluids but would not meet regulatory requirements for confinement. The overlying Oakville Clay and the underlying Catahoula Clay would reportedly provide “absolute” confinement (SRK 2009b).

7.3.3	Upper Spring Creek - Brown

The Brown project area is located within the Live Oak Underground Water Conservation District and contains an aquifer system referred to as the Jasper Aquifer (Figure 7-1) which is part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System. This aquifer is Miocene in age and consists of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, and clays of the Oakville Formation. The Jasper aquifer is underlain by the Catahoula confining unit and overlain by the Burkeville confining unit (Baker, 1986).

7.3.4	Rosita South - Cadena

The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in South Texas and can yield moderate to large quantities of water. Cadena targets the Goliad Formation which outcrops at surface and is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.

No aquifer testing has been completed at Cadena to date. However, subsurface conditions are assumed to be similar to the enCore’s Rosita ISR Project which has operating wellfields within 2 miles of the Cadena resource area.

7.4	Geotechnical Information

No soil sampling has been performed at any of the project areas and no geotechnical data or analysis was provided for this Report.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 43
8.0	Deposit Type
---	---

Uranium mineralization identified at the Project occurs as epigenic roll-front deposits in the fluvial origin host sandstones. These deposits are characteristic of the types that have been successfully mined through ISR in Texas, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Roll-front deposits form through a chemical process in which a uranium source is oxidized and transported, then reduced and deposited into an existing host formation. The roll fronts are vertically confined by lower-permeability zones within the host sandstone. Roll-front deposits form within sandstone beds near an iron reduction-oxidation (redox) boundary between altered (oxidized) and unaltered (reduced) material. Iron oxidation produces color changes that are commonly used to help map roll fronts.

An idealized depiction of a roll-front uranium deposit occurring in a “C” shape at the alteration interface can be viewed on Figure 8-1. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in the ore zone or “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the roll front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.

In Texas roll-type deposits, uranium is deposited onto reactive substances including organic debris, titanium oxide, montmorillonite clay, and rock fragments, and forms discrete uranium minerals consisting primarily of coffinite and uraninite. Uranium minerals cover sand grains composed of carbonate, silicate and sulfide minerals, and volcanic rock fragments. Uranium minerals fill the pore spaces within the interstices of sandstones associated with opal and micritic calcite cement. Uranium is commonly found in close proximity to the interface between oxidized and reduced sand (Hall et al. 2017).

The uranium source in South Texas roll front deposits is volcaniclastic tuffaceous material. The Oligocene Catahoula Formation is a possible source, but volcaniclastic material is also present in the Oakville Formation and Jackson Group (Adams and Smith 1981).

In Oakville Sandstone uranium deposits at Brevard (Figure 8-2), the characteristic redox boundary color change and “C” shape associated with uranium roll fronts are not present. In the Oakville Sandstone, it is rare to encounter this idealized “C” shape (Galloway et al. 1982). This is likely because lower-permeability material disrupts the even flow of groundwater (Adams and Smith 1981). Geochemical studies of the Lamprecht deposit, an Oakville Sandstone uranium deposit located approximately five miles southwest of Brevard, found that the sediments within the uranium roll fronts had been re-reduced after uranium deposition (Goldhaber et al. 1979). This re-reduction does not remobilize uranium, which is only soluble when oxidized, but reducing the previously oxidized material changes the color and makes it indistinguishable from the already reduced material.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 44

Figure 8-1 Conceptual Uranium Roll Front Model

Granger and Warren 1979

At Brevard, faults may have historically provided a pathway for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a reducing agent, to migrate from underlying oil and gas beds into the Oakville Sandstone (Goldhaber et al. 1979). This process may have played a role in both deposition of the roll-fronts, and in the subsequent re-reduction. Color cannot be used for roll-front mapping in re-reduced deposits, but iron sulfide phases (pyrite vs. marcasite) and sulfur isotopes show distinct differences across re-reduced roll-fronts and can be used for detailed mapping if needed.

As shown in Figure 8-2, the upward movement of H2S was instrumental in the development of a reduced groundwater environment. Groundwater recharge from historical surface precipitation created an oxidized environment and mobilized uranium into the system. The uranium-bearing groundwater flowing within the aquifer until it encountered a reduced environment, at which point uranium was deposited in roll fronts (shown in yellow).

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 45

Figure 8-2 Roll-Front Uranium Deposition Process in the Oakville Sandstone

Modified from Galloway et al. 1982

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 46
9.0	EXPLORATION
---	---

Conventional rotary drilling and down-hole geophysical logging were the primary exploration method at the Project. An exploration target has also been identified the Butler Ranch project area.

9.1	Exploration Target

An exploration target was estimated for the Butler Ranch project area. Data evaluated to prepare the exploration target include maps, mineral trend maps, historical ore body maps, cross sections, logs, previous technical reports, correspondence, and historical resource estimates and reporting.

9.1.1	Butler Ranch Exploration Target

An extensive review of historical drill hole data was undertaken in order to estimate existing uranium resources within the property boundaries that have not been mined. Data from over 1,934 drill holes at Butler Ranch were evaluated. A description of the historical mining is discussed in Section 6.0.

This evaluation included the use of historical down-hole electric logs, drill hole location maps, a 2015 drilling project report, a data acquisitions summary, past memos and permits, and historical ore reserve estimates by Conoco in 1978 and 1981. In addition, log data was inventoried and includes summaries of mineralized drill hole intercepts with grade, thickness, and local survey coordinates for drill holes. Those projects without down-hole electric logs were evaluated for exploration potential which is detailed herein.

9.1.1.1Exploration Target

An exploration target was estimated for several of the properties within the Butler Ranch project area. Table 9-1 contains the results from this estimate. These estimates were derived from historical maps with mineral intercept data. No data on these maps could be confirmed by drill logs so these resources could not be classified. These properties are clearly targets for further exploration in the future. Figure 9-1 shows the mineral outlines on those properties with sufficient data to provide an estimate of exploration target.

9.1.1.2 Methodology

Historical maps were used to map exploration targets at Butler Ranch. These maps were developed by previous owners of Butler Ranch. The mineral intercept data on each map was evaluated and a 0.10 GT contour was drawn around the trend as a mineral outline. The area inside of the mineral outline was calculated using AutoCAD. Both a minimum GT (cutoff of 0.10) and a weighted average GT (0.37) were used with the weighted average of the nearby Turner property as the analog since this trend closely resembled the trends on the exploration target properties. The weighted average GT and the calculated trend areas were then used to calculate pounds using the same equation as the classified mineral estimate. The conversion constant (20) and tonnage factor (17.0) were used for the exploration target.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 47

9.1.1.3 ExplorationTarget Estimate

Four distinct trends were identified with the historical maps. They are:

Trend 1: Moczygemba

Trend 2: Zunker

Trend 3: Garcia

Trend 4: Dziuk

Table 9-1  Butler Ranch Exploration Target Estimate of Lbs. U3O8

Trend	Property	Host Strata	Acreage		Area(ft^2^)		Estimated Poundsat GT Cutoff		Estimated PoundsTurner Analog
1	Moczygemba	Tordilla		3.71		161,608		19,000		69,000
2	Zunker	Tordilla		14.08		613,325		72,000		264,000
3	Garcia	Dubose/Stoneswitch		28.91		1,259,320		148,000		541,000
4	Dziuk	Tordilla		1.74		75,794		9,000		33,000
Totals							****	248,000	****	907,000

Notes:

1)	Grade and thickness of the mineralized sands were not included on the historic maps used for this estimate (only GT was<br>recorded). Therefore, average grades and ore tons could not be calculated.
2)	Turner property average GT (0.37) was used as the analog because it most closely resembles the GTs on the exploration<br>target properties.
---	---

The ranges of potential quantity and grade of the exploration target are conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource or mineral reserve. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.

In the opinion of the Authors, the methods used and results of the exploration target for the properties within Butler Ranch are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry. The method used for estimating the exploration target is conservative with respect to application of the weighted average GT from the Turner property while also using the lower cutoff to bracket the low-end mineral potential. Exploration targets do not meet the standards to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and as such, there is no certainty that the exploration targets provided herein will be realized.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 48

Figure 9-1 Butler Ranch Project Area Exploration Target Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 49

10.0 Drilling

10.1 Drilling Programs

Drilling was conducted by conventional rotary methods using a variety of bit diameters and configurations. Drilling programs generally followed industry standards where cuttings are collected at regular intervals and examined by an on-site geologist to record lithology and geochemical alteration (redox state). Holes were then typically logged with a variety of tools including gamma ray, SP, single point resistance, PFN (if necessary), or other logging methods to aid in grade estimation and lithologic correlation. Cores were also collected from a limited number of holes throughout the project areas (excluding Butler Ranch and Cadena project areas). Cores were collected at the drill rig by a geologist. They were boxed and labeled as appropriate and transported to a secure facility. Cores were then logged and scanned with radiation detection devices and samples were identified and marked. Some Core samples were then sent to laboratories for testing for disequilibrium, metallurgy and hydrogeological parameters. It is the opinion of the QP that the drilling and core sampling methods were consistent with standard industry practices at the time the programs were conducted.

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

10.1.1 Butler Ranch

Several drilling programs have been initiated at Butler Ranch since uranium was discovered in Karnes County. A total of 1,934 drill-hole gamma logs were received when enCore acquired the project area. These logs have since been inventoried with k-factors, dead-times, water factors, depths drilled and logged, operators, logging companies, and other relevant information. Of these logs, GT data was received for 950 holes, of which 432 holes had location and GT data that could be used for mineral resource exploration.

Since acquiring the Butler Ranch, enCore has not initiated any new drilling programs at Butler Ranch. No core data from drilling was acquired for this evaluation.

10.1.2 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

enCore has not conducted any drilling at Brevard and has not collected any new drillhole geophysical log or core data. Historical exploration of Brevard has been through drilling conducted by Signal Equities.

From 2008 to 2011, Signal drilled a total of 793 holes at Brevard. These included 338 drillholes on the Brevard property, 135 on Benham, 162 on Johnston and 158 on a neighboring property. The drilling performed by Signal identified mineral horizons at each of the properties. Drillhole locations are shown in Figure 7-6. Figures 7-7 through 7-9 show geologic cross-sections based on drillhole data.

Some drillholes were renumbered by Signal early in their work, and the records of this renumbering are clear. Drillhole locations were surveyed using a Trimble hand-held GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. In mineralized areas, drillhole spacing ranged from less than 10 feet

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 50

to approximately 140 feet. Initial drilling to identify mineralized areas was in a grid with drillholes spaced approximately 900 feet apart.

Exploration drilling was conducted by mud rotary method, and drillhole diameters ranged from 5.625 to 7.000 inches in diameter. Coring operations to complete 13 sonic coreholes were conducted by Boart Longyear. All of the coreholes are located at the Brevard property as shown on Figure 7-6. In the mud rotary drillholes, drill cutting samples were collected and logged every five feet. The sonic core sample tubes were 10 feet long, and samples were logged every five feet or at stratigraphic transitions. Lithologic logs were prepared using drill cuttings or core samples. Lithologic descriptions were prepared for each stratigraphic interval and included color, rock type, hardness, clay percent, grain size, sorting, and oxidation state. Gamma log counts were also noted.

Drillholes were near-vertical, as confirmed by downhole deviation surveys measuring azimuth and inclination. The drillholes were initially logged by Signal with a Mount Sopris ® spectral gamma probe to identify mineralized intervals. These intervals were then logged by contract loggers with a PFN probe. 734 drillholes were logged with the Mount Sopris ® spectral gamma, and 727 drillholes were logged with PFN. PFN logging was the primary sampling method for the project area. Because the drillholes are near-vertical and the dip of mineralization is small (<1°), the sample length accurately reflects the true thickness of mineralization.

Core sample recovery averaged 102 percent, with recovery from individual sonic core tubes ranging from 50 percent to 170 percent. Sample recovery was affected by swelling clays and sands. Swelling clays expanded when they were removed from the sample tube, which made the total length of core recovered longer than the actual cored length. This made it difficult to accurately determine the sample depths of those cores. Sand recovery was poor at the bottom of cores, where the sand could fall out of the core tube and into the corehole prior to recovery. In some cases, mineralization in sand units that was identifiable in gamma and PFN logs was completely missed in the core samples because the sand was not recovered. This was noted when gamma scans of the core samples were checked against the corehole gamma log. Where the corehole gamma log showed a significant response that was not present in the core samples, it was clear that the mineralized sand was not recovered. Because core sample data were not used in the mineral resource estimate, core sample recovery does not materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results. Sections 12 and 13 provide more information on core sampling and assay results.

The depth of mineralization ranges from approximately 40 to 420 feet bgs. GTs of mineralized intercepts range from the cutoff of 0.3 to 2.85. Grade ranges within drillholes vary with depth as is typical of roll-front deposits. Data from individual drillholes are supported by surrounding drillholes, and the estimate does not include unusually high grade-thicknesses.

In the QP’s opinion, problems with the first holes drilled at Brevard do not materially impact the mineral resource estimate. The drilling and logging procedures subsequently followed by Signal are in accordance with current industry practices and generally accepted standards, and produced data that are acceptable for preparing mineral resource estimates.

10.1.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area

No historical drilling data is available from U.S. Steel’s tenure on the Boots-Brown Project. However, in 2010, Signal initiated a 309-hole delineation drilling program at the Brown property

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 51

and between 2022 and 2024 enCore completed a 65-hole delineation program in the Geffert property (Figure 7-6). enCore maintains all data for these drilling programs and copies of these data were provided to the QP. Nearly all drilling completed was for the purposes of exploration, delineation and assessment of the mineral resource potential and consisted of conventional rotary drilling, except for three Sonic® core drill holes. Drill hole locations were staked in the field using a Trimble hand-held GPS capable of sub-meter accuracy. It is the QP’s opinion that for the purposes of estimating mineral resources, the drill hole survey data are reliable.

In the rotary holes, drill cutting samples were collected for lithological logging in 5 ft intervals. Lithological logs were completed in the field by geologists following standard procedures. For down-hole geophysical logging, standard logging trucks which were equipped with gamma tools capable of recording natural gamma, resistivity, and SP data. The units were equipped with software to convert downhole gamma measurements to percent eU3O8 at user specified depth increments. Signal also contracted for PFN down-hole logging, initially with GeoInstruments Logging, then with GAA Wireline after GAA Wireline purchased GeoInstruments. enCore conducted PFN logging as part of their 65-hole drilling program with in-house PFN logging equipment.

The PFN logging trucks utilized were also equipped to measure down-hole deviation by azimuth and inclination. The X-Y coordinates for the bottom of each drill hole and the true depth were computed and stored in an electronic database. Only one hole of the 374 drilled lacks down-hole drift survey data. The average depth of all Signal drill holes was 393 feet and the average depth of the 65 holes drilled by enCore was 430 feet. In the QP’s opinion, the effect of downhole deviation with respect to sample thickness is negligible. The QP examined deviation records for approximately 20% of all down-hole PFN logs and notes that lateral drift (deviation in the X-Y direction) in the holes was not material to the mineral resource estimate.

The 10 highest GTs for Brown range from 4.27 to 10.77.

PFN logging tools respond directly to the uranium content in the drill holes (as opposed to the content of daughter products), and unlike conventional gamma logging, are not affected by disequilibrium present in the deposit. Signal used the initial Mount Sopris® gamma log results to identify mineralized zones (>0.02% eU3O8) that were then logged with the PFN tools. This approach mitigated the effects of radiometric disequilibrium in the deposit, as the PFN data are essentially equivalent to other common uranium assay methods. Calibration data for both natural gamma logs and PFN logs are discussed in Section 12 of this Report. While drilling was active, both the gamma and PFN logging trucks were calibrated routinely. In the QP’s opinion, the drilling and logging procedures followed by Signal are in accordance with current industry practices and generally accepted standards, resulting in data that are acceptable for estimation of mineral resources. The QP identified errors in Signal’s PFN calibration calculations and grade calculations. The raw PFN logging data was not affected by these calculation errors and remains the basis for the corrected calculated grades.

10.1.4 Rosita South - Cadena

Several historical drilling programs were initiated by Moore Energy, Mobil, and URI (Table 6-1). URI completed several exploration/ delineation holes in the project area in 2022. Between the three historic operators, 1,487 holes were drilled at Cadena. Nine holes were also cored for the purpose of laboratory testing and assays. GT values used in the mineral estimate ranged between 0.3 and 3.45. Holes drilled by Moore and Mobil were logged with Gamma and URI

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 52

logged their holes with PFN to determine more accurate grades for the project area and to determine if the resource is in equilibrium.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 53

11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY

11.1 Typical and Standard Industry Methods

This Report was prepared using a variety of sources, including data collected directly by enCore, data collected by previous property owners and information presented in prior reports for which not all underlying data is available. enCore has Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) procedures to guide drilling, logging, sampling, analytical testing, sample handling and storage. Details of sample preparation, analyses and security are presented separately for each project area.

Although core sampling was conducted on some project areas, the primary method for evaluating eU3O8 is through geophysical logging. Geophysical logs typically included gamma ray, resistance, SP and drill hole deviation. PFN logs are conducted in drill holes with significant gamma ray log responses. Resistance and SP curves are primarily used to identify lithological boundaries and to correlate sand units and mineralized zones between drill holes. Gamma ray and PFN logs provide indirect (eU3O8) and direct (cU3O8) measurements of uranium.

Because geophysical logging measures in-place sediments rather than collected samples, it minimizes the effects of variations in drill hole diameter and thin bed stratigraphy. Since no samples are collected with this method, sample security is not a consideration. Documentation of probe calibration, observation of logging runs and secure data management practices are comparable measures.

Gamma ray logs provide an indirect measurement of uranium content by logging gamma radiation in counts per second (CPS) at one-tenth ft intervals, CPS are then converted to eU3O8. The conversion requires an algorithm and several correction factors that are applied to the CPS value. Comparing gamma logs to PFN logs also provides a way to measure the radiometric DEF, which indicates whether uranium is dispersed or depleted and can be used to help pattern uranium roll fronts.

PFN uranium assay logs provide a direct measurement of actual uranium grade in cU3O8. PFN logging is considered superior to laboratory assay/analysis of core samples, as it provides a larger sample and is less expensive (Penney et al. 2012). In some cases, enCore compares PFN logs to core sample assays to validate grade findings.

11.2 Butler Ranch

All mineralization at Butler Ranch occurs at depth and does not outcrop. Therefore, investigation of the mineralization is accomplished solely by means of drilling. Similarly, “sampling” of mineralization is accomplished by one or more of three methods derived from the drilling activities including: 1) down-hole geophysical logging, 2) coring, and 3) drill cuttings. These are described in the following subsections.

11.2.1 Down-hole Geophysical Logging

All holes drilled on Butler Ranch have been logged by geophysical methods using some type of down-hole electronic probe. This is standard practice for the U.S. uranium industry. Gamma logging, SP and Single-Point Resistance or multi-point resistivity curves were performed at the Butler Ranch.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 54

11.2.2 Coring

In the U.S. uranium industry, coring typically is done on only a small percentage of drill holes. The primary purpose for collecting core has been to provide relatively undisturbed samples for chemical analyses and to evaluate host rock physical properties. For uranium, chemical analyses are typically performed to evaluate disequilibrium and to identify trace elements and constituents of interest. Physical properties of interest typically include permeability, porosity, and density. Cored intervals are normally limited to select intervals. Rarely are holes cored from surface to total depth.

11.2.3 Drill Cuttings

During the 2015 drilling program conducted by URI, Inc., cuttings were collected at 5 ft intervals. Detailed descriptions of each of these samples were then documented by the company’s field geologists. Drill cutting samples are valuable for lithologic evaluation, confirmation of e-log interpretation, and for description of redox conditions based on sample color. Identifying redox conditions in the host formation is critical for the interpretation and mapping of roll fronts. Note, however, that cuttings samples are not analyzed for uranium content because there is considerable dilution and mixing that occurs as the cuttings are flushed to the surface. In addition, the samples are not definitive with regard to depth due to variation in the lag time between cutting at the drill bit and when the sample is collected at the surface. As with the coring data, there is record of samples in past project reports but no tangible samples to access for this analysis.

11.2.4 Analyses and Security

No data is available for any of the samples taken at this property other than drill hole intercept data. In addition, no quality control procedures were documented to ensure the validity and security/safety of any of the samples that may have been tested.

11.2.5 Quality Control Summary

No quality control measures were documented for sample collection, transportation, and testing. However, the mineral intercept data that was used in this report was validated by checking log values and calculations against the mineral intercept database. Approximately 20 percent of all the drill hole data used in this analysis were validated by checking the corresponding logs.

11.2.6 Opinion on Adequacy

Very little data is available for sample collection methods, preparation, security, and analytical procedures used in the historical analysis of the Project. However, most of the data used in this Project came from drilling data and maps. These data were independently verified by the QP by comparing them to the data on the drill logs. In the opinion of the QP, the data compiled from the drill logs is valid.

11.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

All mineralization at Brevard is in situ, and sampling has been exclusively by drilling/coring. Sampling methods via drilling include geophysical logging and laboratory analysis of core samples.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 55

11.3.1 Geophysical Logging

Geophysical logging includes spectral gamma and PFN. Spectral gamma logging was performed by Signal using their own Mount Sopris ® equipment. PFN logging was performed by contract loggers. Although gamma logs were not used for the mineral resource estimate, the gamma responses generally correlated with the PFN response, with some differences resulting from radiometric disequilibrium. This provided independent support for the overall response of the PFN tools, although not for the calculated PFN grades.

Gamma and PFN probes were routinely calibrated in the DOE test pits in George West, Texas (Resource Evaluation 2017).

Signal identified problems with the logging speed and data processing of PFN data from the first 31 holes they drilled at the project area. These problems potentially affected the reliability of the data from these holes. Signal subsequently revised its procedures for PFN logging to be consistent with current industry practices, and these procedures were used for the remainder of the drilling project. Data from one of these drillholes were used in the mineral resource estimate, and the grade-thickness is supported by data that was collected from surrounding drillholes using the revised procedures. Errors were identified in Signal’s PFN calibration and grade calculations. The raw PFN logging data were not affected by these calculation errors, which were corrected prior to estimating mineral resources. The corrected PFN data are suitable for mineral resource estimation. Section 12 discusses the PFN logging and data reliability in more detail.

All geophysical logs were observed by Signal geologists. The data were collected by down-hole probes and then converted by logging software to produce the final logs. Paper log output sheets were given directly to Signal geologists by the loggers, and the data were also transferred electronically to Signal. At no point were the geophysical logging data in control of third parties. Signal had written procedures for geophysical logging, and the procedures resulted in a secure chain of custody for the geophysical logging data.

11.3.2 Core Sampling

Core samples were measured as they were removed from the core tubes. The recovered core length and core recovery percent were noted. Section 10 discusses core recovery. Physical core samples were taken by Signal from the drill rig to Signal’s logging shed at a nearby property. At the logging shed, Signal geologists catalogued the core and recorded the gamma counts for the core as a quality control measure. This allowed the core samples to be compared with the gamma log of the corehole to evaluate the accuracy of sample depths. The geologists determined individual sample breaks and prepared a sample transportation manifest. The samples were then transported by Signal to XENCO Laboratories in Corpus Christi, TX.

XENCO split the cores, prepared samples, and analyzed the samples for uranium by ASTM D2907. At Signal’s request, XENCO transferred some prepared samples by FedEx to Energy Laboratories in Casper, WY and some to Hazen Research Inc. in Golden, CO for further analysis. XENCO also returned some samples to Signal. Energy Laboratories analyzed the samples for chemical uranium and chemical U3O8 by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP/MS).

Hazen prepared the samples by splitting the cores in half longitudinally, then stage crushing half of the core to ^1^⁄4 inches. Half of the crushed sample was rejected, and half was crushed to 100 percent passing a 10 mesh. One 100-gram sample was pulped for assay, one 100-gram

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 56

sample was retained for possible mineralogy analysis, and the remainder was split into 500-gram charges for leach experiments. The pulped samples were assayed for fluorometric U3O8 percent. Hazen sent one core sample to Core Laboratories in Denver, CO for porosity, permeability and grain density analysis. Records indicate that Hazen sent some core splits to XENCO for further analysis. Hazen subsequently returned core splits to Signal via courier.

Samples from six coreholes were analyzed by both XENCO and Hazen. The difference in results ranged from 0.001 to 0.07 %U3O8 and averaged 0.02 %U3O8.

XENCO, Hazen, Energy Laboratories and Core Laboratories are all accredited by National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP)-recognized accreditation bodies. All three laboratories are contract laboratories with no known affiliation with Signal or enCore. Signal had written procedures for core sampling and analysis, and chains of custody document control of the samples between Signal and the laboratories, and between the laboratories.

11.3.3 Data Storage and Transfer

Signal maintained detailed records of all aspects of tool calibration, drilling, coring, geophysical logging, laboratory assay, other testing, and reported results. Signal followed written procedures for data collection and entry, which were consistent with industry-standard practices.

Electronic data were stored on a secure server at Signal’s corporate office in New Braunfels, TX, and a backup copy was maintained at an off-site contract data storage facility. Hard copies of the majority of the original drillhole data were maintained at the corporate office. Resource Investigation independently examined the data as part of their reporting (2017) and found that “the drill logs were carefully stored and catalogued in filing cabinets in good order.”

When enCore acquired Brevard from Signal, it transferred all electronic and hard-copy data to its corporate office in Corpus Christi, TX. The data are securely stored and electronic data are backed up.

11.3.4 Opinion on Adequacy

It is the QP’s opinion that the geophysical logging, core sampling, assay procedures, data entry/maintenance, and storage and security for all relevant data are adequate. The dataset is well documented, which allowed errors to be identified and corrected. It is the QP’s opinion that the data are suitable for the purpose of estimating the mineral resources at Brevard.

11.4 Upper Spring Creek - Brown

All mineralization at Brown occurs at depth and does not outcrop. Therefore, investigation of mineralization is accomplished solely by means of drilling. Similarly, “sampling” of mineralization is accomplished by one or more of three methods derived from the drilling activities including: 1) down-hole geophysical logging, 2) coring, and 3) evaluation of drill cuttings. These are described in the following subsections.

11.4.1 Down-hole Geophysical Logging

All drill holes have been logged by geophysical methods using a down-hole electronic probe. This is standard practice for the U.S. uranium industry. Down-hole geophysical logging techniques used at Brown include PFN logging, natural gamma equivalent logging, and Mount Sopris® spectral gamma tool logging, which records the natural gamma equivalent, resistivity

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 57

and SP. Natural gamma logging and Mount Sopris® tools were used to detect and screen mineralized intervals greater than 0.02% eU3O8 for subsequent PFN logging (Signal Equities 2017). enCore relied entirely on PFN logging for determining uranium mineralization grades.

PFN uranium assay tools respond directly to in-situ uranium, and the neutron counts measured by the tool are combined with data collected during tool calibration to calculate the actual uranium grade of U3O8. PFN logging is considered superior to laboratory assay/analysis of core samples, as it provides a larger sample, is less expensive and is measured in-situ (Penney, et al. 2012).

PFN analytical data (epithermal and thermal neutron counts) were collected using down-hole probes. The software on the logging truck calculated percent U3O8 grades on 0.5 ft intervals. Because the PFN tools analyze the rock in-situ, there was no need for conventional sample preparation or analysis procedures. Calibration data for all logging equipment including Mount Sopris®, natural gamma logs and PFN is discussed Section 12. While drilling, both the natural gamma and PFN logging trucks were calibrated routinely (Signal Equities 2017). The QP identified errors in the previous owner’s PFN calibration calculations and grade calculations. The raw PFN logging data was not affected by these calculation errors and remains the basis for the corrected calculated grades.

11.4.2 Coring

In the U.S. uranium industry, coring typically is done on only a small percentage of drill holes. The primary purposes for collecting core is to provide relatively undisturbed samples for chemical analyses, leach testing, and host rock physical properties. Cored intervals are normally limited to selected intervals based on the results of the down-hole geophysical logging.

Three holes were cored during Signal’s 2010 drilling program using the Sonic® core drilling method. These cores were transported to Hazen Research Laboratories (Hazen) in Denver, Colorado for wet chemical analysis (Signal Equities 2017).

11.4.3 Drill Cuttings

Drill cutting samples were collected from rotary drilling operations for lithological logging on 5-ft down-hole increments. Lithological logs of the cuttings samples were completed in the field by Signal geologists following the written standard procedures using standard lithological log forms.

11.4.4 Analyses and Security

All data from Signal’s down-hole geophysical logs were converted to paper log output sheets and passed directly from the logging professionals to Signal geologists and were also transferred electronically to Signal. Therefore, at no time were data in the control of third-party individuals. These procedures resulted in a secure chain of custody for the analytical data. Core was drilled and then placed by the driller in clear plastic sleeves at the drill rig. It was then transferred to Signal geologists who transported the sleeves containing the core to Signal’s nearby logging shed. Signal’s geologists catalogued the core, determined individual sample breaks without removing the core from the plastic sleeves and established a sample transportation manifest that included instructions for Hazen once the core reached the lab in Denver. When the core was received, Hazen removed the core from the plastic sleeves, split it longitudinally and placed the individual samples for assay in metal trays. Once dry, the samples

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 58

were crushed, split to create two sub-samples (one for assay and a second for future check assaying), and the two sub-samples were pulverized to create sample pulps for wet chemical assay (Signal Equities 2017).

All data from enCore’s down-hole geophysical logs were converted to paper log output sheets and passed directly from the logging professionals to the geologists and were also transferred electronically to enCore. Therefore, at no time were data in the control of third-party individuals. These procedures resulted in a secure chain of custody for the analytical data.

11.4.5 Quality Control Summary

Signal had written procedures for the collection of drill data including lithological logging, natural gamma logging, and PFN logging, and also for data entry into databases and GIS. All data were stored on a secure server at the Signal corporate office in New Braunfels, TX, with a full copy backup at a secure off-site contract data storage facility. enCore has written procedures for the collection of drill data including lithological logging, natural gamma logging, and PFN logging, and also for data entry into databases and GIS. All drill hole data are now maintained at enCore’s corporate office in Corpus Christi, TX.

For this Report, the QP reviewed PFN logs, gamma logs and drilling records for each drillhole used to calculate mineral resources. The QP corrected errors that were identified in the previous owner’s PFN calibration calculations and grade calculations using the raw logging data and known constants such as hole diameter and published DOE test pit grade values. Using the carefully verified and corrected data, the QP checked the GT contour and GIS data provided by enCore. Approximately 75% of all the drill hole data used to prepare the mineral resource estimate were validated by checking the corresponding PFN logs.

11.4.6 Opinion on Adequacy

It is the QP’s opinion that the geophysical logging, data collection, assay procedures, data entry/maintenance, and storage and security for all relevant data are adequate. The dataset is well documented, which allowed errors to be identified and corrected. It is the QP’s opinion that these data, as corrected, are suitable for the purpose of estimating the mineral resources at Brown.

11.5 Rosita South - Cadena

Data provided for Cadena included drilling locations and corresponding intercept data, lithology and geophysical logs and core analysis. Drill holes at Cadena were logged using gamma ray and PFN tools and the data provided from these tools were used for the mineral estimate. URI logged 98 holes with PFN to determine more accurate grades and provide data on equilibrium. Several samples were retrieved for laboratory analysis or core assays by Mobil and Moore Energy. Density data and assay data were provided for 9 holes. It is the QP’s opinion that the PFN data is adequate and reliable to classify the mineral resources at Cadena.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 59

11.6 QP’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

In the opinion of the QP:

•	Available records and previous reporting indicate that sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for drill<br>programs are in line with industry-standard methods for roll-front uranium deposits at the time they were conducted.
•	Coring programs varied but were in line with uranium industry standard methods at the time they were conducted.<br>Laboratory-reported uranium grades are considered to have adequate quality control.
---	---
•	The geophysical logging program for Butler Ranch included gamma ray and resistance logs. Gamma values were then used to<br>calculate eU3O8 that was used in the exploration target.
---	---
•	Geophysical logging programs for Brevard and Brown included gamma ray, SP, resistance, and PFN logs. Gamma and PFN<br>probes were calibrated at the test pits in George West or Kingsville Dome. Laboratory analysis/assay of core samples was also conducted. Uranium grades based on the combination of gamma ray, PFN and core sample assays are considered to have<br>excellent quality control and meet or exceed uranium industry standard operating procedures.
---	---
•	The geophysical logging program for Cadena included gamma ray, neutron, resistance and PFN logs. Laboratory data from<br>core sampling and QA/QC details are limited. Uranium grades (eU3O8) based on the combination of gamma ray and limited PFN and core sample<br>assays are considered to have adequate quality control and meet uranium industry standard operating procedures.
---	---
•	Digital database construction and security are adequate.
---	---
•	Data are subject to validation and numerous checks that are appropriate and consistent with industry standards.<br>
---	---
•	The QP did not review all procedures conducted for sample preparation, analysis and security for each sample due to the<br>quantity of the associated data and the limited availability of historic data. In the opinion of the QP, previous operators/owners used industry standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements in place at the time the work was<br>conducted. The QP is of the opinion that the quality of the uranium analytical data is sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation without limitations on mineral resource confidence categories.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 60
---	---

12.0 DATA VERIFICATION

The following is a summary of all data verification efforts for the project areas discussed in this Report.

12.1 Butler Ranch

Data supporting this Report come almost exclusively in the form of drilling data gained from historical drilling activities by previous operators and those since the acquisition of Butler Ranch. Quality control of previous drill data has been discussed in Section 11.0. The tabulations of mineral intercepts compiled by enCore are consistent with the original down-hole gamma logs and the geophysical operator’s mineral intercept calculations. WWC has verified historical drill data by comparing historical drilling and reports on Butler Ranch to historical exploration logs with results which validates the historical data. The tabulations of mineral intercepts compiled by enCore have been confirmed by the QP to be consistent with the original down-hole electric logs and the geophysical operator’s mineral intercept estimate.

Furthermore, historical mineral intercept data of previous operators of Butler Ranch have been evaluated and selectively checked for accuracy.

After a review of that data, it is the QP’s opinion that the historical mineral intercept data are valid and are suitable for the development of an exploration target.

12.2 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

enCore provided the QP with access to the complete electronic dataset for Brevard for the purpose of preparing this Report. The QP did not review hard copy records, but the electronic dataset included scans of field data sheets. The QP verified all of the assay data used to prepare the mineral resource estimate. This verification included reviewing PFN tool calibration records and grade calculations, comparing core and PFN assay results, and reviewing each PFN log used in the mineral resource estimate.

12.2.1 Review of PFN Tool Calibration and Grade Calculations

Calibration records for the PFN tools were reviewed to confirm the tools were properly calibrated. The calibration grade used by the PFN logging contractor was not the published grade for the George West, TX calibration test pit (USDOE 2013). This error in calibration grade affected the calculated grades of U3O8 in drillholes logged after the PFN tool was calibrated to the incorrect grade. The records indicate that aside from the calibration grade, the PFN tool runs in the calibration pits were performed per normal accepted protocols. The PFN calibration does not affect the raw data (epithermal and thermal neutron counts) measured by the PFN tool; it only affects how the U3O8 grades are calculated from the raw data. Using the valid raw PFN data, the QP corrected the historical calibration calculation error and associated U3O8 grade calculations.

The QP also reviewed the U3O8 grade calculations to ensure the appropriate factors were used. The borehole correction factor is directly related to the drillhole diameter and should be the same for drillholes of the same size. The QP identified some logs (approximately seven percent of the logs used to prepare the mineral resource estimate) in which the incorrect borehole correction factor was used to calculate the U3O8 grade. As with the calibration calculation errors, this calculation does not affect the raw data measured by the PFN tool, it only affects how the U3O8 grades are calculated. The QP subsequently reviewed records for every drillhole

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 61

that was used in the mineral resource estimate to confirm that the correct borehole correction factor was used. The QP corrected the borehole correction factor errors and associated U3O8 grade calculations as necessary.

12.2.2 Comparison of Core and PFN Assay Results

The QP compared core assay data with PFN assay data for ten coreholes at the Brevard property. Results were compared by summing all intervals in a corehole that had both core and PFN assay data, to produce a grade sum. Initially, it appeared that the core assay results were higher than the PFN assay results. The PFN assay results were then corrected for the calibration and grade calculation errors as described above.

Sample recovery in two of the coreholes was poor and records clearly indicate that the mineralized interval was not recovered, so the lab assay results are not representative. For the remaining eight coreholes, the corrected PFN assay results were within -10.3% to +10.8% of the core assay results. The average difference was 0.5% (with the PFN assay 0.5% higher than the core assay). These results are shown in Figure 12-1. The results confirm that the methodology used to correct the PFN data is reliable, since the resulting data are independently supported by core assay data.

12.2.3 Review of PFN Logs

The QP reviewed the PFN logs of every drillhole used in the mineral resource estimate. PFN logs were compared against gamma logs to check that the results of the two independently run logs were similar. Although there were differences due to radiometric disequilibrium, both logs typically identified similar depths of mineralization and relative magnitude of response to mineral intercepts with respect to background levels. Since some PFN logs had high noise levels, each log was evaluated to ensure that PFN noise was not being incorrectly inferred as uranium. In noisy logs, only the clearly mineralized intervals with responses higher than background noise (as verified by corresponding gamma responses) were included in the GT sum.

12.2.4 Opinion on Adequacy

After verifying and correcting errors in the Brevard data as described above, it is the QP’s opinion that the data used in this Report are valid and suitable for estimating mineral resources.

12.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brown

enCore maintains digital copies of data at their office in Corpus Christi, Tx. All PFN log data for this project area was provided digitally by enCore. The PFN records included the raw data files collected by the logging tool (LAS files) and calculations of the PFN grades. Approximately 75% of all the logs used for this project area were reviewed by the QP. In the opinion of the QP, the mineralized intervals previously defined by enCore for this Report were valid.

In addition, GT contours were provided by enCore for mineralized zones throughout Brown. These zones were referred to as the A, C (separated into upper and lower sub-zones), D (separated into upper and lower sub-zones), E, and F Sand Zones in the Brown property and Sand 4, 3c, 3b, 3, 2 and 1 in the Geffert property. Contours for each mineralized sand zone were then directly compared to the mineral intercept data on PFN logs. After reviewing and editing these contours for accuracy, it is the QP’s opinion that the contours provided by enCore for this Report were valid.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 62

Figure 12-1 Brevard Comparison of Grade Sums, PFN vs. Lab Assay

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 63

12.3.1 Geophysical Logging and PFN Calibration

Much of the data for Brown came from Signal’s 2010 drilling program. Therefore, calibration of the downhole geophysical logging instruments was vital to providing accurate data. While drilling, both the natural gamma and PFN logging trucks were calibrated routinely. In both 2009 and 2010, according to calibration records, the PFN tools were calibrated on 37 separate occasions while Signal records indicate that the Mt. Sopris^®^ tools were ‘routinely’ calibrated. Natural gamma tool and PFN tool calibration was performed at the George West, TX facility, which is maintained by the DOE (Signal Equities 2017).

During the data verification process, the QP determined that the PFN tool calibration grade used by the logging contractor was not the published grade for the George West, TX calibration test pit. This error in calibration grade affected the calculated grades of U3O8 on drillholes logged after the PFN tool was calibrated to the incorrect grade. The records indicate that aside from the calibration grade, the PFN tool runs in the calibration pits were performed per normal accepted protocols. The PFN calibration does not affect the raw data (epithermal and thermal neutron counts) measured by the PFN tool; it only affects how the U3O8 grades are calculated from the raw data. Because the raw PFN data was valid, the QP was able to correct the historical calibration calculation error and associated U3O8 grade calculations.

The QP also identified some logs in which the incorrect borehole correction factor was used to calculate the U3O8 grade. The QP subsequently reviewed records for every drillhole that was used in the mineral resource estimate to confirm that the correct borehole correction factor was used. As with the calibration calculation errors, this calculation does not affect the raw data measured by the PFN tool, it only affects how the U3O8 grades are calculated. The QP was able to correct the borehole correction factor errors and associated U3O8 grade calculations.

During enCore’s 2022-2024 drilling program PFN tools owned by enCore were used for logging. These PFN tools were regularly calibrated at the test pits at Kingsville Dome and the calibration pits at George West.

12.3.2 Core Assays and Disequilibrium Analysis

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U^238^ on the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope.

Signal relied on PFN log data for determination of uranium grade. This method is a direct measurement of U3O8 content rather than an equivalent U3O8 estimate. Therefore, the DEF is unnecessary and not applicable.

Wet chemical assays were performed on three cores from the core holes drilled at the project area. The results of the PFN data and the core assays are inconsistent and due to the limited number of core holes, the dataset is too small to determine why the assay results are inconsistent with the PFN data. Brevard was cored at the same time with the same coring rigs, PFN equipment, and operators have a larger set of coring records. Records from this nearby project show that the coring recovery was sometimes poor, especially in sands (i.e., mineralized zones). There were also problems with swelling clays expanding in the core tubes, which affected the core sample depths. When the coring recovery at the nearby project was good, the grade sums measured by the core assay and PFN (corrected) matched closely.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 64

12.3.3 Opinion on Adequacy

After verifying and correcting errors in the data described above, it is the QP’s opinion that the data used in this Project are valid and suitable for estimating mineral resources.

12.4 Rosita South - Cadena

No data is available for the calibration of any geophysical logging tools used on this project. However, it is assumed that the PFN and gamma data used in this mineral estimate were calibrated to industry standards. Assay data compared to the mineral grades used to calculate the GT values in the mineral estimate were comparable and the grades used to calculate the GTs were conservative in some cases. Therefore, it is the QP’s opinion that the data are valid and suitable for estimating mineral resources.

12.5 Limitations

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

12.6 QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy

The QP finds the historic and more recent exploration data and the overall data adequacy to be reasonably sufficient for applying QA/QC techniques and verifying the legitimacy of these data incorporated into this Report. The QP has reviewed past technical resource reports, geophysical logs, intercept data, mineral resource maps, and all other associated data provided by enCore Energy.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 65

13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

13.1 Summary of Project Areas

enCore plans to use an ISR mineral extraction process to recover uranium from the host sandstone formations in the project areas. enCore will employ a leaching solution (lixiviant), composed of native groundwater supplemented with an oxidant and complexing agent, to recover the uranium through a series of injection and recovery wells.

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

•	Wellfields for injection of the lixiviant solution and recovery of the uranium, which is pumped to the surface through<br>recovery wells and then to a satellite plant;
•	Processing in a satellite plant, which recovers dissolved uranium through an IX circuit onto IX resin and transportation<br>of the loaded resin to a CPP (Rosita CPP); and
---	---
•	Further processing in the CPP includes the following:
---	---
^○^	elution circuit to remove the uranium from the IX resins and produce a rich eluate;
---	---
^○^	yellowcake circuit to precipitate the uranium as yellowcake from the rich eluate; and
---	---
^○^	yellowcake dewatering, drying and packaging circuit.
---	---

A summary of the historical mineral processing and metallurgical testing on each property is described in the following sections.

13.2 Butler Ranch

No data is available for the mineral processing and metallurgical testing that may have been performed at the project area.

13.3 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

PFN logging was the primary sampling method for Brevard and the resulting data was used to prepare the mineral resource estimate. Metallurgical testing was also performed, and included laboratory assay of core samples, physical analysis of a core sample, mineralogical analysis, leach amenability testing, and pump testing.

13.3.1 Laboratory Assay of Core Samples

Core sample assay was performed by XENCO, Hazen and Energy Laboratories. Results from 184 one-ft samples that were above the detection limit are available from XENCO, with an average grade of 0.024 %U3O8 and a maximum grade of 0.48 %U3O8. Results from 122 one-ft samples that were above the detection limit are available from Hazen, with an average grade of 0.067 %U3O8 and a maximum grade of 0.31 %U3O8. Energy Laboratories analyzed 10 one-ft samples that were above the detection limit, with an average grade of 0.027 %U3O8 and a maximum grade of 0.088 %U3O8.

13.3.2 Physical Analysis of Core Sample

Physical analysis of a core sample was performed by Core Laboratories in Denver, CO. A one-ft sample from a corehole at the Brevard project area was analyzed. Core Laboratories reported a porosity of 43%, permeability of approximately 1400 mD, and grain density of 2.788 g/cm^3^.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 66

This equates to a grain density of 11.49 ft^3^/ton or a dry bulk density of 20.15 ft^3^/ton. This measured porosity is higher than is typical for sandstone deposits. In the opinion of the Authors’ sonic coring likely agitated the sample and increased the porosity, leading to a nonrepresentative porosity measurement.

13.3.3 Mineralogical Analysis

In 2010, Hazen Research reported the results of a QEMSCAN mineralogical analysis of two leach feed samples (Hazen 2010b). The samples were taken from coreholes at the Brevard project area. In both samples, quartz and feldspar were the main minerals, making up 80-90% of the samples by weight. Kaolinite and swelling clay were present, as were iron disulfide minerals (pyrite and marcasite) and monazite.

Identified uranium mineralization was likely uraninite and/or coffinite, but unidentified U-Ti and U-Zr minerals were also noted. One sample was observed to possibly have uranium minerals finely dispersed within clays. Uranium minerals associated with clays, clay-rich agglomerations around silicates, and those locked in pyrite “should be leachable provided that all of the pyrite is oxidized during leaching” (Hazen 2010b). According to Hazen, uranium that is locked in silicates, forms part of the lattice of monazite, or occurs in U-Ti minerals would be refractory (resistant to leaching).

13.3.4 Leach Amenability Testing

Hazen Research conducted leach amenability testing of composite samples of ore from the Brevard property in 2009 and 2010 (Hazen 2010a). The samples were a composite of high- and low-grade ores from the west, east and central portions of the property. The composite samples were primarily quartz and feldspar, with minor pyrite and other minerals. Montmorillonite and kaolinite clays were also present. The uranium mineral in the samples was primarily coffinite.

Leaching experiments were conducted with sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) and potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) solutions, as well as with gaseous oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The sodium bicarbonate and potassium bicarbonate experiments were performed with deionized water.

The sodium bicarbonate experiments were performed with hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant. A number of agitation and bottle roll leaches were conducted with various concentrations of reagents. Recovery from experiments with the sodium bicarbonate solutions ranged from 18-57%. Leach tails from these experiments showed incomplete extraction of uranium, possibly because of interactions with clays.

Experiments with potassium bicarbonate used 5 g/L KHCO3. Hydrogen peroxide was used as an oxidant and potassium hydroxide (KOH) was used to adjust pH. Recoveries from agitation leaches with potassium bicarbonate ranged from 38-72%.

Two pressure bottle roll experiments were performed with gaseous oxygen and carbon dioxide at a pressure of 65 psi. These experiments used site water provided by Signal. Recoveries ranged from 72-80%. Because of the higher recoveries of these experiments, Hazen recommended additional work using gaseous oxygen and carbon dioxide as reagents.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 67
13.4	Upper Spring Creek - Brown
---	---

Wet chemical assays were performed on three cores from the core holes drilled at Brown. Hazen Research conducted these assays at their lab on holes 143-0153, 143-0162, 143-0169. Results from this analysis are discussed in Section 12.

13.5	Rosita South - Cadena

Cores from 9 holes were submitted for laboratory testing. Moore Energy tested 5 cores with Core Laboratories, Inc. in Dallas, Tx in 1983. Testing results provided data on density and U3O8 concentrations. Mobil also submitted 4 cores for laboratory testing in 1979 which provided assay data for each core.

PFN data from these holes was verified by assay data and the GT values used in the mineral estimate are conservative with respect to the assay data.

13.6	QP’s Opinion on Data Adequacy

The QP considers the metallurgical and physical testing, analysis and results to date to be adequate to support general process design and selection at all the project areas.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 68
14.0	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
---	---
14.1	Prospects for Economic Extraction
---	---

The Project mineral resources have a reasonable prospect for economic extraction due to the depth of mineralization, GT values, and continuity of mineralization. Studies completed to date support the conclusion that the Project deposit could be mined through ISR. The mineral resource estimates presented in this report use cutoffs that are appropriate for ISR mining and may not be applicable to other mining methods.

Some of the shallower Project mineral resources and exploration targets may not be fully saturated. Deeper Project deposits are fully saturated, and there are ISR techniques that can be used to recover uranium from partially saturated or unsaturated deposits. These techniques include the use of alternate oxidants, water transfers and aquifer enhancement.

14.2	Cutoff Selection

Mineral reportable as resources meets the following cutoff criteria:

•	Minimum Grade: 0.020 %U3O8

Grade is calculated at 0.5 ft depth increments, and values below this cutoff are excluded from reported resources.

•	Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness):
^○^	0.30 for Brevard, Cadena, and the measured resources at Brown
---	---
^○^	0.20 for the indicated and inferred resources at Brown
---	---

The GT cutoff is applied to mineral horizons, and values below this cutoff are excluded from reported resources.

No specific minimum thickness is applied; however, the grade is calculated at 0.5 ft depth increments, making this the minimum possible thickness. It is the QP’s opinion that the cutoffs used in this Report are typical of ISR industry standard practice and are appropriate for current ISR methods.

14.3	Mineral Resource Assumptions, Parameters and Methods

The following key assumptions were used for all resource estimates:

•	resources are in permeable and porous sandstones; and
•	resources are located below the water table.
---	---

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the project areas include the GT contour and Polygonal. Each method is discussed in the following sections.

14.3.1	Upper Spring Creek - Brown, and Rosita South - Cadena

The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits. The basis of these methods is the GT values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff below which the GT value is considered to be zero. The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and logs data trends. The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 69

considering the disequilibrium factor and the ore zone density. The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Brown and Cadena project areas.

14.3.2	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

At Brevard, uranium content is calculated directly from PFN logs and is reported in terms of mineral grade by depth. Mineral intercepts are continuous depth intervals within a drillhole where the calculated grade meets or exceeds the grade cutoff of 0.020 %U3O8. A GT is calculated for each mineral intercept, but the GT cutoff is not applied to individual mineral intercepts.

Mineral horizons are zones of mineralization in a single stratigraphic unit and depth interval that are laterally continuous and could potentially be mined together via ISR. Recovery of mineral through ISR requires the ability to circulate mining fluids through the mineral, which is only possible if the mineral horizons are laterally continuous. Accordingly, the identification of mineral horizons is critical to estimating mineral resources for ISR mining. Mineral horizons may include multiple mineral intercepts in a single drillhole.

For each drillhole, a GT is calculated for each mineral horizon by totaling the GTs of the mineral intercepts within that mineral horizon. The GT is a convenient and functional single value used to represent the overall quality of the mineral horizon(s) encountered in a drillhole. At the Project, some drillholes penetrate multiple mineral horizons, which each have separate GTs. The GT for a mineral horizon must be greater than or equal to the 0.30 cutoff. Drillholes with GT values below the cutoff are excluded from the estimated resources.

14.3.2.1	Polygon Resource Estimation

Since the Brevard deposits are re-reduced, color changes cannot be used to map redox boundaries. Consequently, the GT contouring method commonly used to estimate roll-front uranium mineral resources was not applied. Instead, resources were estimated using a polygon method. Resources were estimated separately for each mineral horizon.

For each mineral horizon, the drillhole locations and associated GTs for that mineral horizon were mapped using GIS software. A polygon was drawn around each drillhole where the GT met the cutoff, and the GT was applied to the entire polygon. The polygon was drawn halfway to adjacent drillholes. If an adjacent drillhole was not located appropriately to constrain the polygon, a point 50 ft from the drillhole was used. Where adjacent drillholes outside of the mapped mineral resources did not meet but were within 10% of the GT cutoff, polygons were extended closer to those drillholes to better describe the geology of the uranium mineralization. Where polygons met at a point, the voids were divided and added to the closest polygon(s). Where a polygon was close to property boundaries, the polygon was limited to within the property boundary. Individual polygons where lateral continuity of mineral was not demonstrated between at least two drillholes were excluded from the mineral resource estimate.

The mineral resources included in polygons developed as described above are considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction and are included in the mineral resource estimate. The following parameters were employed to estimate mineral resources by mineral horizon:

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 70
•	Grade-Thickness (GT ): The GT of a drillhole meeting the GT cutoff was applied to the surrounding polygon. GT combines<br>grade and thickness into a single value.
---	---
•	Area (ft^2^): The calculated area of each polygon.<br>
---	---

Estimated pounds of U3O8 were calculated by multiplying the area of each polygon by its GT. A conversion factor of 20 and tonnage factor of 16.0 ft^3^/ton were applied to obtain estimated pounds of U3O8. The formula is as follows:

Polygon area calculations were performed with GIS software, and pound calculations were prepared using spreadsheet software. Mineral resources were categorized by level of confidence (Measured or Indicated) using the criteria discussed in Section 14.5. Resources were estimated by project area and by mineral horizon. The “Main” mineral horizon represents the lower portion of the Oakville Sand. “Shallow” mineral may not be fully saturated.

14.3.2.2	Assumptions

To prepare the mineral resource estimate at Brevard, the following assumptions were made:

1.	The unit density of mineralized rock is 16.0 ft^3^/ton. This value<br>is within the typical dry bulk density range of approximately 15-16 ft^3^/ton for sandstone-hosted uranium projects. As discussed in Section 13.2, the<br>single core sample tested to determine the porosity (a key factor in calculating dry bulk density) was not representative. The average porosity of Miocene sandstones is approximately 25% (Manger 1963). The porosity in the Oakville Sandstone is<br>reportedly slightly higher (30-35%, Galloway 1982). Using the measured grain density from the core sample at the Project, a porosity of 25% equates to a dry bulk density of 15.3 ft^3^/ton and a porosity of 30% equates to a dry bulk density of 16.4 ft^3^/ton. A mid-range value of 16.0 ft^3^/ton was used for the mineral resource estimate. An increase or decrease of 0.5 ft^3^/ton from this value would change the mineral resource estimate<br>by approximately +/- 3%.
2.	Raw logging data was correctly recorded, the logging tools were operating properly, and the resulting grade<br>calculations are accurate. This assumption is supported by the data verification described in Section 12.
---	---

The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the project areas are summarized in Table 14-1.

14.3.3	Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Project are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 71

Table 14-1   Methods, Parameters, and Cutoff Summary by Project Area

Project<br><br><br>Area	Mineral<br> <br>Resource<br> <br>Estimation<br><br><br>Method	Disequilibrium<br> <br>Factor	Bulk Density<br> <br>(ft^3^/Ton)	Cutoff Parameters
				Min. Grade	Min.<br><br><br>Thickness<br> <br>(ft)	Min.GT
				(% U3O8)
Brevard	Polygonal	None, PFN Used for Estimate	16.0	0.02	-	0.3
Brown	GT Contour Method	None, PFN Used for Estimate	16.0	0.02	1.0	0.2-0.3
Cadena	GT Contour Method	PFN and Gamma Used	18.0	0.02	-	0.3

Notes: Minimum thickness was not reported for Brevard or Cadena. However, minimum thickness is inherent in minimum GT, which is reported in every estimate.

14.3.3.1	Project Resource Classification

Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Project are defined by the density of the drill hole data. Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model. Table 14-2 details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the project areas.

Table 14-2   Resource Classification Criteria by Project Area

Project Area	Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for<br><br><br>Resource Classifications (ft)
	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Brevard	≤ 100	100 - 115	N/A
Brown	≤ 100	100 - 200	200 - 400
Cadena	≤ 100	100 - 200	N/A

Note: There are no inferred resources at Brevard or Cadena.

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

•	First, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well<br>spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed.
•	Second, the sub-surface geology within each project area is very well<br>characterized, with aquifers that correlate consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across each project area.
---	---
•	Third, mineralization in the target formations occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different<br>coloration than the reduced sands. These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends.
---	---
•	Finally, historic production has occurred commercially at Rosita which is 2 miles away from Cadena.<br>
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 72
---	---

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

14.4	Site-by-Site<br>Summaries

Cautionary Statement: This Report is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineralresources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves which may result in economic and technicalfailure and may adversely impact future profitability.

Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the project areas. The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in Table 14-3 and estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in Table 14-4.

Table 14-3  South Texas Uranium Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary

Project Area	GT Cutoff	Average GT	U3O8 (lbs)
Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area
Measured	0.3	0.59	800,000
Indicated	0.3	0.40	38,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-	-	838,000
Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area
Measured	0.3	1.17	1,339,000
Indicated	0.2	2.15	720,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-	-	2,059,000
Rosita South - Cadena
Measured	0.3	0.80	615,000
Indicated	0.3	0.42	15,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-	-	630,000
Project Totals
Measured			2,754,000
Indicated			773,000
Total Measured and Indicated			3,527,000

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.
---	---
6.	There are no measured or indicated resources at Rosita CPP or Butler Ranch.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 73
---	---

Table 14-4  South Texas Uranium Project Inferred Resource Summary

Project Area	GT Cutoff	Average GT	U3O8 (lbs)
Upper Spring Creek – Brown Area
Total Inferred	0.2	1.35	308,000

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used NI 43-101.<br>
2.	All resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	There are no inferred resources at Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard, or Cadena.
---	---
14.5	Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
---	---

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:

•	assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;
•	changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;
---	---
•	changes to future commodity demand;
---	---
•	variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;<br>
---	---
•	host formation density assignments; and
---	---
•	changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain<br>environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.
---	---

Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area. These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk. Three elements of risk are identified for the Project.

•	Grade interpretation methods: interpreted to be low to moderate risk. Automated grade estimates depend on many factors<br>and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples. A risk exists that a grade estimate at any three-dimensional location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined.
•	Geological definition: interpreted to be a moderate risk. The geological roll-front interpretation by the enCore<br>geologists was checked using several techniques. The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present.
---	---
•	Continuity: interpreted to be low risk. The QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Project<br>that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Project.
---	---

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Project.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 74

The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity. The QP expects the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

14.6	QP Opinion on the Mineral Resource Estimate

In the opinion of the QP, the work undertaken on the Project to date demonstrates that uranium can be extracted using common industry methods and standard leaching technology. Finally, the host sandstones have been mined in South Texas since the 1970s using ISR technology with significant production under similar conditions to those of the project areas.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 75
15.0	MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
---	---

This Section is not relevant to this Report.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 76
16.0	MINING METHODS
---	---

enCore will mine uranium using the in-situ recovery (ISR) method. ISR has historically been utilized at the Project and is relatively environmentally benign when compared to conventional open pit or underground recovery techniques. This mining method utilizes injection wells to introduce a mining solution, called lixiviant, into the mineralized zone. An alkaline leach solution of carbon dioxide and oxygen added to the native groundwater, will be used as the lixiviant. Bicarbonate, resulting from the addition of carbon dioxide to the extracting solution, will be used as the complexing agent. Oxygen will be added to oxidize the uranium to a soluble +6 valence state. Recovery wells are used to remove the solution from the formation where it is piped to a processing plant. An ion exchange (IX) column is used to remove the dissolved uranyl carbonate from the solution. The groundwater is re-fortified with the oxidizer and complexing agent and sent back to the wellfield to recover additional uranium. To use ISR, the mineralized body must be saturated with groundwater, transmissive to water, and amenable to dissolution by the lixiviant. Previous operations have demonstrated uranium mineralization within the Project is recoverable using the proposed ISR techniques.

16.1	Mine Designs and Plans
16.1.1	Patterns, Wellfields and Mine Units
---	---

The fundamental production unit for design and production planning or scheduling is the pattern. A pattern is comprised of a production or recovery well, and some number of injection wells. Patterns are typically configured in a five or seven well configuration. A five well, or five-spot well pattern consists of one recovery and four injection wells generally in a square or near-square configuration. A seven well or seven-spot well pattern, like the five-spot, is comprised of a recovery well surrounded by six injection wells in a hexagon or near-hexagon configuration. In areas where the ore is not as widespread to allow for these patterns, encore will utilize an alternative line drive pattern placed over the recovery zone with wells alternating between production and injection wells. Pattern design is determined by the size and shape of the deposit, hydrogeological properties of the mining formation, and mining economics. enCore plans to use a combination of five-spot and alternating line drive patterns with recovery wells spaced 50-100 feet from injection wells.

Patterns are grouped into production units referred to as wellfields. Wellfields form a practical means for design, development and production, where groups of recovery wells and their associated injection wells are designed, constructed and operated, serving as the fundamental operating unit for distribution of the alkaline leach system.

An economic wellfield must cover the construction costs associated with well installation, connection of wells to piping that conveys the leach system between wellfields and the IX facility, wellfield and plant operating costs, and reclamation costs.

To further facilitate planning, wellfields are grouped into production areas (PAs). Production areas represent a collection of wellfields for which baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria have been established, for development of a Wellfield Hydrologic Data Package that will be submitted to regulatory authorities for mining approval. In Texas, this is known as a Production Authorization Area (PAA) in which the area and baseline restoration standards are specified in the permit.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 77
16.1.2	Monitoring Wells
---	---

Wellfields will typically be developed based on conventional five-spot or alternating line drive patterns. Injection and recovery wells will be completed in a manner to isolate the screened uranium-bearing interval. To establish baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria, monitor wells will be installed for each mine unit. Baseline production zone monitor wells will be completed in the deposit hosting sandstone unit to establish baseline water restoration criteria.

Production zone monitor wells will also be installed in a ring around the entire wellfield. This ring of perimeter monitor wells will be setback approximately 400 feet from the patterns and 400 feet apart, respectively. Certain exceptions can be made to this distance based upon land and ore outline limitations when approved in the permit. This monitor well ring will be used to ensure mining fluids are contained within wellfield.

Overlying and underlying monitor wells will also be completed in hydro-stratigraphic units immediately above and below the production zone to monitor the potential for vertical lixiviant migration. Overlying monitor wells will be completed in all overlying units. Underlying wells will be completed in the immediately underlying unit.

16.1.3	Wellfield Surface Piping System and Header Houses

Each injection and production well will be connected within a network of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) piping to an injection or production manifold located in the wellfield. The manifolds are connected to pipes that convey leaching solutions to and from the ion exchange columns in the CPP or Satellite facility. Flow meters, control valves, and pressure gauges in the individual well piping will monitor and control the individual well flow rates. Wellfield piping will be constructed using high-density polyethylene pipe.

16.1.4	Wellfield Production

The proposed uranium ISR process will involve the dissolution of the water-soluble uranium compound from the mineralized host sands at near neutral pH ranges. The lixiviant contains dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen oxidizes the uranium, which is complexed with the bicarbonate formed by addition of carbon dioxide to the solution. The uranium-rich solution will be pumped from the recovery wells to the nearby CPP or Satellite facility for uranium concentration with ion exchange (IX) resin. A slightly greater volume of water will be recovered from the mineralized zone hydro-stratigraphic unit than injected, referred to as “bleed”, to create an inward flow gradient towards the wellfields. Thus, overall recovery flow rates will always be slightly greater than overall injection rates. This bleed solution will be disposed, as permitted, via injection into Class I DDW’s.

16.1.5	Production Rates and Expected Mine Life

Production rate was calculated using a production model derived from recent wellfields operating in the South Texas region. The production model was applied to mineral resources based upon the observed monthly recovery with a recovery of 80% in 32 months. Figure 16-1 depicts the production forecast model for the wellfields.

16.2	Mining Fleet and Machinery

Rolling stock and equipment will include resin haul tractor and trailers to deliver loaded resin from the satellite facility to the CPP, pump hoists, cementers, forklifts, pickups, logging trucks,

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 78

and generators. In addition, several pieces of heavy equipment will be on site for excavation of mud pits, road maintenance, and reclamation activities.

Figure 16-1 Production Forecast Model

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 79
17.0	PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS
---	---
17.1	Processing Facilities
---	---

A central processing plant (CPP) and Satellite facility will collect and process uranium. The CPP processing circuits will consist of elution, precipitation, dewatering, drying and packaging. The Satellite facility will include an ion exchange circuit (IX) and a resin transfer system to facilitate transfer of loaded resin by truck from the Satellite to the CPP.

The CPP is located at the existing Rosita Central Plant property and Satellites will be located at each of the identified locations.

17.2	Process Flow

A preliminary design has been completed for facilities and equipment. Figure17-1 depicts the Process flow at the Rosita CPP and Figure 17-2 depicts the typical process flow at the proposed satellite facilities.

17.2.1	Ion Exchange

Uranium will be recovered from pregnant lixiviant solution using the ion exchange circuit. Each vessel is designed to contain a 300 cubic foot batch of anionic ion exchange resin. The satellite design is based upon modules with a nominal capacity of 800 gallons per minute. Additional modules can be added to increase capacity based upon in place reserves and timing of the system. Each module will be configured with three tanks operating in series, utilizing pressurized down-flow methodology for loading. Piping and valving allows the flow to be redirected to any of the three tanks and change the order of flow between the tanks in order to allow for resin transfer and optimizing resin loading. Production and Injection booster pumps will be located upstream and downstream of the trains, as needed for wellfield conditions.

Vessels will be designed to provide optimum contact time between pregnant lixiviant and IX resin. An interior stainless-steel piping manifold system will distribute lixiviant evenly across the resin. The dissolved uranium in the pregnant lixiviant will bond to the ion exchange resin in exchange for a pre-existing chloride ion. The resultant barren lixiviant exiting the vessels will contain less than 2 ppm of uranium and will be returned to the wellfield where oxygen and carbon dioxide will be added prior to reinjection.

17.2.2	Production Bleed

A bleed will be drawn from the injection stream prior to reinjection into the wellfield to maintain control of hydraulic conditions in production zone. The bleed will be directed through filters and then to storage tanks and then to an onsite non-hazardous Class I disposal well. The water in the storage tanks will also be utilized for resin transfers and tank backwashes as needed.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 80

Figure 17-1 Process Flow at the Rosita CPP

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 81

Figure 17-2 Typical Process Flow at the Satellite Facilities

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 82
17.2.3	Elution Circuit
---	---

Loaded resin will be transferred to the CPP via truck and trailer where an elution circuit will strip uranium from the resin with a sodium chloride and sodium carbonate brine solution forming a uranium rich eluant. The pH will be controlled with sodium hydroxide. Eluted resin will then be rinsed and returned to the IX vessels for reloading.

The elution circuit will consist of three eluant tanks and an elution tank. All three tanks will have the described eluant, but based upon the order of stripping, will have different grades of uranium in them. The contents of tank one will be pumped through the elution tank containing the resin and then into a precipitation tank. Next, the eluant in tank two will run through the eluant tank with resin, and into tank one. Tank three consisting of fresh eluate with no uranium will be the final step to remove the last of the remaining uranium from the resin. It will be pumped through the eluant tank and will be deposited in tank two. A fresh batch of eluant will be made once depleted.

The resin should now be mostly barren of uranium and is ready to be reused in a wellfield.

17.2.4	Precipitation Circuit

Hydrochloric acid will be added to the uranium rich eluant in the precipitation tank to bring the pH down to the range of 2 to 3 where the uranyl carbonate breaks down, liberating carbon dioxide and leaving free uranyl ions. Next, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) will be added to raise the pH to the range of 4 to 5. After this pH adjustment, hydrogen peroxide will be added in a batch process to form an insoluble uranyl peroxide (UO2O2^.^H2O) compound. After precipitation, the uranium precipitate slurry is pumped to a filter press where the uranium solids are separated from the barren precipitation fluid. The liquid from the precipitation circuit is sent to a settling pond where it is appropriately neutralized and injected in a non-hazardous, class I disposal well.

17.2.5	Product Filtering, Drying and Packaging

After precipitation, yellowcake is removed for filtering, washing, drying and product packaging in a controlled area. The yellowcake in the filter press is washed with fresh water to remove excess chlorides and other soluble contaminants. The filter cake is transferred to a yellowcake storage bin for settling, decanting, and loading directly into the yellowcake dryer.

The yellowcake will be dried in a rotary vacuum dryer. The dryer is an enclosed unit and heated by circulating thermal fluid through an external jacket at ~450F. The off gases generated during the drying cycle, which will be primarily water vapor, are filtered through a bag house to remove entrained particulates and then condensed. Compared to conventional high temperature drying by multi-hearth systems, this dryer will have no significant airborne particulate emissions.

The dried yellowcake will be packaged into 55-gallon drums for storage before transport by truck to a conversion facility.

The yellowcake drying and packaging stations will be segregated within the processing plant for worker safety. Dust abatement and filtration equipment will be deployed in this area of the facility. Filled yellowcake drums will be staged in a dedicated storage area until transport.

Following standard industry protocols, yellowcake will be transported to a conversion facility in 55-gallon steel drums. The shipment method will be via specifically licensed trucking contractor.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 83
17.3	Water Balance
---	---

The water balance is based on a production flow rate of 800-1000 gpm per satellite module with a 1% or 8-10 gpm bleed to maintain hydraulic control of fluids within the mine units. In the CPP water will be used for make-up and washdown at a rate of approximately 12 gpm from a local fresh water supply well. Restoration activities will include feed to a two-stage reverse osmosis unit (RO), with a 75% recovery rate to the wellfield. 25% of flow will be a concentrate and will be disposed of through a class I non-hazardous disposal well.

17.4	Liquid Waste Disposal

Class I non-hazardous waste disposal wells will be the sole method for liquid waste disposal. Liquid waste will be injected and isolated from any underground source of drinking water.

17.5	Solid Waste Disposal

Waste classified as non-contaminated (non-hazardous, non-radiological) will be disposed of in the nearest permitted sanitary waste disposal facility. Waste classified as hazardous (non-radiological) will be segregated and disposed of at the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility. Radiologically contaminated solid wastes, that cannot be decontaminated, are classified as 11.e.(2) byproduct material. This waste will be packaged and stored on site temporarily, and periodically shipped to a licensed 11.e.(2) byproduct waste facility or a licensed mill tailings facility.

17.6	Energy, Water and Process Material Requirements
17.6.1	Energy Requirements
---	---

The primary energy need for the facility will be electricity to operate the various pumps in the wellfield and the processing plants. Electricity will be provided from the local power grid. In addition to electricity, propane or natural gas will be utilized to operate the dryer.

17.6.2	Water Requirements

Fresh water will be supplied from a well that is completed in a deeper aquifer than the respective production zones and used for process make-up, showers, domestic uses, and plant wash-down and yellowcake wash. Approximately 1.9 gpm of fresh water is estimated to meet demand.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 84
18.0	INFRASTRUCTURE
---	---

Section 5.3 describes the infrastructure available at each of the properties. As discussed in section 5.3, the support infrastructure for the Rosita CPP is largely in place including access roads, power lines, water supply, etc. Specific processing infrastructure available includes:

•	Rosita CPP
^○^	A complete CPP for resin elution, precipitation, filtration, drying, and packaging with a capacity of 0.8 million<br>pounds per year.
---	---
^○^	2 lined evaporation ponds.
---	---
^○^	The site is accessed via County Road 333. A private road extends from the County road to the CPP and is owned and<br>maintained by the Company.
---	---
^○^	Power lines are owned and maintained by the Nueces Electric Cooperative.
---	---
^○^	Water is provided to the CPP by 5 company owned and maintained water wells on site. All necessary components for the<br>Rosita CPP plant have been constructed and are in use or available to be used.
---	---

While the Rosita CPP is fully operational, additional infrastructure will need to be constructed at the other properties before mining can occur. At the Brevard property an 800-gpm satellite IX plant and a waste disposal well (WDW) will be constructed. At the Cadena property an 800-gpm satellite IX plant will be constructed. Rather than constructing a WDW, a trunkline will be installed to convey bleed and process water to the WDW associated with the Rosita CPP. Currently enCore plans to reuse existing IX columns from another project to minimize costs for the satellite plant at Cadena. To service the Brown property, one 3,200 gpm IX satellite plant and a WDW will be constructed. This will also utilize existing equipment located at other sites. At all the properties it will be necessary to construct wellfields and trunklines to convey water from the wellfields to the satellite IX plants. enCore has a significant inventory of HDPE pipe that will be used to construct most of the trunklines.

•	Brevard
^○^	Primary access for the property is via County Road 140. Existing dirt roads on the site will be utilized for access to<br>the fields and will be reinforced with caliche as necessary for operations.
---	---
^○^	3 phase power distribution lines (owned by the power company) are in place and run through the property.<br>
---	---
^○^	Water supply wells will be drilled if necessary for operations.
---	---
•	Brown
---	---
^○^	Primary access for the property is via FM 889 which runs between the two properties.
---	---
^○^	Central to the property exists a substation owned by the power company and power lines run across the boundaries of the<br>properties. These are sufficient to provide power to all Satellites and planned wellfields.
---	---
^○^	Water supply wells will be drilled if necessary for operations.
---	---
•	Cadena
---	---
^○^	Primary access for the property is via State Highway 44 and FM 3196.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 85
---	---
^○^	A 3-phase power line runs along Highway 44 on the north side of the property and<br>can supply power to the facility.
---	---
^○^	Water supply wells will be drilled if necessary for operations.
---	---

Figures 18-1, 18-2, and 18-3 depict the layout and infrastructure at each of the project areas.

18.1	Roads

There are four types of roads that will be used for access to the Project. They include primary access roads, secondary access roads, temporary wellfield access roads, and well access roads.

Primary access roads are used for routine access to the main processing facilities at the Project and are maintained by the counties or the Texas department of transportation as described in Section 5.2. enCore transports all reagents and supplies to the site using highway trucks. Similarly, drummed uranium will be transported offsite using highway trucks from the CPP.

Primary access roads to the sites are public roads and are paved state highways, farm to market roads, and county roads. The secondary access roads are used at the Project to provide access to wellfield areas and Satellite facilities. The secondary access roads are constructed with limited cut and fill construction and may be surfaced with caliche or other appropriate material. The temporary wellfield access roads are for access to drilling sites, wellfield development, or ancillary areas assisting in wellfield development. When possible, enCore will utilize existing two-track trails or designate two-track trails where the land surface is not typically modified to accommodate the road. The temporary wellfield access roads will be used throughout the mining areas and will be reclaimed at the end of mining.

18.2	Laboratory Equipment

Laboratory equipment consists of inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectrometers for analyses of uranium and metals, titration for alkalinity and chloride measurements, specific conductance meter and other equipment, materials and supplies required to efficiently operate the mine and plant. In addition, the laboratory has fume hoods, reagent storage cabinets and other safety equipment. All equipment was purchased and installed prior to this assessment and much of it continues in use today. The main laboratory is located at the CPP. Smaller field laboratories with limited analysis needs will be at Satellite locations as needed. A Hach Spectrophotometer is also used for uranium analysis at the Satellite facilities.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 86

Figure 18-1 Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Infrastructure and Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 87

Figure 18-2 Upper Spring Creek - Brown Infrastructure Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 88

Figure 18-3 Rosita South - Cadena Infrastructure Map

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 89

18.3 Electricity

Existing powerlines exist within the Project. These powerlines are operated by the local power utility and supply power via onsite transformer stations. Where needed, the electricity provider will install drops for meters and additional power lines to the wellfields and satellites.

18.4 Water

Water for mining operations has previously been discussed. Water supply for the plant building has been previously developed and is currently available for continuing operations.

18.5 Holding Ponds

As discussed in Section 5.3.1 holding ponds have been constructed at the Rosita CPP. The ponds are double lined with leak detection and are utilized as necessary to support operations. The satellite facilities do not utilize ponds.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 90
19.0	MARKET STUDIES
---	---

Unlike other commodities, uranium does not trade on an open market. Contracts are negotiated privately by buyers and sellers. The economic analysis assumes a variable price per pound for U3O8 over the life of the Project as presented in Chapter 22. enCore currently has several uranium sales contracts in place. The variable prices assumed in this analysis are a hybrid of existing sales contracts and price projections provided by Trade Tech, 2023 in their 4^th^ Quarter report. The prices used for the analysis assume that a portion of the uranium will be sold at the uranium sales contract price and a portion of the uranium will be sold at the average term price predicted by the proprietary report. The prices in the proprietary Trade Tech report are similar in magnitude to the prices in enCore’s current uranium sales contracts. The QP has also evaluated less comprehensive but more recent market evaluations (Sprott, 2024 and 2025, Carbon Credits.com, 2025). Generally, market experts remain bullish on Uranium prices which support the Trade Tech pricing assumptions. The QP believes these estimates are appropriate for use in the evaluation, and the results support the assumptions herein.

The marketability of uranium and acceptance of uranium mining is subject to numerous factors beyond enCore’s control. Uranium prices may experience volatile and significant price movements over short periods of time. The market can be affected by a number of factors which include: demand for nuclear power; political and economic conditions in uranium mining producing and consuming countries; changes in public acceptance of nuclear power generation; costs and availability of financing of nuclear plants; changes in governmental regulations; global or regional consumption patterns; speculative activities and increased production due to new extraction developments and improved production methods; the future viability and acceptance of small modular reactors or micro-reactors and the related fuel requirements for this new technology; reprocessing of spent fuel and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails or waste; and global economics, including currency exchange rates, interest rates and expectations of inflation. Any future accidents, or threats of or incidents of war, civil unrest or terrorism, at nuclear facilities are likely to also impact the conditions of uranium mining and the use and acceptance of nuclear energy.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 91
20.0	ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS<br>OR GROUPS
---	---
20.1	Environmental Studies
---	---

A number of studies including geologic and hydrogeologic studies, hydrologic testing, groundwater quality analysis, and environmental assessments are required as part of the permitting process. As detailed below in this section, many of the properties have been permitted or are in the process of being permitted and the studies required for each section of permitting have been completed and included with the appropriate permit applications.

Operations are expected to impact only the area of operations and the aquifer that is included within the approved aquifer exemption areas. During operations and reclamation, the required monitoring of the groundwater and surface will ensure safe operations and containment of any mining activities to the permitted area. Reclamation activities will remediate the effects of enCore’s operations and upon closure, impact is expected to be minimal to the environment.

20.1.1	Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species

Brown: Ecological assessments of the Brown property were conducted in the fall 2011 and spring of 2012. Comprehensive reports were prepared. The reports found no evidence of endangered species present on the property and no impact is expected to those species. An ecological report has not yet been prepared for the Geffert property. This study will be completed as part of the permitting requirements prior to operations. The property is located directly adjacent to the Brown property and similar findings are expected.

Brevard: In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, extensive wildlife surveys were conducted on the property. Wildlife was categorized and radiological tests were done on some of the species. No threatened, endangered, or special-status species were documented at the Brevard project area.

Cadena: has not yet had a study performed on threatened, endangered, or candidate species. This study will be completed as part of the permitting requirements prior to operations. Given its proximity to other Rosita properties, it is not expected that there will be significant findings on the property.

20.1.2	Cultural and Historic Resources

Brown: Based upon a comprehensive search of the Brown property, no historic resources have been identified on or within a 3.2 mile radius of the site. In July 2012, a 100% pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted. A total of 37 shovel tests were conducted, none of which tested positive for cultural materials. The Texas historical commission concurred with the recommendations made in the archeological report that there were no cultural or historic resources of concern by letter dated October 1, 2012. A study has not been performed on cultural and historic resources at the Geffert property. The study will be completed as part of the permitting requirements prior to operations. Given its proximity to the Brown property, significant findings on the property are not anticipated.

Brevard: A cultural resources survey of the Brevard project area was performed by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) in June 2009. SWCA’s investigation included a background

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 92

literature and records review, and a cultural resource survey of the entire project area. The nearest previously recorded archaeological sites were located approximately 2.5 miles (4.02 kilometers) south of the project area. The survey encountered three previously unrecorded sites. None of the unrecorded sites were recommended for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Additionally, the Texas Historical Commission stated by letter dated December 6, 2010: “We believe that there will be no adverse effect to historic properties as a result of the proposed uranium mining activity. Therefore, mining may proceed without further consultation with this office.”

Cadena: There has not yet had a study performed on cultural and historic resources on this site. The study will be completed as part of the permitting requirements prior to operations. Given its proximity to other Rosita properties, significant findings on the property are not anticipated.

20.1.3	Waste Disposal and Monitoring

Waste generated from the facilities generally consists of water from the wellfield and processing plant and solid waste generated from the plant. The solid waste that is not able to be cleared for unrestricted release is classified as 11e.(2) byproduct material pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act. This material is packaged, inventoried and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. enCore currently has agreements with Denison Mines and Waste Control Specialists for disposal of 11e.(2) material from our operating sites, and these agreements will be expanded to include production from additional sites as they come online. Materials that meet releasable standards will be disposed of at a local municipal waste facility.

Liquid waste consists of production bleed water, process fluids, and restoration concentrate from the reverse osmosis system during groundwater reclamation and will be disposed of in a non-hazardous Class I WDW at each of the sites. The CPP has an operating permitted WDW. Rosita South properties will send bleed to the CPP to serve as processing water for the plant during operations. Brown and Geffert are expected to share a disposal well. The permit is currently under technical review by the TCEQ. The Brevard property will have its own well permitted.

Upon completion of reclamation, the WDWs are expected to be plugged according to their individual closure plans and the surface remediated.

Prior to operations, monitor wells will be installed around each individual PAA. Overlying and underlying wells will also be installed above and below the production zones in each PAA as required by permit. During operations, the monitor wells will be sampled for excursion parameters as required by permit. The typical requirement for monitoring is bi-monthly for the approved parameters in the license. During reclamation, this sampling is reduced to quarterly. For final closure, three sets of stability sampling will be required over the course of one year to ensure stability has been achieved and that baseline parameters have been achieved. Closure requirements are specified in the area permits for the sites.

20.2	Project Permitting Requirements

ISR projects in Texas are required to go through a number of permitting steps before recovery of uranium can commence. The first requirement is for an exploration permit which is regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. All of the sites have an active exploration permit which allows drilling of exploration holes which allow enCore to collect data to determine if an

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 93

economic ore body exists. The results of the drilling programs through exploration permits are used to define the resources on the associated property.

Once it has been decided to move towards production, an aquifer exemption must be obtained through the U.S. EPA. An aquifer exemption is an acknowledgment by the EPA that naturally occurring uranium exists in the aquifer in the designated area and that section of the aquifer is not suitable for use as a drinking water source.

Texas is an agreement state and has primacy over permitting of UIC activities. The state agency that regulates the uranium recovery process is the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). An area permit is required to progress to the next stage. This stipulates the area that production can be pursued on and the requirements regarding operations and reclamation of uranium ISR activities. Within the permitted areas, individual production area authorizations (PAA) must next be obtained. To obtain a PAA, monitor wells must be installed and pump tests conducted to verify connectivity within the aquifer. Baseline wells must also be installed and analyses run to establish baseline testing. Bonding must be put into place prior to operations.

20.3	Current Permitting Status
20.3.1	Upper Spring Creek - Brown
---	---
Permit Type	Permit Number	Approved date	Current Status
---	---	---	---
Aquifer<br>Exemption	EPA exemption ID: 6-114 - <br>Boots/Brown	Jan. 1, 1982	Approved
Area<br>Permit	URO3095	August 2, 2024	Approved
Area<br>Permit	Application to expand Brown Area Permit to incorporate Geffert RO3653	Scheduled for 1H 2025
PAAs			Application to be submitted Jan 2025
PAAs	Application to add PAA on Geffert property under Brown Area Permit	Scheduled for 2H 2025
WDW	WDW467	Submitted 9/9/2022 - under technical review
RML<br>License	RO3653	Submitted 10/11/2022 - under technical review
20.3.2	Financial Assurance
---	---

Before production can begin enCore will have to post a bond with the state of Texas to cover reclamation costs. The reclamation bond takes into consideration the applicable sections of 30 TAC §331.46 including subsections (e) and (g) which discuss general requirements for plugging and abandonment of Class III wells and adequacy requirements for the plugging and abandonment plan. The cost estimate also considers the reporting requirements in 30 TAC §331.46(t), and the temporal closure requirements in 30 TAC §331.86. Plugging and

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 94
20.3.3	Upper Spring Creek - Brevard
---	---
Permit Type	Permit Number	Approved date	Current Status
---	---	---	---
Aquifer<br>Exemption	EPA exemption ID: 6-84 - Brevard	Jan. 1, 1982	Approved
Area<br>Permit*		Aug. 5, 2010	Requested termination Mar 28, 2018
PAAs*	Sep. 29, 2010	Apr. 8, 2011	Requested termination Mar 28, 2018
WDW*	2 permits WDW-428 &<br>WDW-429.<br> <br>Submitted Jan. 28, 2010	Dec. 8, 2010	Signal Equities requested TCEQ revoke permits for WDW-428 and<br>WDW-429 which TCEQ approved on Apr. 26, 2018.
RML<br>License*	Oct. 21, 2009	Nov. 9, 2011	Expired Nov. 30, 2021.<br><br><br>Signal Equities requested license termination Apr. 11, 2018.

*enCore will prepare and apply for new permits for the Brevard property.

20.3.4	Rosita South -Cadena
Permit Type	Permit Number	Approved date	Current Status
---	---	---	---
Aquifer<br>Exemption	EPA ID: 6-75 – Rosita Extension	Jul. 1, 1998	approved
Area<br>Permit	Renewal application submitted Apr. 8, 2024.<br><br><br>URO2880	Nov. 15, 2007. Has subsequently been renewed Oct. 10, 2014.	Approved.<br><br><br>Renewal under review.
PAAs	N/A		PAA to be submitted once drilling identifies sufficient resources
WDW	WDW250		Active: Wastewater will be pipelined to existing Rosita WDW at CPP.

abandonment of the Class III wells will be completed in accordance with a supplemental plugging and abandonment plan submitted and approved by the agency as required in 30 TAC §33 l.86(a). The cost estimate also takes into consideration the requirements in 30 TAC §331.143(a)(2) which mandates that the estimate include all costs for aquifer restoration. These cost estimates are revisited annually for inflation and recalculated as necessary. enCore agrees to comply with the financial assurance requirements for closure stated in 30 TAC §§331.142-144.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 95
20.3.5	Site Monitoring
---	---

enCore conducts considerable site monitoring to ensure protection of the environment, employees, and the public from radionuclide effluents. Each mine unit is or will be surrounded laterally and vertically with a series of monitor wells to ensure mining solutions do not migrate out of the mining zone. The monitor wells will be sampled twice per month during operations with the results compared against pre-determined upper control limits.

Regional ranch wells are sampled quarterly. enCore also monitors the evaporation ponds weekly to ensure they are not leaking. The water quality within the evaporation ponds is monitored quarterly. The deep disposal wells are subjected to mechanical integrity testing once a year.

Significant environmental monitoring for radionuclide effluents is also occurring and will continue up until reclamation. Selected sites are monitored for gamma radiation (TLD or equivalent, gamma survey) and radon levels (Track Etch/Alpha-track detector). Sampling devices are replaced quarterly. Additionally, during production maintenance and cleaning activities some areas are monitored to determine the concentration of airborne radionuclides. The air filters in the devices are collected and counted by the RSO to demonstrate compliance in limiting public and worker exposure. The radionuclide concentration in local soils, surface water and vegetation will also be monitored to determine if mine effluent is causing impacts. The results will be compared against baseline values to determine if any upward trend is occurring.

20.4	Social and Community

These project areas are located on private land. All the project areas are within existing ranch or farming areas. They are located in rural areas and not directly adjacent to large residential communities. enCore does expect to hire from the local communities as much as possible and expects to have a positive impact on the local economics.

After operations are completed, all sites will be restored back to pre-mining conditions and returned to their former uses. Nuisance and hazardous conditions which could affect local communities are not expected to be generated by the facilities. The level of traffic in the region will increase slightly but the impact to local roads is expected to be minor. There are not expected to be agreements with the local communities, nor have any been requested.

20.5	Project Closure

Once production has ceased at each site respectively, groundwater restoration will commence as soon as practicable. Groundwater restoration will require the circulation of native groundwater and extraction of mobilized ions through RO treatment. The intent of groundwater restoration is to return the groundwater quality parameters consistent with those established during the pre-operational baseline sampling required for each wellfield. Restoration completion assumes six to nine pore volumes of groundwater extracted and treated by reverse osmosis. Following completion of successful restoration activities and regulatory approval, the injection, recovery, baseline and monitor wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with TCEQ regulations.

After groundwater reclamation has been approved by the TCEQ, surface facilities will be removed, tested for radiological contamination, segregated as either solid 11e.(2) or non-11e.(2) byproduct material, then disposed of on-site in appropriate disposal facilities. enCore recycles equipment that is feasible to do so, and certain components may be moved to the next

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 96

project area for reuse. The surface will then be scanned for any radiological contamination and if there is any, it will be removed as necessary. The site will be re-graded to near pre-mining conditions and then released back to surface owners once approved by the TCEQ.

20.6	Adequacy of Current Plans

The QP has reviewed the current permit status of the Project and noted that enCore either has already obtained or has plans in place to acquire all necessary permits for ISR mining operations. The QPs’ opinion is that enCore’s plans are adequate to allow for realization of the mining plans discussed in this Report.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 97
21.0	CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
---	---

Capital Costs (CAPEX) and Operating Costs (OPEX) are based on actual and estimated costs for the Project as of December 31, 2024. The Rosita CPP is currently in operation and enCore is engaged in recovery operations at adjacent wellfields. Actual operational costs from ongoing operations were used to develop the costs discussed in this PEA. As discussed previously, the properties evaluated in this PEA are in various stages of development. Many of the CAPEX costs, including the installation of the processing plant, some of the disposal wells and other infrastructure, were incurred prior to this analysis. CAPEX costs described herein include construction of additional satellite facilities as well as remaining drilling and installation of the mine units. OPEX costs include all operating costs such as chemicals, labor, utilities and maintenance.

21.1	Capital Cost Estimation (CAPEX)

CAPEX costs for this evaluation include wellfield development, construction of plant infrastructure and water disposal facilities, and permitting. Specifically, the following items were included in the CAPEX costs:

•	Vehicles and rolling stock; enCore currently has a significant amount of equipment in place that can be utilized to<br>develop the Project. Existing equipment is excluded from the CAPEX costs. The CAPEX costs do consider purchase/replacement of: pickups (8), Truck Trailers (7), Pump hoists (3), coil tubing units (1), water trucks (1), portable air compressor (1),<br>and cementer (1).
•	Construction of a 800 gpm remote IX as well as well as the trunklines at Cadena.
---	---
•	Construction of a 3,200 gpm satellite IX facility using existing IX columns as well as construction of a waste disposal<br>well at Brevard.
---	---
•	Construction of a 3,200 gpm satellite IX facility using new IX columns at Brown as well as a waste disposal well.<br>
---	---
•	All the costs for installing the wellfield including well drilling and installation, installation of pipelines,<br>utilities, and all other infrastructure necessary to operate the wellfields. Table 21-1 details the number and depth of wells considered in this analysis for each project area.
---	---
•	enCore currently has a significant inventory of HDPE pipe purchased prior to this analysis. The costs for the trunklines<br>consider that a portion of the trunklines will be installed using the inventory of existing pipe.
---	---
•	Costs for pre-construction permitting, surface damages, land acquisition and<br>annual rentals, and exploration.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 98
---	---

Table 21-1 Wellfield Construction Assumptions for Analysis.

Wellfield	Production wells	Injection wells	Monitor wells	Depth (ft)
Brown	432	432	82	350
Cadena	120	120	21	220
Brevard	180	180	31	350

The wellfield development costs include both wellfield drilling and wellfield construction activities and were estimated based on current and preliminary future wellfield designs including the number, location, depth, construction material specifications, and the hydraulic conveyance (piping) system associated with the wellfields. Additionally, trunk and feeder pipelines, electrical service, and roads are included in the cost estimates. The wellfield development estimate is based on actual costs from vendors, contractors, labor wages and equipment rates used to drill and construct. Table 21-2 summarizes the anticipated CAPEX costs.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 99

Table 21-2 CAPEX Cost Summary

	Units		2025			2026			2027			2028			2029			2030			2031			2032			2033			Totals			/lb
Pre-Construction Permitting Costs	US$	000s	$	150		$	150		$	300		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	600
Plant Development Costs	US$	000s	$	(7,656	)	$	(5,377	)	$	(296	)	$	-	****	$	(267	)	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	(13,596	)		)
Vehicles and Rolling stock	US$	000s	$	(412	)	$	(721	)	$	(296	)	$	-		$	(267	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(1,696	)		)
Rosita South Remote IX	US$	000s	$	-		$	(825	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(825	)		)
USC Brown Unit Remote IX^1^	US$	000s	$	(7,244	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(7,244	)		)
USC Brevard Unit Remote IX^1^	US$	000s	$	-		$	(3,831	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(3,831	)		)
Well Feld Development Costs	US$	000s	$	(9,208	)	$	(13,780	)	$	(11,401	)	$	(6,895	)	$	(1,564	)	$	(323	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(43,172	)		)
USC Brown Unit Wellfield	US$	000s	$	(9,208	)	$	(11,282	)	$	(4,142	)	$	(991	)	$	(98	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(25,722	)		)
Rosita South Wellfield	US$	000s	$	-		$	(2,498	)	$	(3,064	)	$	(759	)	$	(192	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(6,514	)		)
USC Brevard Unit Wellfield	US$	000s	$	-		$	-		$	(4,195	)	$	(5,145	)	$	(1,274	)	$	(323	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(10,937	)		)
Surface Damage Payments^2^	US$	000s	$	(66	)	$	(66	)	$	(84	)	$	(124	)	$	(124	)	$	(114	)	$	(108	)	$	(108	)	$	(108	)	$	(899	)		)
Land Acquisition and<br>Annual Rentals^3^	US$	000s	$	(111	)	$	(69	)	$	(95	)	$	(95	)	$	(95	)	$	(95	)	$	(95	)	$	(95	)	$	(95	)	$	(843	)		)
Exploration^4^	US$	000s	$	(858	)	$	(1,029	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(1,887	)		)
Total	US$	000s	$	(17,749	)	$	(20,171	)	$	(11,575	)	$	(7,114	)	$	(2,050	)	$	(532	)	$	(202	)	$	(202	)	$	(202	)	$	(59,797	)		)

All values are in US Dollars.

Notes:

1.)	Estimate includes instalation of a 3,200 GPM Satellite IX plant . Includes a waste disposal well at an estimated cost of<br>$2.5 million per well.
2.)	Represents an average withdrawal rate for each property based on existing leases and surface use agreements.<br>
---	---
3.)	Based on acqusition plans and estimated based on current leasing experience
---	---
4.)	Based on development plans, assuming lease aqusitions are successful.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 100
---	---
21.2	Operating Cost Estimation (OPEX)
---	---

The OPEX costs have been developed by evaluating each process unit operation and the associated required services (power, water treatment and disposal), infrastructure (CPP and satellite plants), and salary and burden. The prices for the major items identified in this Report have been sourced in the United States and are based upon operational experience and data at enCore’s properties currently operating in South Texas. Major cost categories considered when developing OPEX costs include wellfield operational costs, satellite plant(s), central processing plant, mine administration costs, landholding costs, groundwater restoration, and decommissioning costs.

The plant throughput is modeled at a variable rate for the purposes of development costs for this Report. The nominal headgrade is estimated at 35 ppm. As the productivity or head grade from the initial well patterns decreases below economic limits, replacement patterns will be placed into operation to maintain the desired flow rate and head grade at the plant.

Chemical inputs in this analysis are based on existing usage and costs occurring at encore’s operating facilities. Table 21-3 summaries the chemical costs considered in this analysis. The proposed wellfields are in the same vicinity with similar groundwater chemistry. As such, chemical costs from ongoing operations are considered to be applicable.

Table 21-3 Chemical Inputs Considered in the Evaluation.

Chemical	$/lb (chemical)	Usage (lbs chemical/lb U3O8)	$/lb U3O8
Oxygen	$0.06	12.8	$0.77
H2SO4	$0.12	2.8	$0.34
NaOH	$0.27	1.1	$0.30
CO2	$0.17	1.1	$0.19
Brine (NaCL)	$0.03	22.3	$0.71
H2O2	$0.38	0.3	$0.11
Total			$2.43

Note: Chemical costs and usage rates based on ongoing operations.

In addition to chemicals other major individual cost items include electricity, labor, and plant maintenance. Electricity costs were estimated at $0.11 per kilowatt hour which is the current rate enCore is paying for electricity. Based on historical usage, electricity costs are estimated as follows:

•	Wellfield operations at $1.33 per lb U3O8,
•	CPP operations at $0.75 per lb U3O8,
---	---
•	Satellite and wellfield operations at $1.68 per lb U3O8.
---	---
•	CPP operations (with satellite IX) $0.40per lb U3O8.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 101
---	---
•	Reverse osmosis $0.46 per lb U3O8.
---	---

Based on historic usage, fuel and propane costs are estimated at $0.16 per lb U3O8.

Labor costs were calculated assuming 6 employees are necessary to operate the wellfields, 13 employees are necessary for the CPP, and in the satellite wellfield combinations 7 employees would be necessary. Plant and wellfield maintenance is estimated to require 14 and 11 employees, respectively. In total, the cost model assumes between 45 and 59 employees throughout the life of the Project. The actual number of employees at any time will vary depending on how many wellfields and satellite plants are in operation.

Decommissioning, demolition, and groundwater restoration costs were developed based on current ongoing restoration costs at enCore’s existing south Texas properties. The costs considered include RO water treatment costs, well abandonment, and surface reclamation. The well abandonment costs include costs to abandon the deep disposal wells. The costs do not include any salvage values for the facilities removed. The annual OPEX and the closure cost summary for the Project are provided in Table 21-4.

21.3	Adequacy of Cost Estimates

The cost estimates used for this analysis are based on actual costs encountered at the Project facilities, or wellfields in the general vicinity operated by enCore. Since the Project is currently operational and actual operational costs from past years were used in the analysis, it is the QP’s opinion that the costs used for this analysis are representative of actual costs that will be encountered. The QP believes that the costs included here are reasonable and represent the best estimate of costs available.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 102

Table 21-4 OPEX Cost Summary

	Units		2025			2026			2027			2028			2029			2030			2031			2032			2033			Totals			/lb
Plant and Wellfield Operating Costs	US$	000s	$	(7,550	)	$	(9,111	)	$	(9,687	)	$	(9,187	)	$	(2,074	)	$	(531	)	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	(38,140	)		)
Rosita CPP Operating Costs	US$	000s	$	(4,205	)	$	(4,887	)	$	(5,196	)	$	(4,927	)	$	(1,112	)	$	(285	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(20,612	)		)
Rosita South Operating Costs	US$	000s	$	-		$	-		$	(2,402	)	$	(544	)	$	(185	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(3,131	)		)
USC Brown Unit Operating Costs	US$	000s	$	(3,345	)	$	(4,224	)	$	(2,090	)	$	(521	)	$	(53	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(10,233	)		)
USC Brevard Unit Operating Costs	US$	000s	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(3,195	)	$	(724	)	$	(246	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(4,165	)		)
Total D&D and Restoration Costs^1, 2^	US$	000s	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	(451	)	$	(1,165	)	$	(1,514	)	$	(993	)	$	(223	)	$	(46	)	$	(4,393	)		)
Rosita South D&D and Restoration	US$	000s	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(602	)	$	(136	)	$	(46	)	$	(785	)		)
USC Brown D&D and Restoration	US$	000s	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(451	)	$	(1,165	)	$	(714	)	$	(210	)	$	(25	)	$	-		$	(2,565	)		)
USC Brevard Unit D&D and Restoration	US$	000s	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(801	)	$	(181	)	$	(62	)	$	-		$	(1,044	)		)
Administrative Support^3^	US$	000s	$	(535	)	$	(518	)	$	(535	)	$	(535	)	$	(535	)	$	(535	)	$	(535	)	$	(535	)	$	(535	)	$	(4,797	)		)
Conversion and Shipping fees^4^	US$	000s	$	(253	)	$	(320	)	$	(340	)	$	(322	)	$	(73	)	$	(19	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(1,326	)		)
Reclamation Bonding Surity Costs^5^	US$	000s	$	(298	)	$	(306	)	$	(323	)	$	(323	)	$	(323	)	$	(323	)	$	(321	)	$	(320	)	$	(318	)	$	(2,856	)		)
Bond collatoral	US$	000s	$	(196	)	$	(105	)	$	(215	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	98		$	92		$	98		$	(228	)		)
Total	US$	000s	$	(8,832	)	$	(10,360	)	$	(11,100	)	$	(10,818	)	$	(4,170	)	$	(2,922	)	$	(1,752	)	$	(985	)	$	(801	)	$	(51,741	)		)

All values are in US Dollars.

Notes:

1)	Assumes TCEQ approval of restoration table amendment for groundwater release, and initiation of surface reclamation with<br>onsite staff and estimated costs for groundwater restoration at Rosita PAA#3
2)	Estimated costs for groundwater restoration and surface decommisioning based on operating experience by corporate and<br>operational management.
---	---
3)	Based on actual costs for South Texas General and Administrative costs.
---	---
4)	Includes transportation, weighing and sampling costs, and transfer fees from ConverDyn and other costs.<br>
---	---
5)	Premiums and collateral based on current bonding structure with current underwriter.
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 103
---	---
22.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
---	---

Cautionary statement: This Report is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is increased risk and uncertainty to commencing and conducting production without established mineral reserves that may result in economic and technical failure which may adversely impact future profitability. The estimated mineral recovery used in this Report is based on recovery data from wellfield operations to date, as well as enCore personnel and industry experience at similar facilities. There can be no assurance that recovery at this level will be achieved.

Consistent with past performance, the economic analyses are based on 80 percent of the total resources listed in Table 14-4 for each project area being recovered.

Finally, the economic analyses here are conducted based upon actual capital costs incurred during construction of other enCore projects and historical costs, operational data, and production costs from the Project, and an update of inflation and other economic and market conditions.

22.1	Assumptions

A cash flow statement has been developed based on the CAPEX, OPEX and closure cost estimates and the production schedule. The sale price for the produced uranium is assumed at a variable price per pound ranging from $78.37 to $92.04. The basis for pricing assumptions is described in more detail within Section 19.

The production flow rate, grade and ultimate recovery are based on experience to date at the Project as well as designed plant capacities for flow and production. The cash flow sales estimates utilize the production models for each of the mine units. Total uranium production over the life of the Project is estimated to be 2.9 million pounds.

22.2	Cash Flow Forecast and Production Schedule

This Report contemplates an annual production of just over 0.5 million pounds in the first year and then ramping up to approximately 0.8 million pounds by the second year. Total life of the Project is estimated at approximately 9 years (6 years production followed by 3 years of restoration/surface reclamation). The NPV assumes cash flows take place in the middle of the periods and is calculated based on a discounted cash flow. The production estimates, CAPEX, and OPEX cost distributions (Tables 21-2 and 21-4) used to develop the cash flow are based on the production and restoration models developed by enCore and incorporated in the cash flow. The cash flow assumes no escalation, no debt, interest, or capital repayment. The initial capitalized Project construction was completed prior to this analysis. Excluding sunk costs which occurred prior to the operations proposed in this analysis, the Project is estimated to generate net cash flow over its life, before income tax, of $123.96 million and $97.01 million after income tax. The Project has a before tax NPV of $104.3 million applying an eight percent discount rate. When income taxes are included in the calculation, the after tax NPV is $81.8 million applying an eight percent discount rate. Life of mine operating costs are approximately $43.12 per pound of U3O8 produced including royalties, selling fees, and local taxes. Income taxes are estimated to be $9.55 per pound. The NPV for three discount rates has been calculated (pre- and post-income tax) and is presented in Table 22-1. Since the Project is projected to be profitable beginning in 2025 and sunk costs up to 2025 are ignored in this

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 104

analysis it is not possible to calculate the internal rate of return (IRR). The cash flow summary table is presented in Table 22-2.

Table 22-1. Net Present Value Discount Rate Sensitivity

NPV Discount Rates	Units	Pre-income Tax	Post-income<br><br><br>Tax
NPV @ 5%	US$ 000s	$111,031	$87,069
NPV @ 8%	US$ 000s	$104,252	$81,832
NPV @ 10%	US$ 000s	$100,089	$78,608
22.3	Taxation and Royalties
---	---

The results of the analyses presented herein provide for pre-income tax and post-income tax estimates. The post tax estimate includes U.S. federal income taxes. There is no State of Texas income tax. Texas does not have a severance tax on uranium mining. Ad valorem taxes would be assessed at the individual county level based on the value of the project area. Actual tax rates will vary based on the county mill levies. For the purposes of this analysis the ad valorem taxes were based on average rates paid on Encore’s existing properties.

Various production royalties exist on the Projects. Due to the sensitive nature of royalty negotiations on existing and future properties, intimate details on the royalties are not provided. However, for the purposes of this analysis the Royalty rates were estimated as follows:

•	At Brown the royalty is estimated at 1.5 percent of gross revenue.
•	At Brevard the royalty rate is estimated at 5 percent of gross revenue.
---	---
•	At Cadena the royalty rate is estimated at 10 percent of gross revenue.
---	---
22.4	Sensitivity Analysis
---	---

The Project is sensitive to changes in the price of uranium as shown in Figures 22-1 and 22-2. A five percent change in the commodity price results in a $10.3 million change to the pre-tax NPV and $8.1 Million to the post tax NPV at a discount rate of eight percent. This analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound. The Project is also slightly sensitive to changes in OPEX costs. A five percent variation in OPEX results in a $2.1 million variation in pre-tax NPV and $1.7 million to the post-tax NPV. A five percent variation in CAPEX results in a $2.6 million variation the pre-tax NPV and $2.1 million to the post-tax NPV. This analysis is based on an eight percent discount rate and a variable commodity price per pound.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 105

Table 22-2 Cashflow Summary Table.

Description	Units			2026			2027			2028			2029			2030			2031			2032			2033			Totals			/lb
Uranium Production as U3O8 (Total)	lbs 000s	538.5	****	****	680.0	****	****	723.0	****	****	685.7	****	****	154.8	****	****	39.6	****	****	0.0	****	****	0.0	****	****	0.0	****	****	2822	****
Uranium Production Rosita South	US000s	0.0			0.0			386.6			87.6			29.8			0.0			0.0			0.0			0.0			504
Uranium Production USC Brown Unit	US000s	538.5			680.0			336.4			83.8			8.5			0.0			0.0			0.0			0.0			1647
Uranium production USC Brevard Unit	US000s	0.0			0.0			0.0			514.3			116.5			39.6			0.0			0.0			0.0			670.4
Average Uranium Sales Price for U3O8	US/lb	78.37	****	$	91.98	****	$	86.90	****	$	88.07	****	$	90.42	****	$	92.04	****	$	93.76	****	$	98.00	****	$	99.31	****
Uranium Revenue	US/lb	42,200	****	$	62,552	****	$	62,833	****	$	60,387	****	$	13,998	****	$	3,646	****	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	-	****	$	245,615	****		****
Total Surface & Mineral Royalties	US000s	(633	)	$	(938	)	$	(3,798	)	$	(3,147	)	$	(808	)	$	(182	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(9,506	)		)
Rosita South	US000s	-		$	-		$	(3,360	)	$	(771	)	$	(269	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(4,401	)		)
Upper Spring Creek Brown	US000s	(633	)	$	(938	)	$	(439	)	$	(111	)	$	(12	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(2,132	)		)
Upper Spring Creek Brevard Unit	US000s	-		$	-		$	-		$	(2,265	)	$	(527	)	$	(182	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(2,974	)		)
Ad Valorem Taxes^1^	US000s	(62	)	$	(62	)	$	(82	)	$	(82	)	$	(82	)	$	(82	)	$	(67	)	$	(53	)	$	(38	)	$	(610	)		)
OPEX Costs	US000s	(8,832	)	$	(10,360	)	$	(11,100	)	$	(10,818	)	$	(4,170	)	$	(2,922	)	$	(1,752	)	$	(985	)	$	(801	)	$	(51,741	)		)
CAPEX Costs	US000s	(17,749	)	$	(20,171	)	$	(11,575	)	$	(7,114	)	$	(2,050	)	$	(532	)	$	(202	)	$	(202	)	$	(202	)	$	(59,797	)		)
Subtotal OPEX, CAPEX, Ad Valorem Tax	US000s	(26,643	)	$	(30,593	)	$	(22,757	)	$	(18,013	)	$	(6,302	)	$	(3,535	)	$	(2,021	)	$	(1,240	)	$	(1,041	)	$	(112,147	)		)
Net Before U.S. Federal Income Cashflow	US000s	14,923		$	31,020		$	36,277		$	39,227		$	6,888		$	(72	)	$	(2,021	)	$	(1,240	)	$	(1,041	)	$	123,962
Less Federal Income Tax	US000s	(3,134	)	$	(6,514	)	$	(7,618	)	$	(8,238	)	$	(1,447	)	$	-		$	-		$	-		$	-		$	(26,951	)		)
After Tax Cashflow	US000s	11,789	****	$	24,506	****	$	28,659	****	$	30,990	****	$	5,442	****	$	(72	)	$	(2,021	)	$	(1,240	)	$	(1,041	)	$	97,011	****		****

All values are in US Dollars.

Notes:

1)	Assumes an ad valorem tax using a per pound U3 O8 estmate. M illage rates are estimated and will vary by county and school district.
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 106
---	---

Figure 22-1 Pre-tax NPV Sensitivity to Price, OPEX and CAPEX

Figure 22-2 Post-Tax NPV Sensitivity to Price, OPEX and CAPEX

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 107
23.0	ADJACENT PROPERTIES
---	---

The Project is part of the STUP, which has produced over 70 million pounds of U3O8 (Nicot et al. 2010). The Butler Ranch, Brevard, Brown, and Cadena project areas target uranium ore bodies within the Jackson Group, Oakville Sandstone and the Goliad Formation. Commercial ISR uranium mining in the STUP started in the 1970s (Gallegos et al. 2022). All the project areas have either had historic production from them or very near proximity to historical production.

There are multiple properties with publicly available mineral resource estimates in South Texas that are not directly adjacent to the Project but are located in the STUP. Table 23-1 contains the property name, owner, formation, and the estimated resources for other south Texas properties.

The QP has not verified the information from the adjacent properties and this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineral resources in the project areas. The data presented in this section have been sourced from public information obtained from company, state and federal websites.

Table 23-1 Adjacent South Texas Uranium Projects

Property	Owner	Formation	Measured and Indicated Mineral<br> <br>Resource Estimate (lbs)	Inferred Mineral<br><br><br>Resource Estimate (lbs)
Burke Hollow	UEC	Goliad	6,155,000	4,883,000
Goliad	UEC	Goliad	6,159,900	1,224,800
Palangana	UEC	Goliad	643,100	1,001,300
Salvo	UEC	Goliad	-	2,839,000

Note: Public data from UEC, 2024

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 108
24.0	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
---	---

The Rosita CPP has been operating since November 2023, producing uranium from enCore’s Rosita Project Extension. Current production from the Rosita CPP is not depleting the mineral resources tabulated in section 14.0.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 109
25.0	INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
---	---

This independent Report for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth in NI 43-101 and regulations in S-K 1300. Its objective is to disclose the potential viability of ISR operations at the Project.

25.1	Conclusions

Based on the density of drilling, continuity of geology and mineralization, testing and data verification, the mineral resource estimates meet the criteria for measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources as shown in Tables 14-3 and 14-4.

Assumptions regarding uranium prices, mining costs and metallurgical recoveries are forward-looking and the actual prices, costs and performance results may be significantly different. The QP is not aware of any relevant factors that would materially affect the mineral resource estimates. Additionally, the QP is not aware of any environmental, regulatory, land tenure or political factors that will materially affect the Project from moving forward to mineral resource recovery operations.

The QP has weighed the potential benefits and risks presented in this Report and has found the Project to be potentially viable and meriting further evaluation.

25.2	Risks and Opportunities

This Report is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QP can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. The most significant potential risks to recovering the resources presented in this Report will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands. The amount of uranium ultimately recovered from the Project is subject to in-situ wellfield recovery processes that can be impacted by variable geochemical conditions.

Therefore, since mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic value, there is uncertainty in the Project achieving acceptable levels of mineral resource production with a positive economic outcome.

In addition, the Project is located in a state where ISR projects have been operated successfully. The ISR mining method has been proven effective in the geologic formations at the Project as described herein.

The Project is located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak and Duval Counties in the South Texas Coastal Plain, USA. Electrical power and major transportation are located within or near the project areas. Thus, the basic infrastructure necessary to support an ISR mining operation - power, water and transportation - are located within reasonable proximity of the project areas.

There are some inherent risks to the Project similar in nature to mining projects in general and more specifically to uranium mining projects. These risks are:

•	Market and Contracts - Unlike other commodities, uranium does not trade on an open market. Contracts are negotiated<br>privately by buyers and sellers. Changes in the price of uranium can have a significant impact on the outcome of the Project. The Uranium prices modeled in this analysis were based on a combination of Encore’s currently held contracts and<br>predictions prepared by market analysist experts (discussed in Section
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 110
---	---
<br>19.0). There is a risk that uranium prices will be lower than the prices modeled herein which would negatively affect the economics of this Project.
---
•	Uranium Recovery and Processing - This Report is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QP can<br>provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. The most significant potential risks to recovering the resources presented in this Report will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and<br>recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands.
---	---
^○^	Some operational risks such as reagents, power, labor and/or material cost fluctuations due to inflation, increasing<br>demand, decreasing supply, or other market forces exist and could impact the OPEX and Project economic performance. These potential risks are generally considered to be addressable either though wellfield modifications or plant optimization.<br>
---	---
^○^	Health and safety programs will be implemented to control the risk of on-site and<br>off-site exposures to uranium, operational incidents and/or process chemicals. Standard industry practices exist for this type of operation and novel approaches to risk control and management will not be<br>required.
---	---
^○^	This analysis minimizes fixed operational costs by assuming a relatively short duration and constant production rate. If<br>the production rate is lower than estimated in this PEA, the OPEX costs will be increased.
---	---
•	Social and Political - As with any uranium project in the USA, there will undoubtedly be some<br>social/political/environmental opposition to development of the Project. The Project sites are relatively remote. As such, there are very few people that could be directly impacted by the Project. Texas is known to be friendly to mining and has a<br>well-established, robust regulatory framework. While ever present with permitting projects, social, political, or environmental opposition to the Project is not likely to be a major risk, especially since all the mineral leases are on private (fee)<br>lands.
---	---
•	The estimated quantity of recovered uranium used in this Report is based primarily on the recovery data from wellfield<br>operations to date. The recovery factor of 80 percent, used here, is relatively typical of industry experience for wellfield recovery. The QP can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources seen in early production will be demonstrated<br>in future mine units. This Report is based on the assumptions and information presented herein.
---	---
^○^	The level of metallurgical testing performed varies from property to property. For example, at Butler Ranch no<br>metallurgic testing is available. Whereas as the other properties various amounts of leach amenability testing are available. There is a risk that the leach amenability is lower than modeled in this analysis especially in areas where the least<br>testing work has been completed. This risk is somewhat minimized since enCore has successful ongoing ISR operations in the area and the geologic conditions are relatively similar.
---	---
^○^	Other potential concerns are reduced hydraulic conductivity in the formation due to chemical precipitation during<br>production, lower natural hydraulic conductivities than estimated, high flare and/or recovery of significant amounts of groundwater, the need for additional injection wells to increase uranium recovery rates, variability in the uranium concentration<br>in the host sands and discontinuity of the mineralized zone confining layers. The risks associated with these potential issues can be
---	---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 111
---	---
<br>minimized to the extent possible by extensive delineation and hydraulic studies of the site which will occur during wellfield development.
---
South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 112
---	---
26.0	RECOMMENDATIONS
---	---

The QP considers the scale and quality of the mineral resources determined by this Report to indicate favorable conditions for future extraction from the Project.

The QP recommends that enCore continue to obtain and maintain private mineral leases along with surface use agreements.

enCore should advance the process to obtain the necessary regulatory authorizations required to operate the Project. The approximate cost for this is identified in Table 21-2.

To realize the full potential benefits described in this Report, all aspects of operations and further wellfield development should be continued as market conditions warrant. Wellfields must be developed in advance of future production. Data obtained from wellfield development should be used to continue to reconcile and improve the Project mineral resource estimate as well as refine wellfield development plans.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 113
27.0	REFERENCES
---	---

Adams, S.S. and Smith, R.B., 1981, Geology and Recognition Criteria for Sandstone Uranium Deposits in Mixed Fluvial-Shallow Marine Sedimentary Sequences, South Texas, National Uranium Resource Evaluation, p146.

AMEC Geomatrix. 2009. Application for Permit to Conduct In Situ Uranium Mining Brevard Project.

Anders, R.B. and Baker, E.T., Jr. (U.S. Geological Survey), 1961, Groundwater Geology of Live Oak County, Texas: Texas Board of Water Engineers, Bulletin 6105. Available at: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/bulletins/doc/bull.htm/b6105.asp

Baker, E.T., Jr. (U.S. Geological Survey), 1979, Stratigraphic and Hydrogeologic Framework of Part of the Coastal Plain of Texas: Texas Department of Water Resources, Report 236. Available at: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/numbered_reports/ doc/R236/Report236.asp

Baker, Ernest T. Hydrology of the Jasper aquifer in the southeast Texas Coastal Plain. Vol. 295. The Board, 1986.

Baskin, J.A. and Hulbert, R.C. Jr., 2008, Revised Biostratigraphy of the middle Miocene to earliest Pliocene Goliad Formation of South Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 58, p. 93-101.

BEG, 1987, The University of Texas at Austin, Geologic atlas of Texas.

BEG, 1992, Geology of Texas, State Map SM 2, map scale 1 inch = 100 miles.

BEG, 2000, Vegetation/cover types of Texas, map, Univ. of Texas.

Bunker, C.M. and MacKallor, J.A., 1973, Geology of the Oxidized Uranium Ore Deposits of the Tordilla Hill-Deweesville Area, Karnes County, Texas; A study of a District before Mining. USGS Professional Paper 765.

Carbon Credits.com, 2025 Uranium Outlook: Will this Critical Commodity Endure its Golden Glow? Article prepared by Saptakee S. January 3,2025. https://carboncredits.com/2025-uranium-outlook-will-this-critical-commodity-endure-its-golden-glow/

Carothers, T.A., 2011, Technical Report for Uranium Energy Corp’s Salvo Project In-Situ Recovery Uranium Property, Bee County, Texas. NI 43-101 Technical Report.

Conoco Interoffice Communication, June 6, 1978, To: Mr. S. R. Hafenfeld, ‘Rosenbrock (UL-1797) Geologic Report’, 11 p.

Conoco Interoffice Communication- To: Cleo Scott, October 9, 1978, ‘Garcia Orebody re-evaluation with 3% royalty and 1.5:1 north wall slope’, 4 p.

Conoco Interoffice Communication- To: Mr. L. W. Heiny, November 23, 1981, ‘Esse/Turner-Garcia Trade’, 3 p.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 114

Eargle, D.H. and Kleiner, D.J., 2022, Uranium Mining, Handbook of Texas Online, accessed May 01, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/uranium-mining.

Gallegos, T.J., Scott, A.M., Stengel, V.G., Teeple, A.P., 2022, A Methodology to Assess the Historical Environmental Footprint of In-Situ Recovery (ISR) of Uranium: A Demonstration of the Goliad Sand in the Texas Coastal Plain, U.S.A. Minerals.

Galloway, W. E., and Charles G. Groat. South Texas uranium province: geology and extraction. No. NP-22434. Texas Univ., Austin (USA). Bureau of Economic Geology, 1976.

Galloway, W. E., Finley, R. J. and Henry, C. D., 1979, South Texas Uranium Province: Geologic Perspective: The University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook 18, p. 81.

Galloway, W.E., Henry, C.D., and Smith, G.E., 1982, Depositional Framework, Hydrostratigraphy, and Uranium Mineralization of the Oakville Sandstone (Miocene), Texas Coastal Plain: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations No. 113.

Goldhaber, M. et al. 1979. Formation and Resulfidization of a South Texas Roll-type Uranium Deposit. USGS Open File Report 79-1651.

Granger, H.C. and C.G. Warren, 1979, Zoning in the Altered Tongue with Roll-Type Uranium Deposits, United States Geological Survey, (USGS), IAEA-SM-183/6.

Hazen Research. 2010a. In Situ Amenability Studies of Brevard Ore.

Hazen Research. 2010b. QEMSCAN Mineralogical Analysis of Two Leach Feed Samples.

Hall, Susan M., et al. “Genetic and grade and tonnage models for sandstone-hosted roll-type uranium deposits, Texas Coastal Plain, USA.” Ore Geology Reviews 80 (2017): 716-753.

Larson, W.C., 1978, Uranium in situ leach mining in the United States; U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bur. of Mines Information Circular IC8777, p. b68.

Nicot, J. P., et al., 2010, Geological and Geographical Attributes of the South Texas Uranium Province: Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, publication for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, p. 170.

Penney, R., et al. “Determining uranium concentration in boreholes using wireline logging techniques: comparison of gamma logging with prompt fission neutron technology (PFN).” Applied Earth Science 121.2 (2012): 89-95.

Resource Evaluation, Inc. 2017. Brevard Project Mineral Resources and Exploration Targets – Technical Report Compliant with the Format of Canada National Instrument 43-101.

Signal Equities, LLC. Brown Project Mineral Resource and Exploration Targets, Live Oak County, Texas, August 4, 2017, Unpublished report.

Sprott, 2024. Uranium Markets Impacted by Market Signals and Uncertainty, article prepared by Jacob White. December 13, 2024. https://sprott.com/insights/uranium-markets-impacted-by-market-signals-and-uncertainty/

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 115

Sprott, 2025. Interview with Sprott CEO John Ciampaglia, January 28, 2025. https://sprott.com/insights/uranium-outlook-for-2025/

SRK Consulting. 2009a. Technical Memorandum, Brevard Project – Pumping Test #1.

SRK Consulting. 2009b. Well Construction and Pumping Test #2, Brevard ISR Uranium Project Bee County, Texas.

Texas Parks & Recreation, 2022, The Vegetation Types of Texas, https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_bn_w7000_0120/physiognomic_regions/, accessed April 25.

Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), 2022, Uranium Exploration,

https://www.rrc.texas.gov/surface-mining/programs/uranium-exploration/ .

Trade Tech, 2023. 4th Quarter 2023 Market Outlook Report. https://www.uranium.info/uranium_market.php

US Census Bureau. 2020. Census Data. Available at: https://data.census.gov/

U.S. Climate Data, 2022, Climate for Beeville, Duval and Goliad Counties Texas. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/texas/united-states/3213,

Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC) 2024. Projects, Texas, Mineral Resources. https://www.uraniumenergy.com/projects/texas/

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. Assessment of Undiscovered Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Resources in the Texas Coastal Plain.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 116

APPENDIX A:

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSONS

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 117

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIEDPERSON

Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA.

I, Christopher McDowell, Wyoming Professional Geologist, of 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, do hereby certify that:

I have been retained by enCore Energy Corp., 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX 78401, to prepare and supervise the preparation of the documentation for the foregoing report “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA” with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “Report”) to which this Certificate applies.

I am currently employed by WWC Engineering, 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, USA, as a Professional Geologist.

I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in August 2016 and a Master of Business Administration degree in August 2022 both from the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming.

I am a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming in good standing, license number 4135. I am a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Texas in good standing, license number 15284. I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. My Registration Number is 4311521 and I am in good standing.

I have worked as a geologist for 9 years in natural resources extraction.

I have 9 years direct experience with uranium exploration, resource analysis, uranium ISR project development, project feasibility, permitting, and licensing. My relevant experience for the purposes of the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects includes roles as a geologist and project manager at WWC Engineering. My project experience includes, but is not limited to, preparing or assisting in the preparation of the NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Resources of the Moore Ranch Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, USA, April 30, 2019, the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Gas Hills Uranium Project Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA August 10, 2021, the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Shirley Basin ISR Uranium Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, USA, March 7, 2022 and March 11, 2024, the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Lost Creek Uranium Property Sweetwater County, Wyoming, USA March 7, 2022 and March 4, 2024, and acting as QP on the NI 43-101 Technical Report Kaycee Uranium Project Johnson County, WY USA dated September 6 2024.

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration, and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person”.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 118

I visited Butler Ranch, Brevard, and Brown on November 5, 2021 and the Rosita CPP and Cadena on February 7, 2024.

I am responsible for the preparation and/or supervision of the preparation of responsible for development of sections 1-15 and 23-27 of this Report.

I am independent of enCore Energy Corp. as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

I have read NI 43-101 and certify that this Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101.

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, at the effective date of the Technical Report, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 13^th^ day of February 2025

Signed and Sealed:

/s/ ChristopherMcDowell

Christopher McDowell, P.G.

SME Registered Member, Registration Number 4311521

Professional Geologist, Texas No. 15284

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 119

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIEDPERSON

Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA.

I, Ray B. Moores, Wyoming Professional Engineer, of 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, do hereby certify that:

I have been retained by enCore Energy Corp., 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX 78401, to prepare and supervise the preparation of the documentation for the foregoing report “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA” with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “Report”) to which this Certificate applies.

I am currently employed by WWC Engineering, 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, USA, as a Civil Engineer/Project Manager.

I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering in December 2000 and a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering in May 2002 from the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming.

I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Wyoming. My registration number is 10702 and I am a member in good standing.

I have worked as an engineer for 22 years primarily in support of natural resources extraction.

I have 16 years of direct experience with ISR uranium mining, permitting, groundwater modeling, and mine infrastructure design and construction. My relevant experience for the purposes of the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects includes development of a groundwater model for Strata Energy’s Ross ISR Uranium Project, which included wellfield scale simulations, well spacing evaluations, and restoration evaluations; providing technical assistance for a number of ISR uranium mine projects in Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas and New Mexico, which included aquifer analyses, ISR mining amenability evaluations, and infrastructure evaluations in support of due diligence studies; permit preparer for Strata Energy’s Ross ISR Uranium Project; providing engineering design, cost estimates, and project management for a number of dams, diversions, evaporation ponds, and other infrastructure associated with Wyoming coal mines and oil and gas projects; preparation of socioeconomic impact analyses for new coal mining projects in Wyoming and West Virginia, qualified person on the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment of Anatolia Energy’s Temrezli ISR Project in Yozgat, Turkey; qualified person on NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Shirley Basin Uranium Project in Carbon County Wyoming, dated January 27, 2015; qualified person on NI 43-101, Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, WY, dated June 28, 2021, qualified person on NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Lost Creek ISR Uranium Property, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, USA dated March 4, 2024, and qualified person on NI 43-101 Amended Preliminary Economic Assessment Shirley Basin ISR Uranium Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, USA dated March 11, 2024.

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 120

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration, and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for those purposes.

I am responsible for the preparation and/or supervision of sections 1-5, 16-22, and 24-27 of this Report

I am independent of enCore Energy Corp. as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

I have read NI 43-101 and certify that this Report has been prepared in compliance therewith.

To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, at the effective date of this Report, December 31, 2024, the Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Report not misleading.

Dated this 13^th^ day of February 2025

Signed and Sealed:

/s/ Ray B. Moores

Ray B. Moores, P.E.,

Professional Engineer, Wyoming No. 10702

South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Technical Report - February 2025	Page 121

EX-96.2

Exhibit 96.2

Prepared for: enCore Energy Corp 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Prepared by: WWC Engineering 1849 Terra Avenue Sheridan, WY 82801 307-672- 0761 Principal Authors:    Christopher McDowell, P.G. & Ray Moores P.E.

This technical report titled “TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE GAS HILLS URANIUM PROJECT, FREMONT AND NATRONA COUNTIES, WYOMING, USA”, dated February 4, 2025, has been prepared under the supervision of, and signed by, the following Qualified Persons:

/s/ Christopher McDowell, P.G.
SME Registered Member, Registration No. 4311521
Professional Geologist, Wyoming No. 4135
/s/ Ray Moores, P.E.
---
Professional Engineer, Wyoming No. 10702
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page i
---	---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY		1
	1.1	Background	1
	1.2	Mineral Resources	2
	1.3	Project	2
	1.4	Economic Analysis	5
	1.5	Conclusions and Recommendations	6
	1.6	Summary of Risks	6
2.0	INTRODUCTION		8
3.0	RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS		10
4.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION		11
	4.1	Property Description and Location	11
	4.2	enCore Acquisition of the Gas Hills Uranium Project	11
	4.3	Mining Claims	13
	4.4	State of Wyoming Lease, Private Mineral Lease, and Private Surface Use Agreement	13
	4.5	Permitting	14
	4.6	Environmental Liabilities	14
	4.7	Encumbrances and Risks	15
5.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY		16
	5.1	Accessibility	16
	5.2	Topography, Elevation, Physiography	16
	5.3	Climate, Vegetation and Wildlife	17
	5.4	Infrastructure	18
	5.5	Surface Rights	18
6.0	HISTORY		19
	6.1	Ownership and Control	19
	6.2	Historical Exploration and Mineral Resource Estimates	20
7.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION		21
	7.1	Regional Geology	21
	7.2	Regional Stratigraphy	21
	7.3	Local Geologic Setting of the Gas Hills	22
	7.4	Local Mineralization in the Gas Hills	26
	7.5	Hydrogeology	30
	7.6	Geotechnical Testing	32
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page ii
---	---
8.0  DEPOSIT TYPES	33
---	---
9.0  EXPLORATION	34
10.0  DRILLING	35
10.1  Drilling Methods	35
10.2  Drilling Length Versus True Thickness	36
10.3  Summary and Interpretation of Relevant Drill Results	36
11.0  SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	37
11.1  Radiometric Equivalent Geophysical Log Calibration	37
11.2  Pre-2007 Drilling<br>Analyses	38
11.3  Post-2007 Drilling	39
11.4  Security	40
11.5  Summary	40
12.0  DATA VERIFICATION	41
12.1  Verification of Radiometric Database	41
12.2  Verification of Disequilibrium Factor	42
12.3  Verification of Pre-2007<br>Drilling by Re-Logging	43
12.4  Density of Mineralized Material	43
12.5  Summary	44
13.0  MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	45
13.1  Uranium Extraction Bottle Roll Testing	45
13.2  Uranium Extraction Column Testing	45
13.3  IX Testing	46
13.4  Summary	46
14.0  MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	47
14.1  Mineral Resource Definitions	47
14.2  Basis of Mineral Resource Estimates	47
14.2.1   Methodology	47
14.3  Key Assumptions and Parameters	48
14.3.1   Cutoff Criteria	48
14.3.2   Bulk Density	49
14.3.3   Radiometric Equilibrium	49
14.4  Mineral Resource Summary	49
14.4.1   West Unit	51
14.4.2   Central Unit	52
14.4.3   Rock Hill	54
14.4.4   South Black Mountain	54
14.4.5   Jeep	55
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page iii
---	---
14.5  GT Contour Maps	56
---	---
14.6  Discussion on Mineral Resources	56
15.0  MINERAL RESERVES	65
16.0  MINING METHODS	66
16.1  Mineral Deposit Amenability	66
16.2  Hydrology	67
16.2.1   Hydrogeology	67
16.2.2   Historical Drill Holes	69
16.3  Conceptual Wellfield Design	70
16.3.1   ISR Amenable Resources	70
16.3.2   Wellfield Patterns	71
16.3.3   Monitor Wells	72
16.3.4   Mining Schedule	72
16.4  Piping	74
16.5  Header Houses	74
16.6  Wellfield Reagents and Electricity	76
16.7  Mining Fleet Equipment and Machinery	76
16.8  Labor	76
17.0  RECOVERY METHODS	76
17.1  CPP Operations	76
17.2  Transportation	79
17.3  Energy, Water and Process Materials	79
17.4  Liquid Disposal	79
17.5  Solid Waste Disposal	80
18.0  PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE	81
18.1  Roads	81
18.2  Electricity	81
18.3  Holding Pond	81
19.0  MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS	82
20.0  ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY
IMPACT	83
20.1  Environmental Studies	83
20.2  Waste Disposal and Monitoring	83
20.2.1   Waste Disposal	83
20.2.2   Site Monitoring	84
20.3  Permitting	84
20.4  Social or Community Impact	85
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page iv
---	---
20.5  Project Closure	86
---	---
20.5.1   Byproduct Disposal	86
20.5.2   Well Abandonment / Groundwater Restoration	86
20.5.3   Demolition and Removal of Infrastructure	86
20.5.4   Site Grading and Revegetation	86
20.6  Financial Assurance	87
20.7  Adequacy of Current Plans	87
21.0  CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	88
21.1  Capital Cost Estimation (CAPEX)	89
21.2  Operating Cost Estimation (OPEX)	91
22.0  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	93
22.1  Assumptions	93
22.2  Cash Flow Forecast and Production Schedule	93
22.3  Taxation	96
23.0  ADJACENT PROPERTIES	98
24.0  OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	99
25.0  INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS	100
25.1  Conclusions	100
25.2  Sensitivity Analysis	100
25.3  Risk Assessment	103
25.3.1   Resource and Recovery	103
25.3.2   Markets and Contracts	105
25.3.3   Operations	105
25.3.4   Permitting	106
25.3.5   Social and/or Political	107
26.0  RECOMMENDATIONS	108
27.0  REFERENCES	110
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page v
---	---

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1.	Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	4
Table 1.2.	Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	4
Table 2.1.	Terms and Abbreviations	9
Table 5.1.	Climate Data	17
Table 10.1.	Drilling Summary by Area	35
Table 14.1.	Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	50
Table 14.2.	Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	50
Table 14.3.	West Unit Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	51
Table 14.4.	West Unit Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	52
Table 14.5.	Central Unit Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	53
Table 14.6.	Central Unit Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	53
Table 14.7.	Rock Hill Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	54
Table 14.8.	Rock Hill Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	54
Table 14.9.	South Black Mountain Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	55
Table 14.10.	South Black Mountain Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	55
Table 14.11.	Jeep Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary	55
Table 14.12.	Jeep Inferred Mineral Resource Summary	56
Table 16.1.	Development Summary by Resource Area	72
Table 21.1.	CAPEX Cost Summary	90
Table 21.2.	Annual Operating Costs (OPEX) Summary	92
Table 22.1.	Cash Flow Statement	95
Table 22.2.	NPV Versus Discount Rate and IRR	96
Table 23.1.	Cameco Peach Project Mineral Resources	98
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page vi
---	---

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1.	Location/Property Map	12
Figure 5.1.	Project Location and Wyoming Basins	16
Figure 7.1.	Gas Hills Uranium District Geologic Map	23
Figure 7.2.	Gas Hills Area Cross Sections	24
Figure 7.3.	Representative Stratigraphic Column	25
Figure 7.4.	Typical Uranium Roll-Front System	26
Figure 7.5.	Roll Front Exposed in Reclamation Channel, George-Ver<br>Deposit	27
Figure 7.6.	Depiction of Multiple Stacked, En Echelon Uranium Deposits	29
Figure 7.7.	Gas Hills Uranium District	30
Figure 8.1.	Idealized Cross-Section of a Sandstone-Hosted Roll Front Uranium Deposit	33
Figure 14.1.	Resource Classification Boundaries	49
Figure 14.2.	West Unit A Sand GT Contour Map	57
Figure 14.3.	West Unit B Sand GT Contour Map	58
Figure 14.4.	Central Unit A Sand GT Contour Map	59
Figure 14.5.	Central Unit B Sand GT Contour Map	60
Figure 14.6.	Rock Hill GT Contour Map	61
Figure 14.7.	South Black Mountain A Sand GT Contour Map	62
Figure 14.8.	South Black Mountain B Sand GT Contour Map	63
Figure 14.9.	Jeep GT Contour Map	64
Figure 16.1.	Life of Mine Schedule	73
Figure 16.2.	Pipeline Infrastructure Map	75
Figure 17.1.	Process Flow Diagram	77
Figure 25.1.	Pre-Federal Income Tax NPV and IRR Sensitivity to Price	100
Figure 25.2.	Post-Federal Income Tax NPV Sensitivity to Price	101
Figure 25.3.	Pre-Federal Income Tax NPV Sensitivity CAPEX and OPEX	102
Figure 25.4.	Post-Federal Income Tax NPV Sensitivity CAPEX and OPEX	102

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A	Certificate of Qualified Persons
Appendix B	List of Lode Claims and State Leases
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page vii
---	---
1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
---	---
1.1	Background
---	---

This independent Technical Report (the Report) was prepared by Christopher McDowell P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. (The Authors) of Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering (WWC) for enCore Energy Corp. (enCore) in accordance with National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101 Standards) and the Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K (S-K 1300). The effective date of this report is December 31, 2024.

The purpose of this Report is to disclose the results of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Gas Hills Uranium Project (the Project). The term PEA in the Report is consistent with an Initial Assessment (IA) with economics under S-K 1300. Mr. McDowell and Mr. Moores are Qualified Persons (QPs) under NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

The Project is owned by UColo Exploration Corp. (UColo), a Utah corporation, and a wholly owned subsidiary of URZ Energy Corp. (URZ). URZ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Azarga Uranium Corp. (Azarga) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore. Surface land ownership at the Project is predominantly managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the minority of the land is owned by the State of Wyoming and private landowners. Mineral ownership at the Project is a combination of federal, state of Wyoming, and private (fee) ownership.

A report titled NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA with an effective date of June 28, 2021 was previously prepared by Roughstock Mining Services (Roughstock) and WWC (Roughstock & WWC 2021). WWC was retained by enCore to prepare this independent Report for the in-situ recovery (ISR) amenable resources of the Project.

Between 1953 and 1988 many companies explored, developed, and produced uranium in the Gas Hills, including on lands now controlled by enCore. Three uranium mills operated in the district and two others nearby were also fed by ore mined from Gas Hills. Cumulative production from the Gas Hills is in excess of 100 million pounds of uranium, mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground mining and ISR (Beahm, 2017).

Available data utilized in this Report includes pre-2007 exploration and production on enCore’s Gas Hills Uranium Project, and drilling completed by a previous owner, Strathmore Minerals Corporation, from 2007 to June 2013. In August 2013, Strathmore Minerals Corporation was acquired by Energy Fuels Inc. (Energy Fuels), who subsequently sold the Project to URZ in October 2016. Azarga acquired the Project when it merged with URZ in July 2018 and enCore acquired the Project when it merged with Azarga in December 2021.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 1

Data sources for the estimation of uranium mineral resources for the Project include radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 4,570 drill holes, and eU3O8 and Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN) logging data for 272 drill holes. The intent of recent drilling between 2007 and 2024 included verification of earlier data for drill holes and other exploration results.

Metallurgical studies were completed on recovered materials including bulk samples from reverse circulation drilling and cored sections. Bottle roll and column leach tests indicate uranium recoveries of approximately 90 percent and sulfuric acid consumption of approximately 55 pounds per ton treated, which is consistent with past mining results.

1.2	Mineral Resources

The mineral resource estimation method utilized in this Report is the Grade Thickness (GT) contour method. This method is considered appropriate for this type of deposit.

Mineral resources were estimated using a cutoff grade of 0.02% eU3O8. Estimated mineral resources are summarized in Table 1.1 using a 0.10 GT cutoff. The 0.10 GT base case cutoffs were selected by meeting economic criteria for both ISR and non-ISR resources differentiated on the relative location to the water table. Resources labeled “ISR” meet the criteria of being sufficiently below the water table to be amenable for extraction by ISR methods and as well as also meeting other hydrogeological criteria. “non-ISR” resources include those generally above the natural water table, which would typically be mined using open pit methods. The average grade of ISR resources in this estimate at a 0.10 GT cutoff met economic criteria for ISR extraction, and thus is considered the base case for this Report.

Section 14.0 provides additional details regarding the determination of cutoff grade, GT cutoff, and the assessment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the mineral resource.

1.3	Project

The Project consists of four resource areas that contain ISR amenable resources named by enCore as the West Unit, Central Unit, South Black Mountain, and Jeep. There is an additional non-ISR amenable resource area at the Project named the Rock Hill Unit as well as other shallow areas with resources located above the water table that were not considered in the economic assessment portion of this Report. For the purposes of this Report, uranium recovery was estimated at 6,164,000 lbs at a production rate of 1.0 million pounds U3O8 per year with a long-term uranium price of USD $87.00/lb using a low pH lixiviant.

Labor for the Project will likely come from nearby population centers of Jeffery City, Casper, Riverton, and Rawlins, WY. The Project is accessible via gravel roads and year-round access should not be a problem. The Project is situated near electric transmission lines and access to power is not anticipated to be a problem. As discussed in Section

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 2

18.0, appropriate resources, manpower, and access are available to provide services to the Project.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 3
Table 1.1.	Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary
---	---
December 31, 2024 (GT cutoff 0.10)
---	---	---	---	---	---
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured	2,051,000	994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated	8,713,000	6,031,000	0.07%	6.13	0.443
Total M&I	10,764,000	7,025,000	0.08%	6.05	0.463
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured	2,051,000	994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated	5,654,000	2,835,000	0.10%	4.92	0.491
Total M&I	7,705,000	3,829,000	0.10%	4.99	0.502
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated	3,059,000	3,196,000	0.05%	8.6	0.412
Total M&I	3,059,000	3,196,000	0.05%	8.6	0.412

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.
---	---
6.	Totals may not sum due to rounding.
---	---
Table 1.2.	Inferred Mineral Resource Summary
---	---
December 31, 2024 (GT cutoff 0.10)
---	---	---	---	---	---
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred	490,000	514,000	0.05%	6.16	0.293
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred	428,000	409,000	0.05%	5.94	0.31
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred	62,000	105,000	0.03%	7.01	0.208

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	Totals may not sum due to rounding
---	---
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 4
---	---

The proposed wellfields consist of a combination of 5-spot and 7-spot well patterns with an average pattern area of approximately 17,000 ft^2^. Header houses will be installed in the wellfields and each header house will operate approximately 75 wells. A central processing plant (CPP) will be located at the West Unit and be connected to the other resource area by high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines to transport lixiviant to the CPP for processing. A discussion of wellfields and header houses is located in Section 16.0 and the discussion of the CPP is located in Section 17.0.

Production will generally occur at each resource area consecutively and production will occur over a period of approximately seven years. Groundwater restoration, decommissioning, and reclamation will be implemented at each resource area immediately following the production period. The overall life of mine is approximately 11 years from initiation of construction activities to the completion of surface reclamation. The mine schedule is discussed in Section 16.0.

1.4	Economic Analysis

This Report indicates a pre-tax NPV of $166.9 million at an 8 percent discount rate with an IRR of 54.8 percent compared to an after-tax NPV of $141.8 million at an 8 percent discount rate with an IRR of 50.2 percent. The NPV assumes cash flows take place in the middle of each period. The NPV and IRR calculations are based on Year-2 through Year 11 and includes costs escalated by 8 percent per year from Year -4 and Year -3 treated as if the escalated costs occurred in Year-2. This approach to calculating the IRR and NPV was taken because Year -2 is the first year that a significant sum of capital is invested into the Project.

The mine plan and economic analysis are based on the following assumptions:

•	A recovery factor of 80 percent of the measured and indicated mineral resource (no inferred mineral resource is<br>included),
•	A U3O8<br>sales price of $87.00/lb,
---	---
•	A mine life of 11 years,
---	---
•	A pre-income tax cost including royalties, state and local taxes, operating<br>costs, and capital costs of $40.61/lb, and
---	---
•	Initial capital costs of $55.2 million.
---	---

Costs for the Project are based on economic analyses for similar ISR uranium projects in the Wyoming region as well as WWC’s in-house experience with mining and construction costs. All costs are in U.S. dollars (USD). To date, no detailed design work has been completed for the wellfields or the CPP. The Authors believe that general industry costs from similar projects adequately provide a ± 30 percent cost accuracy

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 5

which is in accordance with industry standards for a PEA and complies with item 1302 of Regulation S-K for an Initial Assessment with economics.

As additional data are collected for the Project and the wellfield and plant designs are advanced, estimates can be refined.

This analysis is based on measured and indicated mineral resource and does not include the inferred mineral resource. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Given the speculative nature of mineral resources, there is no guarantee that any or all of the mineral resources included in this Report will be recovered. This Report is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the Project will be realized.

1.5	Conclusions and Recommendations

The Authors conclude that the ISR amenable mineral resources as determined by this report show sufficient economic and technical viability to move to the next stage of development.

Due to the lack of current data on alternative lixiviants and consistent with enCore’s significant experience utilizing alkaline based lixiviants at their projects, the Authors recommend completing additional metallurgical studies and leach testing utilizing an alkaline based lixiviant.

The Authors recommend initiating permitting of the Project, especially as much of the work was previously completed for a mine application prepared for the Project in 2013 by Strathmore Minerals Corporation. The Authors’ recommendations for additional work programs are described in Section 26.0.

1.6	Summary of Risks

The Project is located in a brownfield district where the geology is well-known and past mining and milling have successfully been completed.

The Project does have some risks similar in nature to other mineral projects and uranium projects in particular. Some risks are summarized below and are discussed in detail in Section 25.0:

•	Variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation<br>techniques,
•	Environmental, social and political acceptance of the Project could cause delays in conducting work or increase the<br>costs from what is assumed,
---	---
•	Risk associated with delays or additional requirements for regulatory authorizations,
---	---
•	Risk associated with the uranium market and sales contract,
---	---
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 6
---	---
•	Risk associated with uranium recovery and processing,
---	---
•	Changes in the mining and mineral processing recovery, and
---	---
•	Due to limited testing and operation of ISR throughout the Project, ISR operations may not be able to be successfully<br>implemented due to hydrogeological, environmental, or other technical issues.
---	---

With regard to the socio-economic and political environment of the Gas Hills Uranium Project area, Wyoming mines have produced over 200 million pounds of uranium from both conventional and ISR mine and mill operations. Production began in the early 1950’s and continues to the present. The state has ranked as the number one US producer of uranium since 1994. Wyoming is considered generally favorable to mine development and provides a well-established environmental regulatory framework for ISR which has been conducted in the state since the 1960’s.

To the Authors’ knowledge there are no other significant risks that could materially affect the Report or interfere with the recommended work programs.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 7
2.0	INTRODUCTION
---	---

This report titled “TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE GAS HILLS URANIUM PROJECT, FREMONT AND NATRONA COUNTIES, WYOMING, USA” was prepared for enCore Energy Corp. in accordance with NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 Standards. The effective date of this Report is December 31, 2024.

This independent Report was prepared for enCore by WWC under the supervision of Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. A NI 43-101 PEA was previously prepared by Roughstock and WWC with an effective date of June 28, 2021 (Roughstock & WWC 2021). This Report is intended to state the mineral resource estimate and calculate the capital and operating cost estimates and economic analysis with the most recent market information.

enCore is incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, with the principal office located at 101 N Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX 78401.

Data sources for the estimation of uranium mineral resources for the Project include radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 4,570 drill holes (4,056 pre-2007), eU3O8 and PFN logging data for 272 drill holes completed between 2007 and 2013, and eU3O8 and core data for a core hole completed in 2024.

Units of measurement unless otherwise indicated are feet (ft), miles, acres, pounds (lbs), and short tons (2,000 lbs). Uranium production is expressed as pounds U3O8, the standard market unit. ISR refers to in-situ recovery, sometimes also termed in-situ leach (ISL). Unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($) refer to United States currency. Table 2.1 provides a brief list of the terms, abbreviations, and conversion factors used in this Report.

Christopher McDowell, P.G. is the independent qualified person responsible for the preparation of this Report and the mineral resource estimates herein. Mr. McDowell is a Qualified Person (QP) under NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 Standards responsible for the content of this Report and a Professional Geologist with 9 years of professional experience in uranium geology and ISR uranium mining. Mr. McDowell is responsible for development of sections 1-15 and 23-27 of this Report.

Ray Moores, P.E. is the independent qualified person responsible for the preparation for this Report and the technical and economic analysis herein. Mr. Moores is a QP under NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 Standards with 22 years of industry experience including 16 years direct experience with ISR uranium mining, permitting, and licensing. Mr. Moores is responsible for development of sections 1-5, 16-22, and 24-27 of this Report.

Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. conducted a current site visit on May 24, 2021. The purpose of the visit was to observe the geology of the site, review site activities, observe potential locations of Project infrastructure, understand the location of historic exploration and mining activities, and gain knowledge on existing site infrastructure.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 8
Table 2.1.	Terms and Abbreviations
---	---
Uranium Specific Terms and Abbreviations
---	---	---	---	---
Grade	parts per million	ppm U3O8	weight percent	%<br>U3O8
Radiometric Equivalent Grade		ppm eU3O8		%<br>eU3O8
Thickness	meters	m	feet	ft
Grade Thickness Product	grade x meters	GT (m)	grade x feet	GT (ft)
Headgrade	milligrams per liter	Mg/L
General Terms and Abbreviations
---	---	---	---	---	---
	Metric		US		Metric to US<br> <br>Conversion
	Term	Abbreviation	Term	Abbreviation
Area	Square Meters	m^2^	Square Feet	ft^2^	10.76
	Hectare	Ha	Acre	Ac	2.47
Volume	Cubic Meters	m^3^	Cubic Yards	Cy	1.308
Length	Meter	m	Feet	ft	3.28
	Meter	m	Yard	Yd	1.09
Distance	Kilometer	km	Mile	mile	0.6214
Weight	Kilogram	kg	Pound	Lb	2.20
	Metric Tonne	Tonne	Short Ton	Ton	1.10
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 9
---	---
3.0	RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
---	---

The Authors have fully relied upon information on uranium commodity price forecasts from TradeTech’s 4^th^ quarter 2023 market Outlook Report. This information is used in Section 19.0 of this Report. WWC Engineering received this information from enCore in November 2024.

The Authors have relied on information provided by enCore regarding property ownership, title, and mineral rights; regulatory status and environmental information, including liabilities on the Project.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 10
4.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
---	---
4.1	Property Description and Location
---	---

enCore’s 100 percent owned Gas Hills Uranium Project is located approximately 45 miles east of Riverton, Wyoming in the historic Gas Hills Uranium District. The Project and the Gas Hills Uranium District are located along the southern extent of the Wind River Basin, near the northern edge of the Granite Mountains. The company’s Project properties, including the West Unit, Central Unit, Rock Hill, South Black Mountain, and Jeep properties, consist of 628 unpatented lode mining claims, one State of Wyoming mineral lease, one private mineral lease, and one private surface use agreement. Together the properties encompass approximately 360 surface acres and 12,960 mineral acres. As shown on Figure 4.1 Location/Property Map, the properties are located at latitude 42.7295°, longitude -107.6596° in Townships 32 and 33 North, Ranges 89, 90 and 91 West, 6^th^ Principal Meridian, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming.

The US federal government owns the minerals associated with the mining claims, the State of Wyoming owns the minerals and surface associated with the State lease, the South Pass Land and Livestock Company owns the minerals associated with the private mineral lease, and the Philp Sheep Company owns the surface associated with the private surface use agreement. The BLM manages the claims on behalf of the US federal government.

The mining claims, State lease, and private mineral lease were assembled by Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd. (Strathmore) between April 2006 and September 2012 and sold to UColo on October 31, 2016. Title has remained in UColo’s name since that date and UColo is a subsidiary of enCore. The surface use agreement was entered into by UColo effective July 7, 2023.

4.2	enCore Acquisition of the Gas Hills Uranium Project

On September 9, 2016, URZ’s subsidiary, UColo, entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement (APA) with Strathmore, a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels, whereby URZ purchased all of Strathmore’s interest in the Project. In addition to the Project, the APA transaction included URZ’s purchase of Strathmore’s claims and State mineral leases for the Juniper Ridge and Shirley Basin Properties, however, these two properties are not discussed in this Report. The transaction closed on October 31, 2016.

On May 7, 2018, Azarga and URZ announced an agreement to merge under a plan of arrangement. On June 29, 2018, the shareholders of both URZ and Azarga approved the merger and on July 5, 2018 the merger was completed. As a result, URZ became a wholly owned subsidiary of Azarga. On December 31, 2021, the shareholder approved merger of Azarga and enCore closed and Azarga became a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 11
Figure 4.1.	Location/Property Map
---	---

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 12
4.3	Mining Claims
---	---

Approximately 12,560 mineral acres are encompassed by the Project claims. A 5 percent net proceeds royalty applies to 172 of the 628 claims as follows:

•	A net proceeds royalty of 5 percent on 155 claims was granted by Quit Claim Deed from Strathmore to Elmhurst<br>Financial Group, Inc. on October 31, 2007. One of the claims was relinquished during Strathmore’s ownership. The surviving 154 claims were sold to UColo and remain subject to the 5 percent net proceeds royalty.
•	A 5 percent net proceeds royalty was granted by Assignment from Strathmore to Blue Rock on October 31, 2007<br>on nine full claims and on the southern 720 feet of nine additional claims. The 18 claims were sold to UColo and remain subject to the 5 percent net proceeds royalty.
---	---

The other 456 claims are not subject to royalties or other encumbrances.

UColo has possessory right to explore, develop and produce from the unpatented lode mining claim areas and must pay an annual maintenance fee to the BLM of $200.00 per claim on or before September 1 each year. Surface use at the location of the mining claims on BLM lands is allowed subject to Title 43 of the US Code of Federal Regulations Subpart 3809 and requires permitting by both the BLM and the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD). A list of claim numbers and names is included in Appendix B.

4.4	State of Wyoming Lease, Private Mineral Lease, and Private Surface Use Agreement

State of Wyoming Lease

Strathmore entered into a ten-year lease with the State of Wyoming for Mineral Lease #0-42121 on April 2, 2007. The lease was subsequently transferred by Assignment from Strathmore to UColo on October 31, 2016. UColo renewed the lease before its 10-year expiration, extending the lease an additional ten years to April 1, 2027. The lease can be renewed, at UColo’s option, for unlimited additional 10-year periods as long as the terms and conditions of the lease have been met up to the time of applying to the State of Wyoming for renewal. The lease encompasses approximately 320 surface acres and 320 mineral acres in the NE^1^⁄4, N^1^⁄2NW^1^⁄4, and E^1^⁄2SE^1^⁄4 of Section 36, Township 33 North, Range 90 West, 6^th^ Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming. The lease grants to the State a royalty of 4 percent of the gross selling price of U3O8 or $5.00 per leased acre per year, whichever is more. No mineral resources in this Report are located on this lease.

Private Mineral Lease

Strathmore entered into a private mineral lease with South Pass Land and Livestock Company on July 28, 2010 for rights to minerals on the following two parcels of land: 40 mineral acres in the Jeep area in the SE^1^⁄4SE^1^⁄4 of Section 32, Township 32 North,

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 13

Range 91 West, 6^th^ Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming and 40 mineral acres in the West Unit area in the SW^1^⁄4SW^1^⁄4 of Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 90 West, 6^th^ Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming. The mineral lease was transferred by Assignment and Assumption of Mineral Lease from Strathmore to UColo on October 31, 2016. UColo exercised its option to renew the lease for an additional 10 years in July 2020 by making the required payment. Unlimited 10-year renewals are available at UColo’s option for additional payments. The lease grants a 5 percent net proceeds royalty to the owner of the mineral properties. The surface is owned separately from South Pass Land and Livestock Company. An agreement for surface access at the West Unit is described below. Presently, there is no agreement for surface access at the Jeep parcel.

Private Surface Use Agreement

UColo entered into a private surface use and access agreement with Philp Sheep Company on July 7, 2023 to access and use approximately 40 surface acres in the West Unit located in the SW1/4SW1/4 of Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 90 West, 6^th^ Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming. The agreement allows exploring, prospecting, drilling, constructing, and plugging and abandoning up to 10 exploratory boreholes on the parcel. Access to Section 19 is provided across the SW^1^⁄4SW^1^⁄4 of Section 13, Township 32 North, Range 91 West, 6^th^ Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming under the agreement. The term of the agreement is through November 7, 2025. Philp Sheep Company does not own the minerals in the parcel covered by the agreement. The minerals are owned by the South Pass Land and Livestock Company described above.

4.5	Permitting

enCore has an approved Drilling Notification (DN0369) that allows surface use for the purposes of exploration by drilling.

Although not required at this stage, mine development would require a number of permits depending on the type and extent of development, the most significant permits being the Permit to Mine, the Source Materials License issued by the WDEQ-LQD as required for mineral processing of natural uranium, and an approved Plan of Operations issued by the BLM. Any injection or pumping operations for in situ mining operations will require permits from the WDEQ which has authority under the Safe Water Drinking Act that stems from a grant of primacy from the US Environmental Protection Agency for administering underground injection control programs in Wyoming.

4.6	Environmental Liabilities

To the Author’s knowledge, no specific environmental liabilities are known to exist. There is a DN bond for exploration previously held by URZ in the amount of $100,000 which has been assumed by enCore. This bond is subject to annual renewal and updating.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 14

There are significant previous surface disturbances adjacent to the properties including drill roads, drill sites, haul roads, spoil dumps, reclaimed mill sites, and mined open pits.

Several legacy reclamation programs are ongoing in the Gas Hills, including on lands controlled by enCore. These programs are authorized under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Control Act of 1977 and carried out by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Abandoned Mine Lands Division (WDEQ-AML) with cooperation of the BLM. In addition, several former mill tailings sites on adjacent lands have been or will be reclaimed and transferred to the US Department of Energy (the US DOE) for long-term care and maintenance.

All of this reclamation activity is currently being performed at the sole cost of the state and federal government agencies. State of Wyoming mining regulations will require enCore to reclaim any new mining activities but excludes enCore from any environmental liability associated with historical mining on enCore’s controlled lands.

Strathmore submitted a Permit to Mine application with the WDEQ-LQD on August 28, 2013 (Strathmore, 2013). The Permit to Mine application was subsequently withdrawn by Energy Fuels following their acquisition of Strathmore. It is possible that much of this data can be utilized in a new Permit to Mine application should that be considered in the future. Although collection of additional baseline data will be necessary for a new permit submittal.

4.7	Encumbrances and Risks

The unpatented lode mining claims will remain the property of enCore provided it adheres to required filing and annual payment requirements with Fremont and Natrona Counties and the BLM. Legal surveys of unpatented lode mining claims are not required and are not known to have been completed. Mining claims are subject to the Mining Law of 1872. Changes in the mining law could affect the Project.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 15
5.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
---	---
5.1	Accessibility
---	---

The Gas Hills Uranium District can be accessed by traveling southeast of Riverton approximately 45 miles along Wyoming State Highway 136 (Gas Hills Road) to the junction of Fremont County Road #5 (Ore Haul Road). Access from Casper is approximately 47 miles west on US Highway 20/26 until the Waltman Junction then south onto Natrona County Road 212 (Gas Hills Road) it is approximately 22 miles to the northeast corner of the district. Access from the south is from US Highway 287 at Jeffrey City by traveling north along Fremont County Road #5 approximately 15 miles to the southwestern corner of the district. Regional airports are located in Casper and Riverton and a BNSF railroad passes through Casper and Powder River, WY, approximately 40 miles northeast of the Project.

Figure 5.1.	Project Location and Wyoming Basins

5.2	Topography, Elevation, Physiography

The Project is located within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province (Figure 5.1) along the southern flank of the Wind River Basin which is a northwest-southeast trending, intermountain, structurally bounded basin. The basin is bounded on the west

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 16

by the Wind River Range, on the east by the Casper Arch, and on the north by the Owl Creek, Washakie and Bighorn Mountains. In the Gas Hills, Beaver Rim, the southern escarpment of the Wind River Basin, is located at the northern margin of Sweetwater Plateau, separating the drainages between the Wind and Sweetwater Rivers. Elevations in the Gas Hills vary from a low of approximately 6,300 feet at the northwestern extent to a high in excess of 7,400 feet atop Beaver Rim.

5.3	Climate, Vegetation and Wildlife

Climate in the Gas Hills is continental semi-arid, with annual precipitation of 8-12 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100^o^F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards. Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt. Year round open-pit mining operations were successfully carried out previously in the Gas Hills district. The principal access to the Project is Wyoming Highway 136 which is paved and maintained year-round. The secondary access is the Gas Hills Road which is a gravel county road. Portions of the Gas Hills Road are not currently maintained on a year-round basis but have been in the past. In sum year-round operations can be conducted at the Project. The climate in the Gas Hills is most similar to that of Casper Wyoming, some 60 miles to the northeast for which a brief summary of weather conditions is provided in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1.	Climate Data
Measurement	Climate Data
---	---
Average annual high temperature	59°F
Average annual low temperature	31°F
Average annual precipitation - rainfall	12.42 inches
Average annual precipitation - snowfall	75 inches*

*Snowfall depth is aggregate snowfall over the season, actual snow depth experienced on the ground at any one time is typically less due to snow melting throughout the season.

(Climate Casper - Wyoming and Weather averages Casper (US Climate Data, 2021))

Most common native vegetation is sage brush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush. No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area. Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north facing slopes.

Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors. Small rodents and rabbits are common. The greater sage-grouse, present in the general area of the Project, has been considered for listing as a threatened or endangered species. Successful and ongoing mitigation efforts by the State of Wyoming have significantly decreased the probability of regulatory listing of the sage grouse.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 17
5.4	Infrastructure
---	---

Extensive production in Wyoming of minerals (coal, trona, uranium) and oil/gas has provided a highly skilled labor force in the region. Population centers within two hours of the Project include Casper, Riverton, Lander, and Rawlins, where equipment and supplies may be obtained. Paved roads from these towns and cities extend to the edge of the Project area. Access and haul roads within the Project are graded gravel and are maintained by the State, County, and mining companies operating in the area. Functioning power lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, and fiber optic cable are present on and near enCore’s properties. Several wells producing water for domestic and industrial use are also on or close to enCore’s properties. It is the Author’s opinion that the Property area controlled by enCore is more than adequate to provide areas for potential mining operations and associated facilities and for mineral processing operations.

5.5	Surface Rights

The 1872 Mining Law grants certain surface rights along with the right to mine provided the surface use is incident to the mine operations. In order to exercise those rights, the operator must comply with a variety of State and Federal regulations (refer to Section 20.0). For areas of private surface ownership appropriate surface-owner agreements would be required.

The Code of Federal Regulations 43 CFR 3715 governs the use and occupancy under the mining laws for Federal Lands. Under these regulations, 3715.05, states “Mining operations means all functions, work, facilities, and activities reasonably incident to mining or processing of mineral deposits.” For future mining and mineral processing, the Author concludes that enCore through UColo has, or can obtain through permitting and licensing of site activities, sufficient surface rights for possible future mining operations.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 18
6.0	HISTORY
---	---

The Gas Hills Uranium District (Gas Hills) was one of the major uranium mining and production regions in the USA. Early discoveries were based on both ground and aerial radiometric surveys in 1953. The initial discovery of uranium in the Gas Hills is credited to Neil MacNeice who located a mineralized outcrop using a handheld radiometric counter while Antelope hunting in the area on September 13, 1953 (Snow, 1978). During approximately the same time period, aerial radiometric surveys conducted on behalf of the Globe Mining Company identified radiometric anomalies in Gas Hills area as well. Between 1953 and 1988 many companies explored, developed, and produced uranium in the Gas Hills, including on lands now controlled by enCore.

Three uranium mills operated in the district and two others nearby were also fed by ore mined from Gas Hills. Cumulative production from the Gas Hills is in excess of 100 million pounds of uranium, mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground mining and ISR.

Mine production did occur adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project; however, the areas for which mineral resources are defined are unmined. Uranium was discovered in the Gas Hills in September 1953 by both ground and airborne radiometric surveys. Early exploration in the district exposed numerous near surface oxidized deposits and small shipments of ore were shipped out of state for processing. In 1955, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC now the US DOE) constructed an ore buying station in Riverton, WY where ore was stockpiled and eventually milled. In the Gas Hills area, when the AEC approved purchase allotments in 1956, Utah Construction (later Pathfinder and then Areva) began the Lucky Mc Mill in the central Gas Hills and Lost Creek Oil and Uranium (later Western Nuclear) began the Split Rock Mill 15 miles south at Jeffrey City. By 1959 the AEC authorized three additional mills in the county: Fremont Minerals’ (Susquehanna Mining) mill in Riverton, Federal-Radorock-Gas Hills Partners’ (later Federal American Partners) central Gas Hills mill, and Globe Uranium Company’s (later Union Carbide) east Gas Hills mill.

With the rapid decline in uranium price in the early to mid-1980’s production slowly halted. The last mill production in the Gas Hills occurred in 1988 at Lucky Mc. Extensive mill site and mine reclamation occurred from the late 1980s through to the present time in the Gas Hills. However, Wyoming remains the largest current uranium producer in the USA and there are numerous uranium projects in the state (Beahm, 2017).

6.1	Ownership and Control

The present Project area was acquired by URZ’s subsidiary UColo from Strathmore on October 31, 2016 and subsequently the Project area was acquired by enCore through a merger with Azarga in 2021. The minerals were originally acquired by staking and purchasing unpatented mining claims, and by acquiring the State of Wyoming Mineral Lease and the private South Pass Land and Livestock Company mineral lease.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 19
6.2	Historical Exploration and Mineral Resource Estimates
---	---

Historical mineral resources were generated by several sources including data from mining companies and/or their consultants that were active in the area historically including American Nuclear Corporation, 1985, Anonymous report, 1979, Dames & Moore, 1976, David Robertson & Associates, 1979, Energy Fuels, 1978, and Mullen Mining, 1977. The authors of this Report did not review all of these historical estimates but focused on more recent estimates including those prepared by Roughstock, Beahm, 2017 and CAM, 2013.

More than 100,000 exploration and development holes were drilled in the Gas Hills from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s. Since 1990, a few hundred holes have been drilled, nearly all by Strathmore and Cameco. Strathmore acquired exploration data for several of its Gas Hills properties; all of which are now controlled by enCore.

The most recent previous resource estimate was completed by Roughstock in the report “NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT, PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT, GAS HILLS URANIUM PROJECT, FREMONT AND NATRONA COUNTIES, WYOMING, USA” dated effective June 28, 2021.

Previous resource estimates are not relevant since there is a current mineral resource estimate on the Project which is described in Section 14.0 of this Report.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 20
7.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
---	---
7.1	Regional Geology
---	---

The Gas Hills Uranium District is located in the south-central portion of the Wind River Basin as depicted on Figure 5.1. The district occupies approximately 100 square miles along the south-central flank of the Wind River Basin in central Wyoming. The Wind River Basin is marked by a northwest-trending topographic depression surrounded by mountains on all but the eastern side. To the south, the Wind River Basin is bounded by the Beaver Rim, which is an erosional scarp. This topographic feature forms a boundary between the Wind River Basin to the north and the Sweetwater Basin and Granite Mountains to the south.

East of the Gas Hills District is a northwest-trending structural high, known as the Rattlesnake Hills Anticline. Rocks ranging in age from the Precambrian to the Paleocene are exposed along the northeastern flank of this feature. Mountain ranges around the Wind River Basin were uplifted during the late Cretaceous to early Tertiary Laramide orogeny. Erosion from these uplifts deposited terrestrial clastic sediments of the Eocene Wind River Formation unconformably upon tilted and deformed Paleozoic-Mesozoic rocks. Arkosic sandstones and conglomerates are common in the Wind River Formation, indicative of their alluvial fan depositional setting. The Tertiary sediments are typically range between 400-1,000 feet thick in the Gas Hills area (Strathmore 2013) and pinch out against Paleozoic/Mesozoic rocks south of the Gas Hills.

Sometime during late Tertiary time, the Granite Mountain block dropped down along east-west faults that lie between the mountains and the Gas Hills and associated faults near the Green Mountain-Crook Mountains south of Jeffrey City, forming the Split Rock syncline. This down dropping resulted in a southward regional tilt of the Wind River sedimentary rocks of 2-6° in the Gas Hills (Beahm, 2017).

7.2	Regional Stratigraphy

The Cenozoic basin-fill deposits of the Wind River Basin are chiefly flood-plain and stream channel materials, with generally greater amounts of lacustrine and pyroclastic sediments toward the top of the sequence. The Eocene formations generally consist of lenticular, poorly sorted sediments, whereas the younger Tertiary formations are commonly better sorted and less lenticular in nature. The majority of the volcanic debris was derived from the Yellowstone-Absaroka volcanic field in northwestern Wyoming and to a much lesser extent from the Rattlesnake Hills volcanic field immediately east of the Gas Hills (Van Houten, 1964). The sedimentary strata dip gently a few degrees to the south.

The deposits exposed in the Gas Hills are, from oldest to youngest, the Wind River Formation, Wagon Bed Formation, White River Formation, and the Split Rock Formation. The Wind River Formation can be subdivided into three members that coarsen upwards. The lower fine-grained member is comprised of siltstone, sandstone, and claystone interbeds. The central carbonaceous zone is a 5-15 foot thick sequence

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 21

of carbonaceous shales and thin coal beds. Above the central carbonaceous zone is the Puddle Springs Arkose Member which contains the economic uranium deposits in the Gas Hills District. The Puddle Springs Arkose Member is a coarse- to very-coarse conglomeratic arkose and arkosic sandstone ranging from approximately 400-800 feet thick. The Granite Mountains to the south are the primary source material for the Wind River Formation at the Gas Hills (Gregory, 2019). Depositional processes were influenced by the Eocene climate, which was mostly humid, warm-temperate to sub-tropical in nature (Seeland, 1978). The younger basin-fill sediments (Wagon Bed, White River, Split Rock) are increasingly finer-grained than those arkosic sands of the Wind River Formation, in addition to having substantially more volcanic detritus (Beahm, 2017). Figure 7.1 is a geologic map of the Gas Hills district and Figure 7.2 presents geologic cross sections across the district (Strathmore, 2013). The permit boundary shown on Figure 7.1 depicts the area Strathmore included in their Permit to Mine application and is not the current property outlines which are depicted in Figure 4.1.

7.3	Local Geologic Setting of the Gas Hills

In the Gas Hills district, lower Tertiary rocks unconformably overlie folded and faulted Mesozoic and older rocks (Figure 7.3). The Wind River Formation is conformably overlain by tuffaceous sandstones of the Eocene Wagon Bed Formation.

The Puddle Springs Arkose member of the Wind River Formation is the host rock for the uranium deposits at the Project. It consists of poorly consolidated arkosic sandstone and conglomerate with thin discontinuous interbeds of mudstone. The Puddle Springs arkose was deposited rapidly by northward-flowing braided streams to form coalescing piedmont alluvial fans (Soister, 1968).

The full thickness of the Wind River Formation is present from just north of the base of Beaver Rim Divide southward for a few miles. North of the contact between Wind River Formation and younger rocks, erosion has cut across the formation at a low angle and it progressively thins toward the north, where basal beds lie unconformably on older rocks.

The pre-Cenozoic strata in the Gas Hills are from Cambrian to Cretaceous in age. The Wind River Formation is the predominant rock outcrop at the Project, but Mesozoic and Tertiary formations also outcrop at the surface (Strathmore, 2013). The pre-Cenozoic rocks were extensively deformed during the Early Eocene faulting, uplift and basin development associated with the Laramide Orogeny. The pre-Cenozoic rocks are exposed sporadically throughout the Gas Hills. The area of greatest exposure is along the flanks of the Dutton Basin anticline. The anticline is exposed at the surface one mile east of the George-Ver Property; deposits from the Cody Shale downward to the Chugwater Formation outcrop (Beahm, 2017).

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 22
Figure 7.1.	Gas Hills Uranium District Geologic Map
---	---

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 23
Figure 7.2.	Gas Hills Area Cross Sections
---	---

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 24
Figure 7.3.	Representative Stratigraphic Column
---	---

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 25
7.4	Local Mineralization in the Gas Hills
---	---

The uranium deposits are present in an arkosic sandstone facies of the Puddle Springs member of the Wind River formation (Strathmore, 2013). Drilling in the west Gas Hills indicates that the favorable arkosic sandstone grades into an unfavorable silty facies. A local sandstone facies has been found within the silty facies, and a small area containing uranium (Jeep deposit) has been found in the sandstone facies. Thus, the favorable host for mineralization in the above-mentioned deposits is bounded on the north by an erosional pinch out; on the east by a change of facies to an unfavorable silty sandstone host; on the south by a subsurface onlap pinch out; and on the west by change of facies to an unfavorable silty sandstone host.

Uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills is present in bodies usually referred to as “rolls” (King and Austin, 1966; Armstrong, 1970). In vertical cross section they are irregularly crescent or “C” shaped (Figures 7.4 and 7.5). Rolls are the result of oxidized and soluble uranium being transported by ground water to a location within a permeable sandstone host where a reaction within a reducing environment occurs and insoluble reduced, uranium minerals are deposited. The contact between oxidized and reduced conditions is the “roll front”.

Figure 7.4.	Typical Uranium Roll-Front System

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 26
Figure 7.5.	Roll Front Exposed in Reclamation Channel, George-Ver Deposit
---	---

This photograph shows classic Wyoming-typeuranium roll-fronts exposed during construction of a

reclamation channel on the Central Unit.

In the body of the crescent, individual rolls range from a few inches to many feet in vertical thickness. Average thickness of a well mineralized roll is 10 to 15 feet; many rolls thicker than 20 feet have been mined. The upper and lower tails of the crescent thin away from the body of the crescent. In the Gas Hills the lower tail normally is greatly extended and thins gradually, whereas the upper tail is typically short and thins abruptly.

On the concave side of a crescent-shaped mineralized body, relatively light gray colored altered host rock is present. The contact is a slightly irregular narrow zone, and the change from uranium-bearing to bleached or altered rock normally takes place within a short distance. On the convex side of a crescent shape mineralized body, relatively dark greenish-gray unbleached (unaltered) rock is present. The contact between uranium-bearing and unbleached or unaltered rock is irregular interfingering, mostly gradational feature but the contact between individual fingers of mineralized rock and unbleached host may be moderately sharp. The fingers of mineralized rock point in the direction of unbleached rock.

Upper-limb mineralization dies out away from the body of the crescent in an abrupt manner somewhat similar to that of the contact between uranium-bearing and bleached rock on the concave side of the crescent. In contrast, lower limb mineralization

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 27

normally terminates gradually in the way that mineralization terminates on the convex side of a roll.

The crescent-shaped contact between bleached rock and uranium mineralization is commonly referred to as a “front”. In mapping a front, the point of maximum advance of the altered rock is indicated. In plan-view, the trace of a front is extremely sinuous.

Rolls may be stacked en echelon, forming multiple mineralized bodies as shown in Figure 7.6. A series of stacked rolls can be thought of as a frontal system. The number of rolls and vertical separation between them can be large or small, and as a result, mineralization may occur through a large stratigraphic interval. In the Central Gas Hills, uranium mineralization has been found in a stratigraphic interval almost 300 feet thick. Most rolls are stacked so that each successively higher roll is displaced in the direction of convexity and the volume of bleached rock narrows with depth. Each roll in a stack has its own front and each front in plan-view has its own sinuosity. The different fronts occur in the same general area, but the detailed sinuosity of one roll is independent of the sinuosity of other rolls.

Rolls and lower-limb mineralized bodies normally are underlain by a mudstone layer. In many places a mudstone layer also overlies the roll. The upper limbs of some mineralized bodies end in sandstone and the next higher roll rests on a mudstone layer that is separated from the lower roll by un-mineralized sandstone.

Un-oxidized mineralization is dark and usually the darker, the higher the grade. The uranium minerals are very fine grained uraninite and a little coffinite. The only non-silicate gangue minerals present in significant amounts are fine-grained pyrite and marcasite, and they are intimately mixed with uranium minerals. These minerals coat detrital sand grains and fill interstices of the host rock. Oxidized mineralization is present near surface and was mined when production in the district first started. Most production came from un-oxidized mineralization and essentially all present mineralization of potential economic interest is contained in un-oxidized mineralization.

Uranium is not distributed uniformly throughout the roll; rather, it is normally concentrated in the body of the crescent close to the concave side. High-grade mineralization locally contains several percent U3O8. The grade progressively decreases away from the high-grade zone. In the direction of bleached rock, the grade decreases abruptly and there is a sharp break between mineralization and waste rock. In the direction of unbleached rock, grade decreases gradually. The high- grade zone in the body of the crescent and the area immediately adjacent to it contains most of the total uranium in the body. Most of the uranium produced from the Gas Hills has come from this location in rolls, and therefore most future production can logically be expected to come from similar positions in other rolls.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 28
Figure 7.6.	Depiction of Multiple Stacked, En Echelon Uranium Deposits
---	---

(Energy Fuels, 1979)

Uranium was discovered in the Gas Hills near the center of the district at the north end of what later became known as the Central Gas Hills. As exploration continued, uranium was found at widely scattered localities and after a while it became evident that uranium occurrences were concentrated in three separate areas: the western, central and eastern trends. Each trend was considered to be a separate entity until about 1963, when it was realized that the different trends appear to be parts of a single complex, geologic feature (Armstrong, 1970).

In the Gas Hills, the lateral extent of the host sandstone and favorable environment for uranium mineralization is continuous on the order of miles along trend (direction of solution flow in channels) and hundreds of feet across trend. Refer to Figure 7.7 for an illustration in plan-view (EFR, 1979).

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 29
Figure 7.7.	Gas Hills Uranium District
---	---

Map View of Connected Roll-Front Trends(Energy Fuels, 1979)

Note: The distance between the vertical grid lines (Range Lines) is 6 miles.

7.5	Hydrogeology

The primary groundwater aquifer and the ore-bearing formation in the Project area is the Wind River Aquifer. The general direction of groundwater flow in the Project area is to the north or northwest, with local deviation resulting from faulting and geologic structure. The Wind River Formation is made up of south dipping sand and clay layers with the more transmissive intervals of the Wind River Aquifer found within the upper member of this formation in medium to coarse sands. Within the areas of past mining and the resource areas in the Project area, the Wind River Formation functions as a single aquifer.

The Beaver Rim (or Beaver Divide) and the associated geologic structure profoundly impact the regional groundwater recharge and discharge in the Gas Hills area. Faulting and a series of anticlines north of Beaver Rim create barriers and partial divides within the groundwater basin. The majority of groundwater recharge to the Wind River Aquifer results from snowmelt southeast of and above Beaver Rim. Local recharge below and to the north of the Beaver Rim is limited by the low annual precipitation. The Wind River Aquifer generally discharges to springs or to local alluvial systems associated with major surface drainages north of Beaver Rim. The underlying Cody Shale has a very low

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 30

transmissivity, and because the Wind River Formation pinches out north of the area of the mining units, the groundwater conveyance capacity gradually diminishes to the north of the Project area until the formation is no longer is present.

Groundwater quality and water level data have been monitored for more than three decades by Pathfinder and others. Strathmore initiated a monitoring program in 2007 which was operated through 2011 in preparation for its 2013 mine permit application. The groundwater quality of the Wind River Aquifer is usually hard with sulfate, calcium, sodium, and bicarbonate being the most prevalent major ions.

The potentiometric surface in the Project area has been significantly impacted by past mining and reclamation activities. Pit dewatering and drainage diversions during mining have the potential to profoundly affect the potentiometric surface. The construction of reclamation reservoirs and permanent reclamation diversions also affects the hydrologic system. These activities have been ongoing for more than four decades in the Gas Hills Uranium Project area. Project water-level elevation contouring (Hydro-Engineering, 2018) was developed from data collected for Strathmore’s 2013 mine permit application, though it also includes measurements taken by others primarily for the WDEQ-AML up to the time the contours were created. Water-level elevation south and east of the site is also measured in wells installed by Cameco Resources as part of planned ISR operations. These wells generally reflect the potentiometric surface for the Wind River Aquifer between the historic Central Gas Hills area and Beaver Rim. There has been and still is a general trend showing recovery of the water table throughout the area since mining ended in the 1980s; though this is variable through the Project, with the largest recovery in the southernmost portion of the West Unit nearest to the Beaver Rim at a rate of about 1 foot per year.

The aquifer properties were characterized by Hydro-Engineering (2013, 2018) based on data collected from aquifer pump tests. Results from single and multi-well pump tests conducted by Pathfinder in the late 1970’s and early 1990’s were compiled by Hydro-Engineering with pump tests performed by Strathmore in 2008.

In 2021, Hydro-Engineering developed a MODFLOW-2005 numerical groundwater flow model within the major proposed ISR resource areas within the Central Unit. The modeling objective was to evaluate the magnitude and extent of predicted drawdown that would occur within in the potential ISR mining area and utilized data previously assembled by Hydro-Engineering from previous studies of the Project as detailed above. Results of the model indicated that for a life-of-mine production scenario ISR operations could be sustained, with a suitable but minor depression of the water table within the ISR pattern area and with the majority of water column above the immediate mining zone intact during ISR extraction. The analysis included stresses based on ISR wellfield design parameters designed to achieve approximately 1 million pounds U3O8 per year production. The simulation included a constant withdrawal from the aquifer during ISR operations at an operational bleed rate of 1 percent, which is the resulting difference between slightly greater overall production flowrate than overall injection flowrates that creates a constant inward flow necessary for controlling ISR mining solutions.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 31

The general surface water conditions include numerous ephemeral drainage channels with significant alteration of local drainages by past mining activity. Perennial surface water bodies in the Project area have resulted from reclamation of mine pits to create several reservoirs, and from blockage of natural drainages fed by springs. There are limited reaches of perennial streams fed by natural springs, but the majority of natural and reclamation drainage channels are highly ephemeral with relatively infrequent flow.

It is the opinion of the Authors that previous hydrogeologic studies were generally conducted using industry-standard practices and procedures meeting regulatory requirements and place at the time the work was conducted.

7.6	Geotechnical Testing

Geotechnical investigations will be conducted at the Project prior to the construction of the CPP and associated infrastructure.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 32
8.0	DEPOSIT TYPES
---	---

Uranium deposits in the Gas Hills were formed by the classic Wyoming-type roll-fronts. Roll-fronts are irregular in shape, roughly tabular and elongated, and range from thin pods and a few feet in width and length, to bodies several hundred or thousands of feet in length. The deposits are roughly parallel to the enclosing beds but may form rolls that cut across bedding. Roll-front deposits are typified by a C-shaped morphology in which the outside of the C extends down-gradient in the direction of historic groundwater flow and the tails extend up-gradient of historic groundwater flow. As shown in Figure 8.1, tails are typically caught up in the finer sand and silt deposits that grade into over and underlying mudstones, whereas the heart of the roll-front (higher grade mineralization) lies within the more porous and permeable sandstones toward the middle of the fluvial deposits

Figure 8.1.	Idealized Cross-Section of a Sandstone-Hosted Roll Front Uranium Deposit

Modified from Granger and Warren (1974) and De Voto (1978).

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 33
9.0	EXPLORATION
---	---

Since acquiring the Project, enCore performed no exploration other than drilling one core hole in the West Unit during 2024.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 34
10.0	DRILLING
---	---
10.1	Drilling Methods
---	---

Available drill data consists of radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 4,570 drill holes (4,056 pre-2007), eU3O8 data and PFN assay data for 272 drill holes completed from 2007 to 2013, and eU3O8 data and core data from one core hole completed in the West Unit by enCore in 2024. Drilling from 2007 to 2024 consisted of monitoring wells and exploration holes. Some pre-2007 drill holes were also re-drilled or washed-out for comparison of results to newer logging tools by previous operators as discussed in Section 11.0. Table 10.1 summarizes the drilling and geophysical data available for this resource estimate. Average depth of drilling for the entire Project is approximately 330 ft and ranges in depth from approximately 80 ft to 1,280 ft.

Table	10.1.  Drilling Summary by Area
Area	Pre-2007<br> <br>Drill Holes	2007-2024<br> <br>Drill Holes	PFN logged  <br> Drill Holes	Core Collected <br>Drill Holes
---	---	---	---	---
Central Unit	1204	195	75	14
West Unit	1956	202	146	13
Jeep	296	40	0	0
South Black Mountain	41	20	3	0
Rock Hill	41	57	48	4
Total	4056	514	272	31

The vast majority of the drilling (pre and post 2007) was conducted by air and/or mud rotary drilling (vertical) with limited core drilling for evaluation of radiometric equilibrium conditions. The principal data collected for mineral resource estimation by drilling was downhole radiometric equivalent assays. Geologic data collected included lithologic descriptions of drill cuttings and interpretation of geophysical logs (Spontaneous Potential and Resistivity).

Similar lithological and downhole radiometric equivalent assay data were collected during the 2011 and 2012 drilling campaigns. Downhole prompt fission neutron (PFN) geophysical logs were also completed on some holes to provide an in-situ uranium assay for comparison to the radiometric equivalent data.

As no current drilling was being undertaken at the time of the May 24, 2021 site visit, no physical check of work practices was possible. After review of available documentation and discussions with enCore site personnel, the Authors conclude that the previous drilling procedures were consistent with industry standard practice and acceptable for use in resource estimation.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 35
10.2	Drilling Length Versus True Thickness
---	---

Downhole drift surveys are available only for the 2011 and 2012 drilling. These surveys show random deviation from vertical of 1 to 3^o^. No deviation of the drill holes was assumed in the mineral resource estimation and this is considered reasonable as explained in following.

The dip of the Wind River Formation within the Project varies from 2 to 6^o^. If the combination of dip and downhole deviation resulted in an effective deviation of 5^o^from vertical, the true thickness of mineralization would vary by approximately 0.4 percent, i.e., a 10-foot apparent thickness would equate to a true thickness of 9.96 feet. The Authors concludes that this possible variation is well within the accuracy of the resource estimate.

Core recovery is not an issue as uranium grade is determined primarily by geophysical methods in an open drill hole.

10.3	Summary and Interpretation of Relevant Drill Results

Drill hole locations are shown on maps in Section 14.0. The Authors have reviewed the available drill data and considers the information suitable for the purposes of this Report. See Section 12.0 for details on drill data verification.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 36
11.0	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
---	---
11.1	Radiometric Equivalent Geophysical Log Calibration
---	---

The US DOE supports the development, standardization, and maintenance of calibration facilities for environmental radiation sensors. Radiation standards at the facilities are primarily used to calibrate portable surface gamma-ray survey meters and borehole logging instruments used for uranium and other mineral exploration and remedial action measurements. This is an important quality control measure used by the geophysical logging equipment operators. The Authors have reviewed the geophysical logs and they have annotation of the calibration parameters necessary for the accurate conversion of gamma measurements recorded by the logging units to radiometric equivalent uranium grade. enCore has acquired exploration files for the Project which includes original geophysical logs and data. This data is securely stored at their facility in Edgemont, South Dakota and on offsite cloud-based servers.

Calibration facilities are located at the US DOE sites at Grand Junction Regional Airport in Grand Junction, Colorado; Grants, New Mexico; Casper, Wyoming; and George West, Texas (https://energy.gov/lm/services/calibration-facilities). These calibration facilities were first established by the AEC in the 1950’s to support the domestic uranium exploration and development programs of that era.

Early geophysical logs were analog which required manual interpretation. The standard method for estimation of the grade and thickness of uranium was the half-amplitude method. In the late 1960’s this method was gradually replaced with computer processing. Dodd et al. (1967) state that borehole logging is the geophysical method most extensively used in the US for the exploration and evaluation of uranium deposits and that gamma-ray logging at that time supplied 80 percent of the basic data for ore reserve calculations and much of the subsurface geologic information. At that time calibration and correction factors were established for each logging unit and probe in the full-scale model holes established by the AEC. GAMLOG and RHOLOG computer programs (Fortran II) were used to quantitatively analyze gamma-ray logs to obtain radiometric equivalent grade and thickness of mineralized intercepts (Dodd et al., 1967).

In 1942 Century Geophysical Corporation, now Century Wireline Services (Century) began research and development of geophysical logging techniques in the US and introduced analog geophysical logging equipment for the uranium industry by 1960. In the late 1970’s Century pioneered digital logging and continues to provide these services (Century, 2017). Century’s geophysical logging equipment is and has been calibrated at US facilities operated by the AEC, its successor the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), and the successor to AEC and ERDA, the US DOE. Tools used for uranium logging are calibrated and assigned dead times and K-factor values at government provided uranium calibration pits. At the same time Century logs field calibration test sleeves which may then be used for daily tool calibration checks

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 37

to verify that K-factor and dead times have not changed (Century, 2017 and Century, 1975).

Calibration procedures and standards for the geophysical logging equipment used in the determination of radiometric equivalent uranium grade has been consistent through the various drilling campaigns and has relied on calibration facilities maintained by the US government. It is standard practice for Century and other geophysical logging companies to rely on these calibration facilities. Century calibrates to the primary standards located at ERDA facilities in Grand Junction, Colorado where a family of calibration models are maintained. These models consist of a barren zone bored in concrete and a mineralized zone constructed of a homogenous concentration of uranium at a known grade followed by and underlying barren zone. There are different grade models to reflect the range on uranium concentrations typically found in the US. In addition, the models can be flooded to determine a water factor and there are models which are cased for the determination of a casing factor. Each of the models are approximately 9 feet deep consisting of a 3-foot mineralized zone with 3-foot barren zones above and below. The facilities are secure. Logging unit operators logs the holes, provide the geophysical log data in counts per second (CPS) to the facility which in turn processes the data and provides the company with standard calibration values including, dead time, K Factor, and water and casing factors (Century, 1975).

11.2	Pre-2007 Drilling Analyses

Pre-2007 drillhole logging in the Gas Hills was done by the mining and exploration companies themselves, using their own equipment and was also performed by Century Geophysical, Scinti-Log, Frontier Logging, Rocky Mountain Logging, and Geoscience Associates. These independent geophysical logging companies are and/or were well-known, well respected, and considered to have operated well within industry standards of the time. It was then, and still is standard industry practice to routinely calibrate downhole geophysical logging equipment at the facilities operated by the US DOE.

Standard electric logs consisted of recordings of gamma, self-potential, and resistivity. Self-potential and resistivity data are useful in defining bedding boundaries and for correlation of sandstone units and mineralized zones between drill holes. At the time of the pre-2007 drilling, equivalent U3O8 content was calculated from gamma logs using industry-standard methods developed by the AEC (now the US DOE), using either manual or computer methods. The manual method is as follows:

For zones greater than 2 feet thick, first pick an upper and lower boundary of mineralization by choosing points approximately one-half height from background to peak of gamma anomaly. Then determine cps for each half-foot interval between the points, convert cps to GT (grade times thickness) using the appropriate dead-time, k-factor and water factor for the specific logging unit utilized, and divide GT by thickness to obtain grade % eU3O8.

These gamma log interpretations are the basis from which quantities of mineralization could be calculated. These interpretations were industry standard at the time (1950s

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 38

through 1980s) and, in the case of the Gas Hills Uranium Project, validated by more recent drilling and logging, and therefore considered appropriate for use in the mineral resource estimates reported in Section 14.0.

The AEC published information the calibration standards for geophysical logging and on gamma log interpretation methods (Dodd et al., 1967). The standard manual log interpretation method was the half-amplitude method (Century, 1975). The AEC and its successor agency conducted workshops on gamma-ray logging techniques and interpretation as did private companies including Century Geophysical.

11.3	Post-2007 Drilling

Starting in 2007, Strathmore implemented a program of exploration and confirmation drilling utilizing standard gamma logging, and from 2011 to 2013, both PFN and gamma logging. This program served as a check on the pre-2007 drilling results in that it confirmed the grade and thickness of uranium for those holes drilled and allowed comparison of results to nearby or adjacent holes from pre-2007 drilling. In 2011, limited reverse circulation drilling was completed to provide bulk material for metallurgical testing. In 2012, Strathmore implemented core drilling at the Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee and Rock Hill properties for chemical assay determinations to compare the results of their gamma and PFN logging, see Table 10.1 for a summary of core holes completed.

Drill core was typically split and sampled in half-foot or one-foot intervals and sent to various laboratories for uranium analysis. These analyses typically included: fluorometric chemical analysis and closed-can radiometric analysis.

Core assays (2011/2012) were performed by either Chemical and Geological Laboratories of Casper, Wyoming or Skyline Laboratories of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Both laboratories were independent commercial laboratories. Specific core handling procedures and laboratory certifications for historic analyses are not known.

The PFN is a specialized logging tool with neutron activation to determine the uranium concentrations in drilled holes. The PFN logging utilizes two different tools used one after the other; a standard gamma tool followed by the PFN tool. Disequilibrium was evaluated by using direct comparisons of uranium grades determined PFN and radiometric equivalent uranium grades gamma logs.

The PFN tool creates neutron-induced fission reactions with U^235^ atoms present in the host rocks. The U^235^ atoms emit delayed neutrons which reactivate and are counted by the probe’s detector. This delay cycle is repeated a number of times to accumulate a statistically acceptable number of delayed neutron counts. If uranium is present, the “decay” times of the delayed neutrons is proportional to the uranium content and is independent of disequilibrium or changes in density. This method can be used to determine the direct content of uranium in the host rocks.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 39

Beginning in May 2012, third-party independent PFN and gamma logging provided by GAA Wireline Inc. of Casper, Wyoming was also employed. GAA operated their own logging equipment and at times provided loggers who operated Strathmore’s company-owned PFN logging truck. GAA provided calibration documentation of test pit runs, which were reviewed.

11.4	Security

For 2011 and 2012 drilling security practices involved: awareness of chain-of-custody issues, limited access to logging tools through locked storage as approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and continuing calibration of logging tools to assure that no tampering has occurred. All drill hole samples were in locked storage until sent out for laboratory testing. Drill cutting samples were generally not preserved and it was typical for the mine operators to assay drill samples at their on-site laboratories.

11.5	Summary

The Authors reviewed the available drill data and independently correlated mineralized horizons and reviewed appropriate composite intervals for use in mineral resource estimation. It is the Authors’ opinion that the available drill data is reliable and adequate for the estimation of measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 40
12.0	DATA VERIFICATION
---	---

Data sources reviewed for the estimation of uranium mineral resources for the Project include radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 4,570 drill holes (4,056 pre-2007), eU3O8 data and PFN assay data for 272 drill holes completed from 2007 to 2013, and eU3O8 and core data for one core hole completed in 2024. For the 2011-2012 drilling programs, downhole geophysical logging using the PFN tool was completed with Strathmore’s PFN logging truck and independently confirmed by GAA Wireline Services.

Extensive verification work was previously completed for holes drilled pre-2007 in the 2017 mineral estimate (Beahm, 2017). This Report used the results of the 2007 to 2013 drilling as part of the verification procedures on the pre-2007 drilling. The Authors reviewed this analysis as well as post-2007 drilling raw data.

12.1	Verification of Radiometric Database

The pre-2007 drill data was originally collected by several operators including American Nuclear Corporation (ANC), Federal American Partners (FAP), Pathfinder Mines/Areva (PMC), Western Nuclear (WNC), Energy Fuels (EFR), Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), Adobe-Vinpoint (Adobe), Power Resources Inc. (PRI), and others. These companies either utilized their own geophysical logging equipment, commercial logging services, or a combination of the two. The pre-2007 drill data includes geophysical logs from Century Geophysical, Scinti-Log, Rocky Mountain Logging, Frontier Logging Services, and Geoscience Associates. It was standard industry practice at the time, and it is the current practice, to maintain calibration of geophysical logging equipment through use of the AEC/ERDA (now the US DOE) standard calibration pits located at Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado for quality control and assurance with respect to radiometric equivalent data.

Electronic copies of geophysical logs are in possession of enCore and were reviewed by the Authors. The pre-2007 drill logs contain header information for essentially all of the drill holes including K Factor, Dead Time, and Water Factor. Several of the drill holes headers also included notes as to the date of calibration of the logging unit at the ERDA test pits. Pre-2007 drill data generally consists of geophysical logs of drill holes including of copies of original drill logs and copies of digital printouts of depth and cps in ^1^⁄2 foot increments within the mineralized zones. The geophysical logs include natural gamma, resistivity, and spontaneous potential (SP). All drill holes were drilled with fluid and logged in the open hole with no casing. All drill holes were vertical with no drift data.

Radiometric equivalent data is available for essentially all the pre-2007 holes and is incorporated into the drill hole database.

The post-2007 drill data, both electronic and hard copy, includes, original geophysical log prints and digital Log Assay Standard (LAS) files, hard copy printouts and digital ^1^⁄2 foot radiometric equivalent data, gamma calibration data files from the US DOE test pits, and hard copy and scans of field lithologic logs. The same type and form of data

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 41

is available for drill holes logged with the PFN logging unit. Core data includes chain of custody and laboratory certificates.

Beahm reviewed 46 PFN logs which have both radiometric equivalent data and PFN uranium assay data, checked this data against the electronic database, and prepared the correlations of this data for evaluation of disequilibrium.

The pre-2007 drill data was combined with data from 2007-2013 drilling in an electronic database. During the preparation of this Report, the available electronic data was reviewed for each of the mineral resource areas. This process included:

•	Plotting of the drill hole locations and comparing these to drill maps prepared by previous operators.<br>
•	Screening the drill hole data and preparing a subset of the data containing mineralized intercepts meeting grade,<br>thickness and GT cutoff criteria.
---	---
•	Correlating the mineralized intercept data such that mineral resource estimates reflected only continuous horizons.<br>
---	---
•	Excluding any spurious mineralized horizons (laterally or by depth from the continuous horizons) from the mineral<br>resource estimate.
---	---
•	Examining any mineralized intercepts which were either substantially higher or lower than the surrounding values to<br>ensure the data was considered reliable and therefore suitable to be used.
---	---
•	Confirmation of vertical correlation between mineralized zones of pre-2007 and<br>2007-2013 data.
---	---

All intercept data from the electronic database and GT-contours initially generated by Azarga were reviewed in CAD software by WWC for auditing purposes. WWC was able to verify the mapped resource contours as well as compare and verify the internal consistency of the electronic database.

12.2	Verification of Disequilibrium Factor

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

Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated, and

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 42

uranium is depleted. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemically measured uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1, and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.

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

Radiometric versus chemical data are available throughout the Project. Extensive data, analysis, and discussion of the comparability of PFN data with chemical assays from core was previously completed which concluded the PFN assays were reliable (CAM, 2013). Beahm reviewed this information, completed independent calculations, and found the CAM conclusions to be reasonable and appropriate. Overall, the calculated DEF was positive averaging 1.2:1 which means the actual grade of uranium mineralization is higher than the radiometric equivalent grade. The DEF was found by Beahm to vary by area, ranging from 0.80:1 to 1.5:1 (Beahm, 2017).

Although available data indicates an overall positive DEF, a DEF of 1 is applied in this estimate and no correction to the radiometric equivalent data relative to % eU3O8 is used in this estimate. The Authors have reviewed the previous DEF analysis and deems this to approach to be a conservative, since a positive correction would result in an overall higher % eU3O8 values and an overall higher quantity resource estimate. The Authors also find this approach to be consistent with typical industry practice for uranium ISR projects.

12.3	Verification of Pre-2007 Drilling byRe-Logging

In 2011 and 2012 some pre-2007 drill holes were re-entered and re-probed using modern gamma and PFN logging tools. Where available, the pre-2007 gamma logs were scanned and displayed adjacent to the modern gamma/PFN logs. These holes compare favorably with respect to depth, thickness, grade and GT.

12.4	Density of Mineralized Material

The density of mineralization used in the Gas Hills for resource estimation was 16 cubic feet per ton. This is the most common figure used for sandstone hosted, roll-front uranium deposits in Wyoming and Colorado, as noted extensively throughout the literature on these deposits. Density studies were completed on core retrieved in March and December 2012. The studies were completed by Intermountain Labs of Sheridan, Wyoming and DOWL-HKM of Lander, Wyoming, respectively. The overall average of the 26 samples was 16.49 ft^3^/ton.

Based on the limited number of core sampled for density, and the overall average being very similar to the 16 ft^3^/ton average used historically, this Report has assumed a

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 43

density factor of 16 ft^3^/ton for the mineral resource estimates reported in Section 14.0. The Authors find this value to be representative and also slightly conservative.

12.5	Summary

Based on the outcomes of the above data verification, the Authors consider the Project data sufficiently reliable for mineral resource estimation and related work. No deficiencies were found in the verification and audit of this information.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 44
13.0	MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
---	---

Ore from past mining within the Gas Hills was processed using conventional milling, recovery, and extraction methods including the Union Carbide, Pathfinder, and Federal American Partners mills located in the Gas Hills. Ore from the Gas Hills was also shipped to the Susquehanna mill in Riverton, Wyoming and the Western Nuclear mill near Jeffery City, Wyoming (Snow, 1978). Heap leach recovery operations were also successfully conducted by Union Carbide at their East Gas Hills facility (Woolery et al., 1978) and at the West Unit by Western Nuclear Corporation.

One of the previous operators, Strathmore, conducted preliminary metallurgical testing in 2011 on bulk samples collected from reverse circulation drill holes. The results are consistent those experienced when the mines were in production (Beahm, 2017).

In May 2011, Strathmore commissioned Lyntek Inc. of Lakewood, Colorado, an experienced firm in uranium engineering and processing research, to carry out preliminary metallurgical studies and investigate the proposed Gas Hills uranium heap leach recovery plans. These studies included bottle-roll testing, three separate column leach studies, and testing of Ion Exchange Resin (Lyntek, 2013, Lyntek and Alexander, 2013).

13.1	Uranium Extraction Bottle Roll Testing

Lyntek completed 11 total bottle roll tests using core ranging in mineral grade from 0.069% - 0.258% U. Using all of the metallurgical tests to evaluate recovery showed that recoveries ranged between 55.8 percent and 97.9 percent and typically had acid consumptions ranging from 8.6 to 230 pounds per ton. The average recovery of all eleven leach tests was 90.0 percent with an average acid consumption of 55.4 pounds per ton. The individual bottle roll tests consisted of each of the following: 2 cores from the West Unit, 4 cores and 1 duplicate from the Central Unit, 2 cores from Rock Hill, and 1 blended core sample and 1 blended core sample duplicate.

13.2	Uranium Extraction Column Testing

Lyntek completed two initial column leach tests with two blended samples from cores collected from the West Unit, Central Unit, and Rock Hill configured to be a high-grade composite with an average grade of 0.135% U and a low-grade composite with an average grade of 0.023% U. Lyntek also conducted a third column leach test using a sample of stockpile ore from the Central Unit with an average grade of 0.137% U that was highly oxidized due to prolonged exposure to the atmosphere. Though the tests were all run well past reaching an asymptotic recovery point, all three results appear to confirm a suitable target of 90 percent recovery. Results of the initial two blended core samples showed what was deemed a “quick” extraction with maximum recovery of 98.4 percent reached in approximately 21 days in the high-grade sample and a maximum recovery of 98.9 percent recovery of the low-grade sample in approximately 9 days. In the third test, 90 percent recovery was reached in approximately 65 days.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 45
13.3	IX Testing
---	---

Preliminary ion exchange extraction tests showed that uranium could be successfully loaded by this method and that Dowex 21K resin was a favorable resin choice for use in processing recovery solutions from the site.

13.4	Summary

In summary, while the history of uranium production in the Gas Hills demonstrates that uranium is recoverable from mineralized material and recent metallurgical testing indicates favorable results, Lyntek recommended additional metallurgical testing be conducted. Specifically, Lyntek recommended that metallurgical studies to further expand the understanding of the range of metallurgical conditions and process variables that may be incorporated into mine plans, and which further simulate the proposed mineral processing method, be performed. This includes both heap leach and ISR extraction scenarios.

The Authors have reviewed the studies by Lyntek and finds them to be supportive that both assumed mining methods of this Mineral Resource estimate have reasonable prospects for economic extraction.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 46
14.0	MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
---	---
14.1	Mineral Resource Definitions
---	---

A technical review and resource estimation was completed by WWC for this resource update using CAD software. Mineral resources reported in this Report are classified as Measured, Indicated, and Inferred. Classification of the resources reflects the relative confidence of the grade estimates. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is December 31, 2024.

This section describes the resource estimation methodology and summarizes key assumptions considered by the Authors. In the opinion of the Authors, the resource evaluation is a reasonable representation of the uranium resources found in the Gas Hills.

The database, GT-contours, and calculations used to estimate the Gas Hills Uranium Project mineral resources were audited by WWC and it is the opinion of the Authors that the current drilling information is sufficiently reliable to interpret the extents of the pods and the assay data are sufficiently reliable to support mineral resource estimation.

14.2	Basis of Mineral Resource Estimates
14.2.1	Methodology
---	---

The mineral resource estimates are based on radiometric equivalent uranium grades % eU3O8. A minimum 0.02% eU3O8, minimum 1.0-foot thickness, and minimum GT of 0.10 was used in the estimations along with a bulk dry density of 16 cubic feet per ton. Resources were estimated using the GT contour method, which is industry standard for this type of deposit. The GT was determined for each drillhole by major stratigraphic horizon, then the GT was summed separately for each mineralized sub-horizon for intercepts meeting the cutoff criteria. Contours were drawn in two-dimensional space around horizon intercepts, allowing projection up to 100 feet across a mineralized trend and up to 600 feet along the mineralized trend. The GT contour maps provided in Section 14.5 provide a graphical representation of the mineralization reflecting the location, quality, GT, and continuity of the mineralization.

Average GT for each contour was calculated one of two ways depending on if the contour was the highest GT contour or if it contained another, higher GT contour. If the contour was the highest GT contour, all GT values within the contour were averaged, then averaged with the value of that GT contour. For example, a 1.0 GT contour with two GT values of 1.20 and 1.47 and no higher contour within would be (((1.20+1.47)/2)+1.0)/2 = 1.17 average GT. If the contour contained another higher contour, the average GT was the average of the upper and lower GT contour values.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 47

For example, a 1.0 GT contour with a 2.0 GT contour within would be (1.0+2.0)/2 = 1.5 average GT.

Pounds of uranium for each contour were calculated by multiplying the contour area by GT for the contour and applying the conversion constant and dividing by bulk density factor ((Area x Avg GT x 20)/16 = Pounds). Tonnage was calculated by multiplying composited contour thickness by contour area to get cubic feet, then converting to tonnage by applying the density factor (Thickness x Area/16).

The 0.10 GT base case cutoff was selected by meeting economic criteria for both ISR and open pit/heap leach methods differentiated on the relative location to the water table. Resources labeled “ISR” meet the criteria of being sufficiently below the water table to be amenable by ISR methods and as well as also meeting other hydrogeological criteria. “Non-ISR” resources include those generally above the natural water table, which would typically be mined using open pit methods.

14.3	Key Assumptions and Parameters

Mineral resources were classified as measured, indicated, and inferred based on the distance to the nearest drilling intercept to measure drilling density. To be classified as measured resources, the contour must fall within 100 feet of a mineralized drill hole intercept in that horizon. Indicated resources must fall between 100 and 250 feet from the nearest mineralized intercept in that horizon. Inferred resources must be within 600 feet of a mineralized intercept in that horizon.

The GT contours were divided and classified based on area contained within each of the distance boundaries from drillhole intercepts. Figure 14.1 shows contours for an example pod within the Central Unit that shows how categories were allocated within each mineralized pod for resource classification with respect to drilling density.

After classifying resources based on distance from drilling, further consideration was given to applicable mining methods for each pod. Reclassification of resource was determined based on local water table levels at each resource pod and the level of detail of hydrogeologic understanding.

At this time, only the Central Unit has had groundwater flow modeling completed. All other ISR resource which met the measured criteria for ISR drilling density were classified as indicated resource until more detailed hydrologic studies to support ISR are conducted on these resource areas.

14.3.1	Cutoff Criteria

The cutoff used for mineral resource classification was a minimum 0.02% eU3O8, minimum 1.0-foot thickness, and minimum 0.10 GT. These criteria were determined to meet the criteria for “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” for both ISR and open pit heap/leach mining methods. The GT cutoff of 0.10 GT is also consistent with previous historic resource estimation in the area. The average grade of ISR resources in

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 48
Figure 14.1.	Resource Classification Boundaries
---	---

this estimate at a 0.10 GT cutoff met economic criteria for ISR extraction, and thus is considered the base case for this Report.

When drawing GT contours, the maximum allowable GT was set at 7.0. Any drilling intercept with a higher GT was included in the 7.0 GT contour and assigned that value.

14.3.2	Bulk Density

The bulk density value of 16 cubic feet per ton was used to calculate the resource estimate. Verification of the use of this value can be found in Section 12.4.

14.3.3	Radiometric Equilibrium

Evaluation of radiometric equilibrium is discussed on Section 12.0 of this Report. While the average disequilibrium factor for the five Project areas was greater than 1 (1.20), the disequilibrium factor varied by area, ranging from 0.80 to 1.50. For the purposes of assessing the overall mineral resources for the Project, it is recommended that no correction for radiometric equilibrium be applied for this level of study. Based on the available data and the geological setting of the mineral deposits, the Authors consider it appropriate to assume a DEF factor of 1 for all mineral resource estimates.

14.4	Mineral Resource Summary

Mineral resources for the Project are estimated by classifications meeting CIM standards and definitions, at a 0.10 GT cutoff, as summarized in Tables 14.1 and 14.2.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 49

Subsequent Sections 14.4.1 through 14.4.5 provide specific summaries for the West Unit, Central Unit, Rock Hill, South Black Mountain, and Jeep areas, respectively.

Table 14.1.  Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024 (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured		2,051,000		994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated		8,713,000		6,031,000	0.07%	6.13	0.443
Total M&I		10,764,000		7,025,000	0.08%	6.05	0.463
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured		2,051,000		994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated		5,654,000		2,835,000	0.10%	4.92	0.491
Total M&I		7,705,000		3,829,000	0.10%	4.99	0.502
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		3,059,000		3,196,000	0.05%	8.6	0.412
Total M&I		3,059,000		3,196,000	0.05%	8.6	0.412

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

5. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

6. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 14.2.  Inferred MineralResource Summary

December 31, 2024 (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		490,000		514,000	0.05%	6.16	0.293
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		428,000		409,000	0.05%	5.94	0.31
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		62,000		105,000	0.03%	7.01	0.208

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

5. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 50
14.4.1	West Unit
---	---

There are a total of 2,157 drill holes in the database for the West Unit. Depth of ISR amenable mineralization varies, ranging in depth from approximately 200 to 630 feet with an average depth of approximately 280 feet below ground surface. Non-ISR resources range in depth from surface to approximately 290 feet in depth with an average depth of approximately 150 feet. Additionally, several pods were identified in the northern portion of the West Unit that were located near a significant fault. Due to uncertainty of the hydrogeologic conditions and the lack of groundwater modeling in proximity to the fault, ISR amenable resources that met measured or indicated contours of drilling density were classified as inferred. Mineral resources for the West Unit are shown in Tables 14.3 and 14.4.

Table 14.3.  West Unit Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024 (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		5,272,000		2,985,000	0.09%	5.75	0.507
Total M&I		5,272,000		2,985,000	0.09%	5.75	0.507
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		3,712,000		1,547,000	0.12%	4.92	0.591
Total M&I		3,712,000		1,547,000	0.12%	4.92	0.591
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		1,561,000		1,438,000	0.05%	8.02	0.435
Total M&I		1,561,000		1,438,000	0.05%	8.02	0.435

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

5. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

6. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 51

Table 14.4.  West Unit Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024 (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		301,000		295,000	0.05%	6.87	0.35
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		293,000		284,000	0.05%	6.76	0.349
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		8,000		11,200	0.03%	8	0.271

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

14.4.2	Central Unit

The Central Unit contains the George-Ver and Frazier Lamac mine complex located within the Central Gas Hills. These two historic areas were extensively mined in the past predominantly by open pit methods. The majority of the George-Ver and Frazier Lamac areas have been drilled on 100-foot centers or less. ISR amenable resources range in depth from 130 feet to approximately 280 feet and average approximately 210 feet below surface. Non-ISR resources range in depth from surface to approximately 310 feet with an average depth of approximately 110 feet. The depth to ore horizons varies widely based on surface topography. A detailed groundwater model (see Section 7.5) was conducted in the Central Unit specifically on the George Ver/Frazier Lamac deposit to demonstrate that conditions for extraction were suitable to sustain sufficient water levels over a life-of-mine operating scenario (Hydro-Engineering, 2021). Some ISR resources in the George Ver/Frazier Lamac areas are classified as Measured Resource because of the combination of drilling density, high-level hydrologic study, and supporting metallurgical analysis. Mineral resources for the Central Unit are shown in Tables 14.5 and 14.6.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 52

Table 14.5.  Central Unit Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024 (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured		2,051,000		994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated		1,110,000		1,038,000	0.05%	5.86	0.313
Total M&I		3,161,000		2,032,000	0.08%	5.62	0.437
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured		2,051,000		994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated		595,000		474,000	0.06%	5.92	0.371
Total M&I		2,646,000		1,468,000	0.09%	5.49	0.495
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		515,000		563,236	0.05%	5.84	0.267
Total M&I		515,000		563,236	0.05%	5.84	0.267

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

5. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

6. Totals may not sum due to rounding

Table 14.6.  Central UnitInferred Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024 (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		128,000		140,000	0.05%	5.23	0.239
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT Cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		92,000		88,000	0.05%	4.46	0.233
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		36,000		52,000	0.03%	5.82	0.2

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 53
14.4.3	Rock Hill
---	---

Resources at Rock Hill are shallow, averaging approximately 40 feet in depth from surface, and have, at least in part, been re-distributed by surface oxidation. Data from close spaced drilling (50 foot) is available. Tables 14.7 and 14.8 summarize the mineral resources estimated for Rock Hill, which are entirely Non-ISR resources.

Table 14.7.  Rock Hill Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		984,000		1,195,000	0.04%	15.83	0.652
Total M&I		984,000		1,195,000	0.04%	15.83	0.652

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

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

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

Table 14.8.  Rock Hill Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		19,000		42,000	0.02%	10.4	0.234

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

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

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

14.4.4	South Black Mountain

South Black Mountain drill data consists of 20 drillholes from relatively recent drilling (2007-2013) and 41 drillholes from pre-2007. Two mineralized horizons are present in the area occurring at depths of approximately 980 feet and 1100 feet. South Black Mountain is located south of the Beaver Rim and contains the deepest mineralization of the Project. The area has been untouched by historic mining. Tables 14.9 and 14.10 summarize the mineral resources estimated for South Black Mountain, which are entirely ISR amenable resources.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 54

Table 14.9. South Black Mountain Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		859,000		525,730	0.08%	4.43	0.362
Total M&I		859,000		525,730	0.08%	4.43	0.362

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

5. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

Table 14.10. South Black Mountain Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		35,000		31,000	0.06%	3.48	0.2

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

14.4.5	Jeep

A single mineralized horizon is present in the Jeep area occurring at an approximate depth of 270 feet. Tables 14.11 and 14.12 summarize the mineral resources estimated for the Jeep area, which are entirely ISR resources.

Table 14.11. Jeep Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated		489,000		288,000	0.09%	5.1	0.433
Total M&I		489,000		288,000	0.09%	5.1	0.433

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

5. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 55

Table 14.12. Jeep Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds		Tons		Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred		7,000		7,000	0.06%	3.75	0.206

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI 43-101.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

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

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

14.5	GT Contour Maps

GT contour maps for the five mineral resource areas: Central Unit, West Unit, Rock Hill, South Black Mountain, and Jeep are provided as Figures 14.2 through 14.9. The GT Contour maps provide a graphical representation or model of the mineralization reflecting the location, quality represented by GT, location of drill holes and continuity of the mineralization.

14.6	Discussion on Mineral Resources

Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have had technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The geological evidence supporting measured and indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity. The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

The tons and grade of the inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling, but the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological and grade continuity. The Authors expect the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 56

Figure 14.2. West Unit A Sand GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 57

Figure 14.3. West Unit B Sand GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 58

Figure 14.4. Central Unit A Sand GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 59

Figure 14.5. Central Unit B Sand GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 60

Figure 14.6. Rock Hill GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 61

Figure 14.7. South Black Mountain A Sand GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 62

Figure 14.8. South Black Mountain B Sand GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 63

Figure 14.9. Jeep GT Contour Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 64
15.0	MINERAL RESERVES
---	---

Mineral reserves were not estimated for this Report.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 65
16.0	MINING METHODS
---	---

This section of the Report describes extraction and uranium processing, the cost estimate approach and assumptions used to develop the capital and operating costs. The mining method addressed in this Report is ISR. There is no excavation of ore and no mining dilution with this method. Only minerals that can be taken into solution are recovered.

16.1	Mineral Deposit Amenability

enCore plans to use the ISR mining technique with a low pH lixiviant at the Project. As discussed in Section 6.0, the Gas Hills was one of the major uranium mining and production regions in the USA with cumulative production in excess of 100 million pounds of uranium, mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground and ISR mining methods. This historical production demonstrated the host Wind River Formation sandstones and the hydrological conditions to be suitable for ISR production.

ISR is employed because this technique allows for the low cost and effective recovery of roll front mineralization. An additional benefit is that ISR is relatively environmentally benign when compared to conventional open pit or underground recovery techniques. ISR does not require the installation of tailings facilities or require significant surface disturbance.

This mining method utilizes injection wells to introduce a lixiviant into the mineralized zone. This Report assumes a low pH lixiviant will be utilized in the ISR process. Low pH ISR lixiviants have technical and economic advantages over alkaline lixiviants in formations that have relatively low carbonate content and amenable geology. These advantages include potential for higher recovery, shorter leaching duration, lower lixiviant and oxidant requirements, constituent-specific advantages during groundwater restoration, and a higher degree of natural attenuation than alkaline lixiviant. The lixiviant is made of native groundwater fortified with a complexing agent such as sulfuric acid. The complexing agent bonds with the uranium to form uranyl sulfate, which is then recovered through a series of production wells and piped to a processing plant where the uranyl sulfate is removed from solution using ion exchange. The groundwater is re-fortified with the complexing agent and recirculated to the wellfield to recover additional uranium.

In order to use the ISR technique, the mineralized body must be saturated with groundwater, transmissive to water flow, and amenable to dissolution by an acceptable lixiviant. While not a requirement, it is beneficial if the production zone aquifer is relatively confined by overlying and underlying aquitards in order to maintain control of the mining lixiviant. Available geophysical data indicate that there are confining intervals between the targeted sands and vertically adjacent aquifers. As described in Section 14, mineralization has been mapped in two different sand intervals, referred to as the A Sand and the B Sand each of which was further divided into three sub-sands (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3). Based on drilling logs, each individual mineralized sand is

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 66

generally bounded on top and bottom by a lower permeability layer. As such, for the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that each sand lens would be separately mined with its own set of wells. As discussed in Section 7.5, groundwater quality and water level data have been monitored at the Project for more than three decades. A 2021 numerical groundwater flow model developed within the ISR resource areas in the Central Unit indicated ISR operations could be sustained in a life-of-

mine production scenario with much of the water column above the immediate mining zone remaining intact during ISR operations (Hydro-Engineering, 2021). See Sections 7.5 and 16.2 for additional discussion.

Several agitation leach (bottle-roll) and column leach tests have been carried out on core samples from the Project to ensure leachability with an acceptable lixiviant. Test results in Section 13.0 show that recoveries of approximately 90 percent are technically possible; however, this Report assumes a recovery of 80 percent of the uranium in each wellfield pattern. See Section 13.0 for a complete discussion of leach test results.

16.2	Hydrology
16.2.1	Hydrogeology
---	---

The regional geology and Project stratigraphy are discussed in detail in Section 7.0 of this report and are not repeated here. What follows is a discussion of the hydrologic regime and its relevance to ISR mining.

Within the Project area, the Wind River Formation is the primary aquifer system containing mineralization. The relatively large distance between mining units means that each individual mine unit is, for all practical purposes, hydrologically independent. Each individual mineralized sand lens is generally bounded on top and bottom by strata with lower permeability. In effect, this means that at a local scale the uranium bearing sand lenses have varying levels of hydraulic separation from other overlying and underlying sands which are also located within the Wind River Formation. These areas of local confinement do not extend across the entire Project and sands within the Wind River Formation are regionally in the same aquifer. Based on available water level monitoring data, groundwater levels within the Project area are still recovering from historical mining activities which ceased circa 1980. The water levels with respect to ISR targeted mineralized sands in each mine unit are summarized as follows:

•	West Unit, available water level information indicates there is between 16 and 333 feet of head over the top of the<br>West Unit ISR resources. Within the West Unit there are three ore bodies located adjacent to or spanning across the section line between Sections 11 and 14 (T32N R91W). In this area geology is complicated with a fault likely passing through one of<br>the delineated ore bodies and a horst located to the east of the ore bodies. Wells north and south of the fault show a steep water level gradient. Similarly, the fault likely impacts ore bodies to the east located along the eastern portion of the<br>section line between Sections 12 and 13 of T32N, R91W. Available data suggests that there is at least
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 67
---	---
<br>34 feet of head above these ore bodies (Michel, 2021). The presence of the fault raises some uncertainties in the estimated water level elevation in this area. As such, additional<br>characterization of the aquifer properties will be required to verify conditions at these ore bodies. As noted in Section 14, resources in these areas were put into the inferred category due to uncertainty in aquifer conditions.<br>
---
•	Central Unit, water level information indicates that within the three portions of the unit where orebodies have been<br>mapped, minimum water levels over the shallowest ISR ore bodies range from 10 to 40 feet (Michel, 2021) with the deeper ore bodies having 93 feet or more of available head (Hydro-Engineering, 2021). Hydro-Engineering conducted their ISR modeling<br>study within the George-Ver Mine area which is located within the Central Unit.
---	---
•	South Black Mountain, available water level and aquifer properties information is very limited in the South Black<br>Mountain area. However, projection of water level information from available data to the north indicates that water levels will generally be in the range of 230 feet to 410 feet above the ore bodies (Michel, 2021).
---	---
•	Jeep, available water level and aquifer properties information is not available in the Jeep area. Projections of water<br>levels from the West Unit to Jeep indicate that water levels are sufficiently high enough to provide adequate head for ISR operations (Michel, 2021).
---	---

Groundwater flow modeling conducted by Hydro-Engineering was performed to predict water level elevation changes that may result from ISR mining operations. The modeling predicted drawdowns could range from two to seven feet (Michel 2021). Comparing available water level information with modeling results indicates there is likely sufficient head for ISR operations to be successful at the ISR targeted resources in the West Unit and Central Unit. While it is currently assumed sufficient head is available, additional evaluations will be necessary to confirm water level assumptions within Jeep, South Black Mountain, and portions of the West Unit and Central Unit.

In 2018 Hydro-Engineering analyzed Wind River aquifer hydraulic properties using available aquifer testing data for historic mining areas within the West Unit (Day Loma and Loco Lee), Central Unit (Bullrush and George-Ver), and Cameco’s properties to the south and east of the central unit. However, there is no aquifer testing data available within either the Jeep or the South Black Mountain areas. Aquifer properties are described in the 2018 Hydro-Engineering report as follows:

•	West Unit. Within the West Unit, aquifer testing was conducted in 2010 in the historic Day Loma mining area which is<br>in the southeast portion of the Unit. Aquifer testing results indicate that expected hydraulic conductivities range from 1.8 to 2.9 ft/day within the Wind River aquifer in the Day Loma area.
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 68
---	---
•	Central Unit. Within the historic George-Ver mining area located in the<br>northeast portion of the Central Unit, aquifer tests have been conducted in 1979, 1990, and 2008. The tests demonstrated that hydraulic conductivities in the range of 2.3 to 4.1 ft/day are considered representative. Within the historic Bullrush<br>mining area located in the northwest portion of the Central Unit, hydraulic conductivities ranged from 0.8 to 13.4 ft/day based on results of tests conducted in 2010 and 2011. Hydro-Engineering speculates the Sagebrush fault running through the<br>Bullrush area may have affected the results on both the high and the low side and it is plausible that the typical range of hydraulic conductivities in the Bullrush area is more likely to be between 1.0 and 5.7 ft/day outside of the influence of the<br>fault.
---	---
•	Cameco Mine area. A number of aquifer tests have been conducted in the Cameco Mine Area located to the southeast of<br>the Central Unit. Hydro-Engineering evaluated aquifer test results which were submitted to regulatory agencies and a large number of results were in the range of 0.5 to 6 ft/day. Hydro-Engineering determined that a typical hydraulic conductivity<br>within the Cameco Area is between 1 to 2 ft/day.
---	---

The results of the available testing are reasonably consistent from one property to another over an area some 6-8 miles across. While no actual test data is available in the Jeep or South Black Mountain units, it is not unreasonable that hydraulic properties in these areas are consistent with those in the areas where test data is available. Aquifer test results conducted within the West Unit, Central Unit and Cameco properties demonstrate that, while there is some heterogeneity in aquifer properties, typical hydraulic conductivities are high enough to allow for ISR mining. Hydraulic conductivities of 1.0 ft/day or greater are expected within the proposed mining areas based on test results to date. For comparison Hydro-Engineering (2018) evaluated typical hydraulic conductivities within Ur Energy’s Lost Creek Project (approximately 50 miles south of the Gas Hills) and found that the hydraulic conductivities, which averaged between 0.66 ft/day to 1.69 ft/day, are slightly lower than those that could be expected the Gas Hills. Given the success of the Lost Creek Project, it is reasonable to assume that aquifer conditions in the Wind River aquifer within the Gas Hills are generally sufficient for ISR operations.

16.2.2	Historical Drill Holes

Due to the extensive exploration and ore deposit delineation in the Gas Hills Uranium District, there are a large number of historical drill holes within the Project area. Most of the drillholes date back to the 1950’s through the 1970’s and much of the historical drilling is poorly documented. Additionally, due to open pit mine reclamation efforts and regrading of the ground surface it may not be possible to locate many of these historic drill holes on the surface. From an ISR mining perspective historical drill holes can be problematic. If the drill holes have not been plugged nor naturally collapsed and sealed off, they can represent a potential path for ISR mining fluids to migrate vertically into other aquifers. In this case, migration would be coming from ISR mining fluids within the Wind River Formation. This project is unique in that the targeted aquifer for

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 69

mining is also the uppermost aquifer in all mine units except possibly South Black Mountain. Within the South Black Mountain unit, the Split Rock Formation may overlie the ore bearing aquifer. The Split Rock Formation is known to be a water bearing aquifer in the region. Given the proximity to the outcrop, it is likely that the Split Rock Formation is dry within the South Black Mountain unit. Nevertheless, additional evaluations will be required to verify whether there is an overlying aquifer to protect at South Black Mountain. Generally, within this Project, there is no additional overlying aquifer between the aquifer to be mined and the surface. Therefore, there is no aquifer to be potentially impacted by vertical migration of ISR mining fluids upwards into an overlying aquifer. Protection of aquifers underlying the Wind River Formation is also a consideration. Historical drilling focused on shallow deposits that could be economically mined with open pit methods. Historic mining activity occurred within the Wind River Formation. Historic drill hole data possessed by enCore indicates none of the holes penetrate past the Wind River Formation nor through the underlying Cody Shale confining aquitard. Because of the relatively shallow drilling depth and lack of an overlying aquifer, historic drill holes are not anticipated to present a problem with containment of ISR mining fluids and no plugging program is assumed to be necessary. Unsealed boreholes are not expected to provide a pathway to impact any overlying or underlying aquifers. Additional aquifer tests will be conducted in each mine area prior to mining to further evaluate the potential for historical drill holes to impact mining operations or their potential to impact aquifers outside of proposed ISR operations.

16.3	Conceptual Wellfield Design

The most fundamental component of ISR mine development and production is the production pattern. A pattern consists of one production well and multiple injection wells which feed lixiviant back to the production well. Injection wells are commonly shared by multiple production wells. Header houses serve multiple patterns and function as both distribution points for injection flow and collection points for production flow. The CPP feeds injection lixiviant to the header houses for distribution to the injection wells and also receives and processes production flow from the header houses.

16.3.1	ISR Amenable Resources

The total resource base was evaluated based on physiographic and depth criteria to judge whether it is minable with current ISR mining methods. The evaluation determined that portions of the total mineral resource are not minable using current ISR methods for the purpose of this Report, those portions of the mineral resource were excluded from economic consideration. These excluded resources are still available to non-conventional ISR techniques and other mining methods.

For conventional ISR mining operations, it is necessary that the uranium resources be located below the static water table. Resources that are generally above the water table are not considered amenable by ISR methods and classified as Non-ISR in the mineral resource summary tables. The resources available for ISR mining in each unit are summarized in Section 14. As discussed in Section 16.2.1, available data indicates

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 70

there is likely sufficient head for successful ISR mining operations in the ISR resources described in Section 14.

16.3.2	Wellfield Patterns

The Project is planned to be developed using both 5-spot and 7-spot wellfield patterns. The planned 5-spot wellfield pattern configuration consists of four injection wells 100 ft apart squarely placed around a central production well, resulting in a pattern area of approximately 10,000 ft^2^. The planned 7-spot wellfield pattern configuration consists of six injection wells spaced 115 ft apart in a hexagonal configuration around a central production well resulting in a pattern area of approximately 34,360 ft^2^. Actual pattern geometry may vary depending on field conditions. Based on preliminary wellfield designs, it is anticipated that incorporating both 5-spot and 7-spot patterns into the wellfield design will result in an average pattern size of approximately 17,000 ft^2^ for the Project. The pattern size was used in conjunction with the total acreage associated with the resources that may potentially be mined with ISR methods to estimate the total number of patterns necessary for the Project. This approach to estimating preliminary wellfield infrastructure requirements is comparable to the work conducted at other ISR mines in Wyoming.

In plan-view, patterns will be designed to overlay mapped roll fronts. Well completion intervals in each pattern will be carefully evaluated using available data to optimize lixiviant flow paths through targeted resources. In some areas, there are multiple stacked roll fronts in the same vicinity. Operational experience has demonstrated the optimum injection/production well completion thickness to be between 10 and 25 ft. Consequently, the multitude of individually mapped fronts in portions of the Project results in the “stacking” of wellfield areas. This occurs when two or more mining completions are planned for the same pattern area in an overlapping fashion. This is due to multiple mineralized horizons or the presence of more mineralized thickness than can be efficiently mined with a single well completion. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that none of the wells would target more than one roll front. As such, where there are multiple stacked roll fronts in the same pattern area a separate pattern will be planned for each roll front and each well completion will only target one roll front.

The Project-wide wellfield area has been divided into four resource areas with ISR amenable mineralization as described in Section 14.4: Figures 14.2-14.5 and 14.7-14.9 illustrate the distribution of resources within the resource areas. The dimensions of each resource area are summarized on Table 16.1. Based on an average pattern area of approximately 17,000 ft^2^ the Project would require an estimated 863 patterns. Within these mine units, 1,726 injection wells and 863 production wells are estimated, using a 2:1 injection to production well ratio, for a total of 2,589 wells (Table 16.1). The number of wells in each unit are based the assumption that 100 percent of South Black Mountain wellfields are 5-spot patterns, 50 percent of Jeep wellfields are 5 spot patterns, 20 percent of Central Unit wellfields are 5 spot patterns, and 36 percent of the West Unit wellfields are 5 spot patterns. The average estimated well completion thickness for the Project is 7.5 ft. The number of patterns estimated for each resource

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 71

area is then used to calculate an average recoverable resource per pattern, as shown in Table 16.1.

Table	16.1. Development Summary by Resource Area
Resource Area	Resource<br> <br>(lbs. x 1000)^1^	RecoverableResource<br> <br>(lbs. x 1000)^2^	Average Recoverable lbs./Pattern	Injection<br> <br>Wells	Production<br> <br>Wells	Wellfield<br> <br>area (ac)	Average<br> <br>Well Depth<br><br><br>(ft.)^3^
---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
South Black Mountain	894	687	2,991	460	230	53	1,047
Jeep	496	391	6,031	132	66	23	285
Central	2,739	2,117	10,090	422	211	111	208
West	4,004	2,969	8,385	712	356	148	284
Project Total	8,133	6164	6,875	1,726	863	335	380

^1^ Sum of pounds may not add to the reported total due to rounding.

^2^Recoverable resources exclude all the inferred resources and assume 80 percent of the measured and indicated resources are recovered.

^3^Project totals reflect weighted average.

16.3.3	Monitor Wells

To meet regulatory requirements, perimeter monitor wells will surround each mine unit at a spacing no greater than 500 ft. from each other and no greater than 500 ft. from the nearest production pattern. Monitor wells interior to the wellfield are also required on a one well per 4-acre spacing within areas covered by patterns. These interior wells typically consist of monitor wells completed in the overlying aquifer, the underlying aquifer and the production zone. However, the Wind River production zone is the uppermost aquifer. Therefore, the interior monitor wells are assumed to consist of only underlying and production zone monitor wells. These wells will be placed in clusters evenly distributed through each mine unit, with each cluster composed of one of each type of well. For the purposes of this Report, no detailed analysis of the number and locations of the monitor wells was completed. Rather wellfield costing numbers were taken from the Shirley Basin PEA prepared for Ur Energy in 2024. The monitor well depths and density in the Shirley Basin Project are expected to be similar to those in the Gas Hills project. The one difference is that the Shirley Basin Uranium project has no underlying monitor wells while the Gas Hills Project has no overlying monitor wells.

16.3.4	Mining Schedule

The mine life sequence can be described as development, production and groundwater restoration followed by surface reclamation (Figure 16.1). Construction activities which include delineation drilling, deep disposal test well investigation and installation of initial monitor wells are planned to begin after permitting is complete which is estimated to be in the third quarter of Year-1.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 72

Figure 16.1. Life of Mine Schedule

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 73

Production is estimated to begin in Year 1 and continue into Year 7. Annual production is estimated to be approximately one million pounds per year. Restoration and reclamation activities are scheduled to start soon after production is completed in a mine unit. Final decommissioning will occur simultaneously with reclamation of the last production area.

16.4	Piping

Pipelines transport the wellfield solutions to and from the planned CPP at the West Unit and to the disposal well. The flow rates and pressures of the individual well lines are monitored in the header houses. Flow and pressure of the field production systems are also monitored and controlled as appropriate at the header houses. High density polyethylene (HDPE), PVC, stainless steel, or equivalent piping is used in the wellfields and will be designed and selected to meet designed operating conditions. The pipelines from the CPP, header houses, and individual well lines will be buried for freeze protection and to minimize pipe movement. Generally, the pipelines within the wellfields are relatively small diameter pipes designed to carry flows in the range of 10 to 50 gpm. These pipelines are typical of most comparable ISR projects, and the costs associated with installing them are included in the wellfield installation costs. The Gas Hills Project is unique in that there is a large distance between each unit. Several larger diameter pipelines will transfer water between mine units Figure 16.2 shows the general schematic of the pipeline layout for the project. These pipelines were considered separately in this analysis because of their uniqueness to this project. The larger diameter transfer pipelines will likely be constructed using HDPE and include the following:

•	2-12-inch-diameter pipelines running<br>between the West Unit and the Jeep Unit. Pipeline lengths are estimated at 24,000 feet.
•	4-16-inch-diameter pipelines running<br>between the West Unit and Central Unit. Pipeline lengths are estimated at 25,400 feet.
---	---
•	2-16-inch diameter pipelines between<br>the South Black Mountain unit and the CPP in the West Unit. Pipeline lengths are estimated at 27,400 feet.
---	---
•	Booster pump stations will be installed as necessary to maintain adequate pressure in the pipelines.<br>
---	---
16.5	Header Houses
---	---

Header houses are used to distribute lixiviant injection fluid to injection wells and collect pregnant solution from production wells. Each header house is connected to two trunk lines, one for receiving barren lixiviant from the CPP and one for conveying pregnant solutions to the CPP. The header houses include manifolds, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges, and instrumentation. Each header house is assumed to service approximately 75 wells (injection and production).

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 74

Figure 16.2. Pipeline Infrastructure Map

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 75
16.6	Wellfield Reagents and Electricity
---	---

The evaluation presented in this report assumes flowrates at the CPP/wellfield will be very similar to those in the Dewey-Burdock facility. Given the similarities in operational details reagent and electricity use costs are expected to be similar to those calculated for the Dewey-Burdock PEA. The one difference is that the low pH recovery will use sulfuric acid rather than oxygen and sodium bicarbonate or similar. The sulfuric acid is expected to increase the chemical costs by up to $2.66/lb of U3O8 produced.

16.7	Mining Fleet Equipment and Machinery

Equipment and machinery will be required to support the installation and operation of wellfields, a CPP and post-mining reclamation activities. Given the preliminary state of the Gas Hills project design, a detailed list of the equipment needs has not yet been developed. Rather costs for the equipment are estimated based on costs developed for the Dewey-Burdock Project for which designs are further advanced. It is assumed that a similar level of equipment and machinery will be required for the Gas Hills Project.

16.8	Labor

Labor requirements for the Project are based on estimates for the Dewey-Burdock Project. Based on Dewey-Burdock level staffing it is estimated that up to 43 employees will be necessary to operate the project at full production. This includes 7 employees in administration, 16 employees necessary for wellfield construction, 15 employees to operate the CPP, and 7 employees for wellfield production/restoration. The actual number of employees at any time will vary depending on how many wellfields are in operation and the phase of the Project.

17.0	RECOVERY METHODS

ISR operations consist of four major solution circuits, ion exchange to extract uranium from the mining solution, an elution circuit to remove uranium from the IX resin, a yellowcake precipitation circuit, and a dewatering, drying, and packaging circuit.

Figure 17.1 presents a simplified process flow diagram.

17.1	CPP Operations

Production fluid containing dissolved uranyl sulfate from the wellfields is pumped to the CPP plant for beneficiation as described below. The plant considered in this Report will have an available flow rate of 4,400 gpm. However, the planned average production flow rate for the Project is approximately 2,400 gpm. Processes used at the CPP to recover uranium will include the following circuits:

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 76

Figure 17.1. Process Flow Diagram

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 77
•	Resin Loading (IX circuit).
---	---
•	Resin Elution.
---	---
•	Uranium Precipitation.
---	---
•	Uranium Product Washing, Drying and Packaging.
---	---

IX Circuit – The IX circuit will be housed in a metal building which will also house the resin transfer equipment as well as the restoration circuit. Uranium liberated from the underground deposits is extracted from the pregnant solution in the IX circuit. Pregnant lixiviant from the wellfields enters the IX column (typically a pressurized down-flow system to contain radon gas and progeny in solution) and passes through the bed of IX resin. The ion-specific resin captures anionic uranium complexes in exchange for common anions such as chloride and bicarbonate. The barren lixiviant exiting the IX loading stage will ideally contain less than 2 ppm of uranium. Subsequently, the barren lixiviant is reconstituted, as needed, and pH is corrected prior to being pumped back to the wellfield for reinjection. A low-volume bleed is permanently removed from the lixiviant flow to maintain an inward gradient within the wellfields. The wellfield bleed is disposed of by injection into an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I Deep Disposal Well (DDW). See Section 17.4 for a detailed description of the planned wastewater management system.

During groundwater restoration activities, the bleed is treated by reverse osmosis (RO) to remove metals and salts (e.g., calcium, sodium, sulfate) and the clean permeate is reused in the process. This clean permeate is of better quality than the native groundwater. The RO brine is then disposed of by injection into the DDW.

Elution Circuit – The elution process reverses the loading reaction which occurred in the IX circuit and removes the uranium from the resin. The elution circuit also regenerates the resin’s exchange capacity by replacing uranium ions on the resin. A brine solution, sodium chloride and sodium carbonate, is added to elution vessels containing loaded resin. Uranium complexes will then be contained in the rich eluate solution, which leaves the elution circuit for further processing.

Precipitation Circuit – The purpose of the precipitation circuit is to break down the uranium complexes and precipitate the uranium as uranium peroxide slurry. Multiple precipitation tanks in series with mechanical agitators will accomplish the steps needed to form the slurry. Precipitation chemicals include sulfuric acid, caustic soda, and hydrogen peroxide.

First, the sulfuric acid is added to the rich eluate to break down the uranium complexes. Then sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) is added to the solution to raise the pH. After this pH adjustment, hydrogen peroxide is added in a continuous circuit to precipitate an insoluble uranyl peroxide (UO4) compound.

Product Filtering, Drying and Packaging – After precipitation, the uranium precipitate, or yellowcake slurry, is removed for washing, filtering, drying, and product packaging in a controlled area. The yellowcake from the precipitation tank is filtered and washed

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 78

in a filter press to remove excess chlorides and other soluble contaminants. The filter cake is re-slurried with clean water and then transferred to the yellowcake dryer. The yellowcake is dried in a vacuum dryer, which is completely enclosed during the drying cycle to prevent air emissions.

The packaging equipment is located directly below the dryer and includes a discharge chute, rotary airlock valve, ventilated drum hood, and drum conveyor. Yellowcake will be packaged into 208.4-liter drums, weighed and labeled, and prepared for shipment/storage.

Associated with the CPP will be office, construction, maintenance, warehouse and drilling support buildings. CPP construction is expected to commence in Year -2 upon the receipt of the last required permit.

17.2	Transportation

For the purposes of this Report, it has been assumed that drummed yellowcake will be shipped via truck approximately 1,500 miles to the conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois. This conversion facility is the first manufacturing step in converting the yellowcake into reactor fuel.

17.3	Energy, Water and Process Materials

As discussed in Section 16.6, the Gas Hills CPP will generally be similar in flow rates and operation as the planned CPP at the Dewey-Burdock facility for which the design is much further advanced. Except for the change to sulfuric acid, energy and reagent use are expected to be similar to the costs associated with Dewey-Burdock. For the purposes of this Report costs and assumptions developed for Dewey-Burdock were used to prepare cost estimates herein and adjusted as necessary for increased sulfuric acid costs and inflation. The low pH recovery methods are expected to result in higher headgrades and lower water flow rates than the alkaline recovery methods considered in Dewey-Burdock. No reductions in operational costs were made to adjust for this change.

17.4	Liquid Disposal

Typical ISR mining operations generate limited quantities of wastewater that cannot be returned to the production aquifers. The wastewater will be derived from two sources: wellfield production bleed and CPP processes. The production bleed is a net withdrawal of water that generates an area of low hydrostatic pressure within the mining zone. Water surrounding the mining zone flows toward the area of low pressure thereby preventing mining solutions from migrating away from the mining zone toward protected waters. The wellfield production bleed rate is estimated at 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the total mine flow rate. The rate of liquid wastes generated from the facility at the planned average production flow rate of 2,400 gpm facility will be approximately 22 gpm for deep disposal. One DDW is planned for the Project. The CAPEX and OPEX

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 79

estimates for this Report assume that this well will support the production and restoration operations.

Restoration wastewater treatment will entail passing portions of the fluid through a RO system. Permeate from the RO will return to the wellfield, while the brine (RO reject fluid) will be injected into the DDW.

17.5	Solid Waste Disposal

Solid wastes consist of empty packaging, miscellaneous pipes and fittings, tank sediments, used personal protective equipment and domestic trash. These materials are classified as contaminated or non-contaminated based on their radiological characteristics.

Non-contaminated solid waste is waste which is not contaminated with radioactive material or contaminated waste which can be decontaminated and re-classified as non-contaminated waste. This type of waste may include trash, piping, valves, instrumentation, equipment and any other items which are not contaminated, or which may be successfully decontaminated. Current estimates from similar uranium ISR facilities are that the site will produce approximately 700 cubic yards of non-contaminated solid waste per year. Non-contaminated solid waste will be collected in designated areas at the Project site and disposed of within an approved industrial solid waste landfill.

Contaminated solid waste consists of solid waste contaminated with radioactive material that cannot be decontaminated. This waste will be classified as 11e.(2) byproduct material as defined by NRC regulations. This byproduct material consists of filters, personal protective equipment, spent resin, piping, etc. 11e.(2) byproduct material will be shipped by truck for disposal at a licensed disposal site which is capable of handling these materials. It is estimated that the Project will produce approximately 90 cubic yards of 11e.(2) byproduct material as waste per year. This estimate is based on the waste generation rates of similar uranium ISR facilities.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 80
18.0	PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
---	---
18.1	Roads
---	---

Four types of roads will be used for access to the Project and its production areas. They include primary access roads, secondary access roads, temporary wellfield access roads, and well access roads. The Project area is served by County Road 212 (Gas Hills Road). Gas Hills Road is a county maintained, two-lane, gravel road providing year around access. Access to the Project from the north (Casper) is via US Highway 20/26, access from the west (Riverton) is from Wyoming Highway 136, and access from the south (Lander or Rawlins) is via US Highway 287. The proposed access to the ISR production areas will require upgrading existing all-weather access roads which are reached by the Gas Hills Road.

Snow removal and periodic surface maintenance will be performed as needed. The secondary access roads are used at the Project to provide access to the wellfield header houses. The secondary access roads are constructed with limited cut and fill construction and may be surfaced with small sized aggregate or other appropriate material.

The temporary wellfield access roads are for access to drilling sites, wellfield development, or ancillary areas assisting in wellfield development. When possible, enCore will use existing two-track trails or designate two-track trails where the land surface is not typically modified to accommodate the road. The temporary wellfield access roads will be used throughout the mining areas and will be reclaimed at the end of mining and restoration.

18.2	Electricity

Electrical power for the CPP on the West Unit will be provided by an existing 3-phase transmission line along the western edge of the unit and electrical power for the Central Unit will be provided by an overhead 3-phase power line feeding an existing substation at the historic George Ver facility site. Overhead 3-phase power is also available immediately adjacent to the Jeep project. To get overhead power to the South Black Mountain project approximately 1.5 miles of powerline will need to be constructed. Power lines from header houses to production wells will be placed underground using direct burial wire.

18.3	Holding Pond

The cost estimate also includes capital costs to construct a holding pond to contain process wastewater when the DDW is shut down for maintenance and annual testing. The earthen banked pond will be designed to hold 30 days’ worth of wastewater. The pond will have a double lined containment system with leak detection between the liners. The same rigorous designs have been established to ensure proper inspection, operation, and maintenance of the holding ponds at other similar projects in Wyoming, and it is anticipated that they will be applied at the Project as well.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 81
19.0	MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
---	---

Unlike other commodities, uranium does not trade on an open market. Contracts are negotiated privately between buyers and sellers. Sales contracts vary in quantity and duration from spot market transactions, typically one-time, near-term deliveries involving as little as 25,000 lbs. U3O8, to long term sales agreements covering deliveries over multiple future years with quantities in the hundreds of thousands to millions of pounds of U3O8. A fixed sales price of $88 per lb U3O8 was assumed for this analysis. The sales price was developed based on price projections provided in a proprietary report developed by Trade Tech, 2023. In the proprietary report Tradetech estimated the term price would vary between $85 per lb up to $89 per lb between 2029 and 2038. The average projected price over this period is approximately $87 per lb. This price compares favorably with current uranium prices experienced in the 2^nd^ half of 2024. The QP has also evaluated less comprehensive but more recent market evaluations (Sprott, 2024 and 2025, Carbon Credits.com, 2025). Generally, market experts remain bullish on Uranium prices which support the Trade Tech pricing assumptions. The QP believes these estimates are appropriate for use in the evaluation, and the results support the assumptions herein.

enCore has not entered into any uranium supply contracts that are tied to production from the Project. The anticipated sales price is considered within the sensitivities in this Report (Section 25.2). The income from estimated production at the anticipated sales price is included in the cash flow estimate.

The marketability of uranium and acceptance of uranium mining is subject to numerous factors beyond the control of enCore. The price of uranium may experience volatile and significant price movements over short periods of time. Factors known to affect the market and price of uranium include economic viability of nuclear power; political and economic conditions in uranium mining, producing and consuming countries; costs; interest rates, inflation and currency exchange fluctuations; governmental regulations; availability of financing of nuclear plants, reprocessing of spent fuel and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails or waste; sales of excess civilian and military inventories (including from the dismantling of nuclear weapons) by governments and industry participants; production levels and costs of production in certain geographical areas such as Asia, Africa and Australia; and changes in public acceptance of nuclear power generation as a result of any future accidents or terrorism at nuclear facilities. The economic analysis and associated sensitivities are within the range of current market variability.

During the construction phase of the plant, several contracts will be required with various construction related venders. No construction contracts have been entered into at the date of this Report. Operational purchasing agreements will be required with the primary chemical suppliers. None of these agreements have been entered. Finally, agreements will be required with a transportation company for the transport of yellowcake to the conversion facility.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 82
20.0	ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
---	---
20.1	Environmental Studies
---	---

Extensive environmental studies, including geology, surface hydrology, sub-surface hydrology, geochemistry, wetlands, air quality, vegetation, wildlife, archeology, meteorology, background radiometrics, and soils will be required as part of the permitting process. Prior to acquiring this project, the previous owner, Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd., had developed and submitted a mine permit application for these properties to the WDEQ. The mine permit application was for open pit mining operations and not ISR. Nevertheless, much of the work completed in support of the previous permitting action will support future permitting actions. At this time, no baseline environmental studies are being performed by enCore. With the exception of possible sage grouse protection timing stipulations, there are no known environmental factors which could materially impact the permitting process or the ability to recover uranium resources.

The Project is located immediately adjacent to areas designated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as a core sage grouse habitat. Portions of Jeep and South Black Mountain lie within the sage grouse core area and the regulatory agencies will place timing stipulations on these portions of the Project (Wyoming Game and Fish, 2024). Although the West Unit and Central Unit lie wholly outside of the sage grouse core area, stipulations would apply due to the presence of sage grouse breeding grounds known as leks. The limitations may include limiting some activities to certain times of year.

20.2	Waste Disposal and Monitoring
20.2.1	Waste Disposal
---	---

Non-household waste generated from an ISR uranium mine generally consists of water from the wellfield and processing plant and solid waste generated from the plant, which is described in detail in Section 17. Both types of waste are classified as 11e.(2) byproduct material pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act. During production, wellfield bleed will be injected into a UIC Class I DDW.

Cameco Resources has an authorized UIC Class I DDW (Permit No. 13-262) in Section 3, T32N, R90W less than one mile to the southeast of the Central Unit as well as two additional wells east of the Central Unit and north of the South Black Mountain Unit (WDEQ 2014). Permit documentation included with the permit indicates these wells are permitted to receive up to 150 gallons of water per minute. Assuming that conditions are similar within enCore’s permit area, one DDW would be sufficient to handle projected wastewater from this facility. At this time, there are no known factors which could materially impact the feasibility of a DDW capable of disposing of the maximum estimated disposal rate necessary at the Project.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 83

The solid 11e.(2) waste generated at the site will consist of personal protective equipment, filters, and other used process equipment. The solid 11e.(2) byproduct material will be disposed of at an approved facility.

20.2.2	Site Monitoring

Once mining begins there will be considerable site monitoring to ensure protection of the environment and also protection of employees and the public from radionuclide effluent. Each mine unit will be surrounded laterally and vertically (where necessary) with a series of monitor wells to ensure mining solutions do not migrate out of the mining zone. The wells will be sampled twice per month with the results compared against pre-determined upper control limits (UCLs).

Significant environmental monitoring for radionuclide effluents will also take place during mining and reclamation as required by the source and byproduct material license.

Finally, wildlife monitoring will continue throughout the life of the mine and will cover a variety of species including greater sage-grouse, big game, migratory birds, fish, lagomorphs, songbirds, and other species deemed to be of concern by the regulating agencies. Third-party contractors will be utilized to perform wildlife monitoring.

20.3	Permitting

Prior to significant construction and mining, several permits/licenses from federal, state, and local agencies will be required as follows:

Federal

•	EPA – Aquifer Exemption for UIC Class III wells and UIC Class I disposal wells (as necessary) and<br>Subpart W Pond Construction Permit for the holding pond.
•	BLM – Environmental Assessment (EA) and Approval of the Plan of Operations.
---	---

State

•	Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Uranium Recovery Program<br>(WDEQ-URP) – Source and Byproduct Material License.
•	WDEQ Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD) – Permit to Mine.<br>
---	---
•	WDEQ Water Quality Division (WDEQ-WQD) – UIC Class I Permit for deep<br>well injection of wastewater generated from wellfield bleed and other plant processes, and Storm Water Discharge Permit which allows for surface discharge of storm water.
---	---
•	WDEQ-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD)<br>– Air Quality Division, Chapter 6, Section 2, New Source Permit Authorization to Construct.
---	---
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 84
---	---
•	Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) – Various groundwater appropriation permits for ISR of uranium.<br>
---	---

Local

•	Fremont County Septic system.

Since a large portion of the project lies over federal surface, the BLM will complete the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis for this project which will be required to approve the BLM Plan of Operation. Since the footprint of this project is less than 640 acres, BLM regulations indicate that the NEPA analysis should be an Environmental Assessment (EA) level review. For the purposes of this Report, it was assumed that the BLM would elect to do an EA level of analysis. Should BLM decide to pursue a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) a much more detailed analysis of potential project impacts will be required.

WDEQ-URP license preparation and review process will take approximately two years to complete. The review will include an opportunity for public comment. WDEQ-LQD, will review the permit to mine application pursuant to Noncoal Chapter 11 Rules and Regulations and will provide opportunities for public comment. The LQD review will also likely take about two years which will happen in parallel with the URP review. Following permit to mine approval, an aquifer exemption from the EPA Region 8 will be requested. The EPA will review the LQD’s request against UIC Program requirements found in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 to ensure compliance. If the EPA determines the operation will be in compliance, the agency will issue an aquifer exemption which allows mining within a defined portion of the uranium host aquifer.

20.4	Social or Community Impact

The Project is proximate to the communities of Jeffrey City, Casper, and Riverton. Jeffrey City is approximately 15 miles south of the Project and has an estimated population of 40 people (world population review, 2024). The Casper metropolitan area is approximately 60 miles east of the Project and has an estimated 2024 population of 79,941 people (world population review, 2024). Riverton is 40 miles from the site with an estimated population of 11,400 (world population review, 2024). enCore expects to hire site personnel from these communities as well as from other small communities in the region. Employment will likely have a positive impact on these communities not only through direct payroll, but through primary and secondary purchases of goods and services.

The immediate area around the facility is very sparsely populated. The nearest residence is approximately 10 miles from the Project. The next nearest residence is greater than 14 miles away.

A surety bond will be in place to ensure proper restoration and reclamation of the project. The surety will be updated annually during the life of the Project to account for changes in reclamation liability. Nuisance and hazardous conditions which could

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 85

affect local communities are not expected to be generated by the facility. The level of traffic in the region will increase slightly but impacts to local roads are expected to be minor. There are not expected to be agreements with the local communities, nor have any been requested.

20.5	Project Closure
20.5.1	Byproduct Disposal
---	---

The 11e.(2) or non-11e.(2) byproduct disposal methods are discussed in detail in Section 17. Deep disposal wells, landfills, and licensed 11e.(2) facilities will be used depending on waste classification and type.

20.5.2	Well Abandonment / Groundwater Restoration

Groundwater restoration will begin as soon as practicable after uranium recovery in each wellfield is completed. If a depleted wellfield is near an area that is being recovered, a portion of the depleted area’s restoration may be delayed to limit interference with on-going recovery operations. Groundwater restoration will require the circulation of native groundwater and extraction of mobilized ions through RO treatment. The intent of groundwater restoration is to return the groundwater quality parameters consistent with those established during the pre-operational sampling required for each wellfield. Restoration completion assumes up to three pore volumes of groundwater extracted and treated by reverse osmosis. Following completion of successful restoration activities and regulatory approval, the injection and recovery wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with WDEQ regulations. Monitor wells will also be abandoned following verification of successful groundwater restoration.

20.5.3	Demolition and Removal of Infrastructure

Simultaneous with well abandonment operations, the trunk and feeder pipelines will be removed, tested for radiological contamination, segregated as either solid 11e.(2) or non-11e.(2) byproduct material, then chipped on-site and disposed of on-site in appropriate disposal facilities. The header houses will be disconnected from their foundations, decontaminated, segregated as either solid 11e.(2) or non-11e.(2) by product material, and disposed of in appropriate disposal facilities or recycled. The processing equipment and ancillary structures will be demolished, tested for radiological properties, segregated and either scrapped or disposed of in appropriate disposal facilities based on their radiological properties.

20.5.4	Site Grading and Revegetation

Following the removal of wellfield and plant infrastructure, site roads will be removed and the site will be re-graded to approximate pre-development contours and the stockpiled topsoil placed over disturbed areas. The disturbed areas will then be seeded.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 86
20.6	Financial Assurance
---	---

Throughout the life of the mine enCore will be required to annually assess the reclamation liability and submit the estimate to WDEQ-URP, WDEQ-LQD, and BLM for review and approval. The Project will be secured for the estimated amount of total closure costs which include groundwater restoration, facility decommissioning and reclamation with a bond provided by a broker. For the purposes of this Report, it was assumed that the bond cost charged by the broker would be 3 percent of the surety amount until positive cash flow is achieved then reducing to a rate of 2 percent thereafter. The annual financial surety amount is based on the estimated amount of annual development that would require closure in the case of default by the owner assuming a 3^rd^ party were responsible for the restoration and reclamation. The costs for financial assurance are included in the economic analysis presented herein.

20.7	Adequacy of Current Plans

The QP has reviewed the current status of the Project and has noted that additional design/planning is necessary before mining can begin. In addition, several permits are still required in order to begin mining. At this time the QP has found nothing that would prevent enCore from obtaining the appropriate permits in order to move towards ISR mining operations. At this juncture the project is typical of early stage ISR mines with good prospects of moving towards production.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 87
21.0	CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
---	---

Capital Costs (CAPEX) and Operating Costs (OPEX) are based on the geological evaluation of the ISR amenable resource as described in Section 14.0 and the installation of conceptual production patterns, header houses, pipelines, powerlines, fences, roads, and other infrastructure to produce 80 percent of the resource as described in Section 16.3.1. This evaluation considers measured and indicated resources only and excludes inferred resources. Estimated costs for the Project are based primarily on costs for materials and services developed for the Dewey-Burdock Project (Graves and Cutler, 2019). Available costs for additional projects including Ur Energy’s Shirley Basin ISR Uranium Project (WWC, 2024) and Strata Energy’s (Strata) 2022 Definitive Feasibility Study of Ross & Kendrick Areas at Lance (WWC 2022) were also utilized in developing CAPEX and OPEX costs. As currently envisioned, enCore would install a CPP at the Project with a capacity of 4,400 gpm and 1 million lbs per year U3O8 production. This is similar in size to the planned CPP at the Dewey-Burdock facility. Planning, permitting, and design is much further advanced in the Dewey-Burdock facility, so the costs developed in the Dewey-Burdock PEA are generally reliable.

To help offset costs, enCore has some used equipment currently on standby including a dryer system, eluant tanks, elution columns, slurry tanks, RO units, and sand filters at their Texas facilities that can be utilized in this project. The 2019 Dewey-Burdock cost estimate for the full CPP was $41.4 Million dollars. The 2019 Dewey-Burdock estimate includes 15 miles of new powerline construction and a new substation which is significantly more than what will be required at the Project. The cost estimate also included nearly $5 million for the deep disposal well which is considered separately in this analysis. The 2019 Dewey-Burdock evaluation also considered additional sales tax which is not applicable in Wyoming. Adjusting the original Dewey-Burdock costs to account for changes in electrical powerline construction, sales tax reductions, deep disposal wells considered elsewhere, and then including a $3 million credit for the dryer and other equipment enCore currently has on standby results in a comparable CPP cost of $24.9 Million at the Project. After adjusting for inflation, 23% (CPI, 2024), the comparable cost for the Dewey-Burdock CPP is estimated at $30.6 Million.

Many aspects of the Project are similar to the Shirley Basin Project, including well depths, proximity to historic open pit uranium mines, and location (the Shirley Basin Project is only 80 miles east/southeast of the Project). As with the Dewey-Burdock Project, design and planning for the Shirley Basin Project is also further advanced with reliable costs. Costs and capital purchases were escalated against either the Consumer Price Index (CPI, 2024) or the gross domestic product: implicit price deflator (FRED, 2024) adjusted to 2024 dollars. OPEX costs include all operating costs such as chemicals, labor, utilities and maintenance for the wellfield and the CPP. OPEX costs are most sensitive to wellfield operation costs which may increase if well spacing needs to be reduced or additional injection/production wells are required. In addition, increasing costs of materials, chemicals, and resin transportation costs could also lead to increased OPEX costs.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 88
21.1	Capital Cost Estimation (CAPEX)
---	---

CAPEX costs were developed based on the current designs, quantities, and unit costs. The cost estimates presented herein are based on personnel and capital equipment requirements, as well as wellfield layouts, process flow diagrams, tank and process equipment and buildings at enCore’s Dewey-Burdock Project in western South Dakota as well as other similar uranium projects identified by the Authors. The Project has pre-mining development and capital costs of $55.2 million, which are detailed on Table 21.1.

After the start of mining, the CAPEX category will include subsequent mine unit drilling and wellfield installation costs as well as construction of transfer pipelines to move water from the Jeep, South Black Mountain, and Central Units to the CPP location in the West Unit. Wellfield development costs used in this analysis were developed based on costs estimated in the Shirley Basin 2024 PEA. The average well depth in the Project is nearly 60 ft. deeper than the average well in the Shirley Basin Project and the monitor wells will target the underlying rather than an overlying aquifer. As such, the costs were escalated to account for these factors. No additional contingency was applied to the CAPEX costs for the purposes of this report.

As discussed in Section 16.0, the first series of header houses will be brought online sequentially until the planned plant throughput (approximately 2,400 gpm) is attained. In the event headgrades at the plant fall below projected values, the CPP as considered in this analysis will have additional capacity (up to 4,400 gpm) to allow for flows to be increased to meet the production target of 1 million pounds of U3O8 per year. The remainder of the additional mine units will be developed in such a way as to allow for plant capacity/production targets to be maintained.

The wellfield development costs include both wellfield drilling and wellfield construction activities and were estimated based on the assumption that the wellfields in this Project will be similar in design to those in the Shirley Basin PEA (WWC, 2024). The wellfield costs include wells, header houses, and the hydraulic conveyance (piping) system associated with the wellfields. Additionally, trunk and feeder pipelines, electrical service, roads and wellfield fencing are included in the costs.

The accuracy of the CAPEX estimation complies with item 1302 of Regulation S-K for an Initial Assessment with economics.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 89
Table	21.1. CAPEX Cost Summary
---	---
CAPEX Costs		Year -4		Year -3			Year -2			Year -1			Year 1			Year 2			Year 3			Year 4			Year 5			Year 6		Year 7		Year 8		Year 9		Year 10		Year 11		Totals			/lb
---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		(000s except cost per pound data)
CPP Design and permitting	$	(500.0	$	(1,000.0	)	$	(1,000.0	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(2,500.0	)	$	(0.41
CPP Construction	$	–	$	–		$	(8,000.0	)	$	(22,590.0	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(30,590.0	)	$	(4.96
Disposal wells	$	–	$	–		$	(250.0	)	$	(4,750.0	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(5,000.0	)	$	(0.81
Transfer Pipelines	$	–	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(3,480.0	)	$	(2,320.0	)	$	(1,160.0	)	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(6,960.0	)	$	(1.13
Wellfields	$	–	$	–		$	(5,832.3	)	$	(8,165.2	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(11,795.6	)	$	(11,244.6	)	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(72,031.2	)	$	(11.69
Permitting, Claim Maintenance, and<br>Administrative (G&A)	$	(596.6	$	(571.6	)	$	(962.6	)	$	(963.2	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(3,094.0	)	$	(0.50
Total	$	(1,096.6	$	(1,571.6	)	$	(16,044.9	)	$	(36,468.4	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(15,144.5	)	$	(14,115.6	)	$	(12,404.6	)	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	–	$	(120,175.2	)	$	(19.50

All values are in US Dollars.

Notes:

1. CPP costs are based on similar sized facility at Dewey-Burdock.

2. Disposal well costs assume only one disposal well will be necessary.

3. Includes costs for large diameter pipelines to transfer fluids between mine units. Pipelines incidental to the wellfield are included in wellfield construction costs.

4. Wellfield costs include all costs and equipment required to drill wells, install pipelines, header houses, etc.

5. G&A costs only included during pre-production period. After production starts, costs are considered operational costs.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 90
21.2	Operating Cost Estimation (OPEX)
---	---

The OPEX costs have been developed by evaluating and including each process unit operation and the associated required services (power, water, air, waste disposal), infrastructure (offices, shops and roads), salary and benefit burden, and environmental control (heat, air conditioning, monitoring). The annual OPEX and closure cost summary for the plant is provided in Table 21.2. Total OPEX costs, including selling, production and operating costs have been estimated at $95.6 million, or approximately $15.51 per pound. The costs are based on enCore’s estimated costs at the Dewey-Burdock Project (Graves and Cutler, 2019) and have no additional contingency attached except for escalation for inflation. The prices for the major items identified in this report have been sourced in the United States. Major cost categories considered when developing OPEX costs include wellfield, plant, processing, and site administration costs as detailed in Table 21.2.

The accuracy of the OPEX estimation complies with item 1302 of Regulation S-K for an Initial Assessment with economics.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 91

Table 21.2. Annual Operating Costs (OPEX) Summary

Life of Mine Operating costs		Year -4	Year -3		Year -2		Year -1			Year 1			Year 2			Year 3			Year 4			Year 5			Year 6			Year 7			Year 8			Year 9			Year 10			Year 11			Totals			/lb
		(000s except cost per pound data)
CPP, Disposal wells, Overflow pond	$	–	–	$	–	$	–		$	(4,902.8	)	$	(6,864.0	)	$	(9,805.7	)	$	(9,805.7	)	$	(9,805.7	)	$	(9,805.7	)	$	(9,452.7	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(60,442.3	)	$	(9.81
Well Field Operation	$	–	–	$	–	$	–		$	(991.8	)	$	(1,388.5	)	$	(1,983.6	)	$	(1,983.6	)	$	(1,983.6	)	$	(1,983.6	)	$	(1,912.2	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(12,226.9	)	$	(1.98
Aquifer Restoration and<br>Decommissioning.	$	–	–	$	–	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(1,522.6	)	$	(2,039.6	)	$	(2,039.6	)	$	(1,779.1	)	$	(777.5	)	$	(1,441.9	)	$	(556.0	)	$	(10,156.3	)	$	(1.65
U3O8 Conversion and Shipping fees	$	–	–	$	–	$	–		$	(205.0	)	$	(287.0	)	$	(410.0	)	$	(410.0	)	$	(410.0	)	$	(410.0	)	$	(395.2	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(2,527.2	)	$	(0.41
Permitting, Claim Maintenance, and<br>Administrative (G&A)	$	–	–	$	–	$	–		$	(824.9	)	$	(824.6	)	$	(824.6	)	$	(824.6	)	$	(824.6	)	$	(837.7	)	$	(831.9	)	$	(831.9	)	$	(889.9	)	$	(889.9	)	$	(897.2	)	$	(9,301.8	)	$	(1.51
Reclamation Bonding Surity Costs	$	–	–	$	–	$	(39.4	)	$	(51.3	)	$	(78.9	)	$	(109.9	)	$	(139.1	)	$	(136.6	)	$	(115.7	)	$	(89.7	)	$	(83.6	)	$	(62.8	)	$	(35.1	)	$	–		$	(942.1	)	$	(0.16
Bond collatoral	$	–	–	$	–	$	(460.2	)	$	(181.3	)	$	(345.2	)	$	(386.7	)	$	(365.1	)	$	30.7		$	261.7		$	325.2		$	423.8		$	173.4		$	231.0		$	292.5		$	0.0		$	0.00
Total	$	–	–	$	–	$	(499.6	)	$	(7,157.1	)	$	(9,788.2	)	$	(13,520.5	)	$	(13,528.1	)	$	(14,652.4	)	$	(14,930.6	)	$	(14,396.1	)	$	(2,270.8	)	$	(1,556.8	)	$	(2,135.9	)	$	(1,160.7	)	$	(95,596.6	)	$	(15.51

All values are in US Dollars.

Notes:

1.CPP, Disposal wells, and Overflow Pond costs include power, labor, maintenance, chemicals and other costs associated with operation of the facilities.

2. Wellfield operation costs include labor, equipment, power, maintenance, chemicals and other wellfield operation costs.

3. Decommissioning costs assume no salvage value for materials and equipment.

4. Conversion and shipping fees assume shipments from Gas Hills CPP to conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois

5. Reclamation bonding surety costs assume a 3% premium on the bond estimate prior to positive cashflow and 2% premium after positive cashflow.

6. Bond collateral assumed to be equal to 35% of the bond estimate prior to positive cashflow and then 25% of the bond estimate after positive cashflow.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 92
22.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
---	---

Cautionary statement: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimated mineral recovery used in this Report is based on site-specific laboratory recovery data as well as enCore personnel and industry experience at similar facilities. There can be no assurance that recovery of the mineral resources at this level will be achieved. There is no certainty that the Preliminary Economic Assessment will be realized.

This Economic Analysis is based on the measured and indicated mineral resource and does not include any portion of the inferred mineral resource.

22.1	Assumptions

The economic assessment presented in this Report is based on geological evaluation and mapping of production areas, determining which areas are not viable for production activities due to hydrologic features, and obtaining an 80 percent recovery of the remaining resources, as described in Section 16.3.1.

A cash flow statement has been developed based on the CAPEX, OPEX, and closure cost estimates and the production schedule. As noted in Section 19, the sales price for the produced uranium is assumed at $87.00 per pound for the life of the Project. Sensitivities to uranium price are discussed in Section 25.2.

The production rate assumes an average solution uranium grade (headgrade) of approximately 97 mg/L. The sales for the cash flow are developed by applying the recovery factor to the Project resource estimate. The total uranium production over the life of the Project is estimated to be 6.16 million lbs.

22.2	Cash Flow Forecast and Production Schedule

The production estimates and OPEX distribution used to develop the cash flow are based on the production and restoration models developed by enCore and incorporated in the cash flow (Table 22.1). The cash flow assumes no escalation, no debt interest, or capital repayment. It also does not include depreciation. Estimated payback in the post-federal tax cash flow model is near the middle of the third year of production. Net cash flow before income tax over life of the Project is estimated to be $286.0 million and the net after-tax cash flow is estimated at $245.7 million. The Project has an estimated pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 54.8 percent and a Net Present Value (NPV) of $166.9 million. After-tax IRR and NPV are estimated at 50.2 percent and $141.8 million, respectively (Table 22.3). The NPV was calculated assuming an 8 percent discount rate. The NPV assumes cash flows take place in the middle of each period. NPV and IRR calculations are based on Year-2 through Year 11 and includes costs escalated by 8 percent per year from Year -4 and Year -3 treated as if the escalated costs occurred in Year-2. This approach to calculating the IRR and NPV was taken because Year -2 is the first year a significant sum of capital is invested in the project. Pre-income tax estimated cost of uranium produced is $40.61 per pound including royalties, severance

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 93

taxes, ad valorem taxes, plus all operating and capital costs. The IRR as well as pre-tax and post-tax NPV for three discount rates is presented in Table 22.2.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 94

Table 22.1. Cash Flow Statement

Description	Units			Year -3			Year -2		Year -1			Year 1			Year 2			Year 3			Year 4			Year 5			Year 6			Year 7			Year 8			Year 9			Year 10			Year 11			Totals			/lb
Uranium Production as<br>U3O8	lbs000s	0			0			0		0			500			700			1000			1000			1000			1000			964			0			0			0			0			6164
Uranium Price for<br>U3O8	US/lb											$	87		$	87		$	87		$	87		$	87		$	87		$	87
Uranium Gross Revenue	US000s	–	****	$	–	****	$	–	$	–	****	$	43,500	****	$	60,900	****	$	87,000	****	$	87,000	****	$	87,000	****	$	87,000	****	$	83,868	****	$	–	****	$	–	****	$	–	****	$	–	****	$	536,268	****		****
Royalty (0.7%/year LOM<br>average)	US000s	–		$	–		$	–	$	–		$	(74.8	)	$	(104.3	)	$	(148.3	)	$	(148.3	)	$	(149.9	)	$	(150.3	)	$	(144.9	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(920.8	)		)
Net Sales Less Royalties	US000s	–	****	$	–	****	$	–	$	–	****	$	43,425.2	****	$	60,795.7	****	$	86,851.7	****	$	86,851.7	****	$	86,850.1	****	$	86,849.7	****	$	83,723.1	****	$	–	****	$	–	****	$	–	****	$	–	****	$	535,347	****		****
State of Wyoming Severance<br>Tax	US000s	–		$	–		$	–	$	–		$	(953.5	)	$	(1,334.9	)	$	(1,907.0	)	$	(1,907.0	)	$	(1,907.0	)	$	(1,907.0	)	$	(1,838.4	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(11,754.8	)		)
County Ad Valorem<br>Taxes	US000s	–		$	–		$	–	$	–		$	(1,720.7	)	$	(2,409.0	)	$	(3,441.4	)	$	(3,441.4	)	$	(3,441.4	)	$	(3,441.4	)	$	(3,317.6	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(21,212.9	)		)
County Property<br>Taxes	US000s	–		$	–		$	–	$	–		$	(93.9	)	$	(84.5	)	$	(76.0	)	$	(68.4	)	$	(61.6	)	$	(55.4	)	$	(49.9	)	$	(44.9	)	$	(40.4	)	$	(36.4	)	$	(32.7	)	$	(644.1	)		)
OPEX costs	US000s	–		$	–		$	–	$	(499.6	)	$	(7,157.1	)	$	(9,788.2	)	$	(13,520.4	)	$	(13,528.0	)	$	(14,652.4	)	$	(14,930.5	)	$	(14,396.0	)	$	(2,270.8	)	$	(1,556.8	)	$	(2,135.9	)	$	(1,160.7	)	$	(95,596.4	)		)
CAPEX costs	US000s	(1,096.6	)	$	(1,571.6	)	$	(16,044.9	$	(36,468.3	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(11,664.5	)	$	(15,144.5	)	$	(14,115.6	)	$	(12,404.6	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(120,175.1	)		)
Subtotal OPEX, CAPEX, tax costs	US000s	(1,096.6	)	$	(1,571.6	)	$	(16,044.9	$	(36,967.9	)	$	(21,589.7	)	$	(25,281.1	)	$	(34,089.3	)	$	(33,060.4	)	$	(32,467.0	)	$	(20,334.3	)	$	(19,601.9	)	$	(2,315.7	)	$	(1,597.2	)	$	(2,172.3	)	$	(1,193.4	)	$	(249,383.3	)		)
Net Before U.S. Federal Income Cashflow	US000s	(1,096.6	)	$	(1,571.6	)	$	(16,044.9	$	(36,967.9	)	$	21,835.5	****	$	35,514.6	****	$	52,762.4	****	$	53,791.3	****	$	54,383.1	****	$	66,515.4	****	$	64,121.2	****	$	(2,315.7	)	$	(1,597.2	)	$	(2,172.30	)	$	(1,193.40	)	$	285,963.90	****		****
Less Federal income tax	US000s	–		$	–			–	$	–		$	–		$	(3,882.26	)	$	(7,450.81	)	$	(7,280.00	)	$	(6,828.14	)	$	(7,123.78	)	$	(7,702.12	)	$	–		$	–		$	–		$	–		$	(40,267.1	)		)
After Tax Cashflow	US000s	(1,096.6	)	$	(1,571.6	)	$	(16,044.9	$	(36,967.9	)	$	21,835.5	****	$	31,632.3	****	$	45,311.6	****	$	46,511.3	****	$	47,555.0	****	$	59,391.6	****	$	56,419.1	****	$	(2,315.7	)	$	(1,597.2	)	$	(2,172.3	)	$	(1,193.4	)	$	245,696.8	****		****

All values are in US Dollars.

Notes:

1) Production is based on an assumed 80% recovery of the measured and indicated resources described in Section 14. No Inferred resources are included.

2) Wyoming severance tax rate estimated at 4% of the taxable portion, see Section 22 for details.

3) Ad Valorem taxes are estimated at 7.2184% and 6.681% for Fremont and Natrona counties, respectively. The taxes are assessed on the taxable portion as described in Section 22.

4) See OPEX and CAPEX summary tables for details OPEX and CAPEX costs

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 95

Table 22.2.  NPV Versus Discount Rate and IRR

Discount Rate	Pre-tax NPV ($US 000s)	Post-tax NPV ($US 000s)
5%	$203,626	$173,804
8%	$166,926	$141,778
10%	$146,396	$123,867
IRR	54.8%	50.2%

Note: NPV and IRR calculated from year -2. This is the first year significant sums of money are invested into the project.

22.3	Taxation

The current Wyoming severance tax for uranium is set on a sliding scale based on the current spot market price of uranium, below $30 per pound the severance tax rate is 0 percent, from $30.00 to $36.67 the tax rate is 1 percent, from $36.68 to $43.34 the tax rate is 2 percent, from $43.35 to $50.00 the tax rate is 3 percent, from $50.01 to $60.00 the tax rate is 4 percent, and at a spot price of more than $60.01 the tax rate is 5 percent. The sliding scale provision is scheduled to sunset in December 31, 2025. After December 31, 2025 the severance tax rate will be 4 percent regardless of the spot price. The severance tax rate at the Project for was calculated at 4 percent based on the assumption that no production will occur prior to 2026. Wyoming does not calculate the severance tax based on gross sales. Rather the valuation used to calculate the severance tax is reduced by an industry factor calculated by the state which takes into account the cost of production. In this Report, the industry factor was estimated at 54.8 percent.

Additionally, an ad valorem (gross products) tax is assessed at the county level on uranium sold. The ad valorem taxes are essentially a de facto property tax on production and are based on the mill levy in the jurisdiction of the mine. The ad valorem tax is 7.2184 percent in Fremont County and 6.681 percent in Natrona County. As with the severance tax, the ad valorem tax is not assessed on the gross sales but rather on a reduced valuation based on the same industry factor used for the severance tax calculations. In aggregate and based on the taxable portion of the product, the combined severance and ad valorem tax average approximately 6.5 percent of gross sales.

County property taxes will be assessed on mine improvements such as the CPP and buildings. Most of the project infrastructure will be in Fremont County. Fremont County will assess property taxes based on the value of the improvements. The assessed value of the mine improvements will be multiplied by an 11.5 percent valuation factor. The resulting valuation will then be multiplied by the mill levy (.072255) to calculate property taxes. The State of Wyoming has no corporate income tax.

At the federal level, profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates. For mineral properties, depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis, whichever is greater. To illustrate the potential impact of federal taxes, two economic models have been developed for this Report, one that includes an estimate of U.S. federal income tax and one that does not. It is important to note the

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 96

estimate of U.S. federal income taxes included herein is not based on past operational history for this Project or this company and are strictly estimates at this time. For the purposes of this Report, the federal taxes were estimated at 21 percent of the taxable income. The taxable income was calculated by subtracting estimated depletion credits, depreciation, and carryforward loss deductions from the net cashflow. Only deductions from this Project were considered in the tax estimates and no other corporate losses or deductions were considered. It is possible that the tax liability presented herein is overstated because the tax estimate does not account for the potential offsetting tax deductions from other debts incurred in an overall corporate financial structure. This could be particularly true where other projects or expansions are likely to be funded from revenue from this project. The taxes calculated for this analysis are based on current tax laws and rates in 2024. Future changes to the U.S. tax code or the financial condition of the company will affect actual taxes paid during production.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 97
23.0	ADJACENT PROPERTIES
---	---

The Project is generally surrounded by mineral properties held by Cameco, Ur-Energy, Strathmore Uranium and others. However, all of the data used to evaluate the Project is from the Project and all of the mineral resources and mineral potential described herein lie entirely within the Project.

Over the past decade, Cameco has been observed conducting exploration drilling on their claims in the Gas Hills District and has permitted an ISR operation in the Gas Hills to extract uranium. Cameco has a Permit to Mine from the WDEQ-LQD (Permit #687) and a Source Materials License (SUA-1548) from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The BLM completed a Final EIS in October 2013 and on February 13, 2014, announced a “Record of Decision” authorizing Cameco to proceed with development of their project using ISR techniques. Production was slated to begin in 2014 (Wyoming Business Report, February 22, 2011); however, due to a subsequent decline in spot uranium prices, Cameco has delayed their project. The Cameco property borders the Project on Cameco’s western, northeastern and southern extents. Table 23.1 summarizes the mineral resources for the Gas Hills Project from Cameco’s website (Cameco, 2023).

Table 23.1. Cameco Peach Project Mineral Resources

Classification	Tonnes (x1000)	Grade % eU3O8	Pounds
Measured Resource	687.2	0.11	1,700,000
Indicated Resource	3,626.1	0.15	11,600,000
Inferred Resource	3,307.5	0.08	6,000,000

Sources: Cameco, 2023

It should be noted that the Authors have not verified the information on Cameco’s properties and the information may not be indicative of the mineralization that is present on the Project.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 98
24.0	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
---	---

To the Authors’ knowledge there is no additional information or explanation necessary to make this Report understandable and not misleading.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 99
25.0	INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
---	---

This independent Report for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth in NI 43-101 and regulations provided in SEC S-K 1300. Its objective is to disclose the potential viability of ISR operations at the Project.

25.1	Conclusions

The Authors have weighed the potential benefits and risks presented in this report and have found the Project to be potentially viable and meriting further evaluation and development.

25.2	Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was developed to evaluate the sensitivity of the NPV and IRR to changes in uranium prices. Both the pre-federal income tax and the post-federal income tax cashflow models were evaluated. Figure 25.1 shows pre-federal income tax sensitivity to changes in uranium prices and Figure 25.2 shows the post-federal income tax price sensitivity.

Figure 25.1. Pre-Federal Income Tax NPV and IRRSensitivity to Price

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 100

Figure 25.2. Post-Federal Income Tax NPV Sensitivity to Price

The Project is sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. Assuming an 8 percent discount rate, a $5.00 per pound change in the uranium price adjusts the pre-federal income tax NPV by just over $18 million and the post-federal tax NPV by just over $15 million. A $5.00 per pound increase in uranium price adjusts the pre-tax and post-tax IRR by approximately 3 percent.

Assuming an 8 percent discount rate and a constant uranium price of $87.00 per pound of U3O8, CAPEX and OPEX costs were varied in both the pre- and post-federal income tax cashflow models to evaluate effects on NPV. Figure 25.3 shows effects of variable OPEX and CAPEX costs on the pre-federal tax NPV. Figure 25.4 shows post-federal tax NPV changes with respect to variable CAPEX and OPEX costs. The evaluation demonstrates the NPV and IRR is sensitive to changes in both CAPEX and OPEX costs. A 5 percent change in CAPEX and OPEX costs can impact the NPV by approximately $5.6 million and $2.6 million in the pretax cashflow model, respectively. The IRR is also affected by changes in CAPEX and OPEX costs. A 5 percent change in OPEX costs adjusts the IRR by approximately 2 percent in the pre-tax cashflow model. The IRR change with respect to CAPEX cost changes is less linear and a 5 percent decrease in the CAPEX increases the IRR by approximately 7.5 percent while a 5 percent increase in the CAPEX cost decreases the IRR by approximately 8.2 percent in the pre-tax cashflow model.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 101

Figure 25.3. Pre-Federal Income Tax NPV Sensitivity CAPEX and OPEX

Figure 25.4. Post-Federal Income Tax NPV Sensitivity CAPEX and OPEX

A 5 percent change in the OPEX and CAPEX costs can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $3.0 million and $5.7 million in both the pre- and post-tax cashflow models, respectively. The IRR is also affected by changes in OPEX and CAPEX costs. The

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 102

changes in IRR are not linear. A 5 percent change in the OPEX costs adjusts the IRR between 0.51 and 0.55 percent in both the pre- and post-tax cashflow models. The IRR change with respect to CAPEX cost adjustments is more non-linear and a 5 percent change in the CAPEX adjusts the IRR from 1.7 percent to 3.7 percent in both the pre- and post-tax cashflow models.

25.3	Risk Assessment
25.3.1	Resource and Recovery
---	---

It should be noted that recovery is based on both site-specific laboratory recovery data as well as the experience of enCore personnel and other industry experts at similar facilities. This Report is preliminary in nature and includes mineral resources which may not be recoverable at the rates indicated herein.

This Report is based on the assumptions and information presented herein. The QPs can provide no assurance that recovery of the resources presented herein will be achieved. Bench-scale tests have been performed on various core samples from the Project, as discussed in Section 13.0. The most significant potential risks to meeting the production results presented in this Report will be associated with the success of the wellfield operation and recovery of uranium from the targeted host sands. The estimated quantity of recovered uranium used in this Report is based primarily on the recovery data from site-specific, bench-scale testing of mineralized samples. The recovery factor of 80 percent, used herein, is relatively typical of industry experience for wellfield recovery. A potential problem that could occur in the wellfield recovery process is unknown or variable geochemical conditions resulting in uranium recovery rates from the mineralized zones that are significantly different from previous bench-scale tests.

This Report assumes acid consumption rates will average 55 lb/ton based on bottle roll tests discussed in Section 13.0. If actual acid consumption rates are higher than 55 lb/ton, this could negatively affect project economics.

This Report assumes an average headgrade of 97 ppm. If the average headgrade is less than 97 ppm, flowrates would have to be increased by bringing on additional patterns, header houses or mine units as necessary. In addition, the mining period will have to be extended in each wellfield to account for slower recovery rates. This scenario will increase both OPEX and CAPEX costs. To partially account for this potential risk, the CPP has extra capacity to accept higher flows which will help in the event headgrades are lower than anticipated.

This Report assumes three pore volumes of groundwater will be extracted and treated by reverse osmosis during restoration of the wellfields. There is a risk that more than three pore volumes of treatment will be required during restoration which may increase aquifer restoration costs.

The hydrologic conditions in the South Black Mountain area and Jeep area are largely unknown. There is a risk that unknown conditions such as faults, low hydraulic conductivities, or lower than anticipated water levels could limit ISR mining in these

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 103

areas. Additional hydraulic studies in these areas would help minimize the potential risk of unknown conditions in these areas.

Faults, such as the Sagebrush fault identified within the Central Unit, have been noted adjacent to some of the resources included in this Report. There is the potential that inconsistent aquifer conditions near these features may limit recovery of the resources immediately adjacent to the faults.

Other potential concerns are reduced hydraulic conductivity in the formation due to chemical precipitation during production, lower natural hydraulic conductivities than estimated, high flare and/or recovery of significant amounts of groundwater, the need for additional injection wells to increase uranium recovery rates, variability in the uranium concentration in the host sands and discontinuity of the mineralized zone confining layers. The risks associated with these potential issues can be minimized to the extent possible by extensive delineation and hydraulic studies of the site which will occur during wellfield development.

The historic drill holes discussed in Section 16.2.2 present a small risk of connection between the mineralized aquifer and the underlying aquifer. There is a possibility an additional aquifer may overlie the ore bearing aquifer within the South Black Mountain area. It was assumed for the purposes of this Report there is no overlying aquifer to protect at South Black Mountain. In the event further analysis demonstrates there is an overlying aquifer, there is a risk that open boreholes could allow water to migrate into the overlying aquifer. This risk will be evaluated through the required aquifer pump tests that would likely show the presence of any excursion pathway when permitting mine units. Any historic boreholes that present a problem would need to be located and abandoned or mining operations will need to be modified to ensure overlying or underlying aquifers are not impacted. No costs for borehole abandonment were included in this Report.

The resources in the South Black Mountain area are significantly deeper than the resources in the other three areas. While the average well depth used for this Report factored in the deeper South Black Mountain wells, there will be a noticeable increase in wellfield costs for recovery of the South Black Mountain resources as compared to the other areas.

Some of the resources are near historic open pits where previous mining has occurred. The steep terrain presented by these open pits may be problematic for installation of perimeter monitor wells and wellfield patterns which may potentially limit resources that can be placed under pattern.

The pipelines that connect the resource areas to the CPP must cross land that is not controlled by enCore, there is risk that this will result in additional costs to analyze and acquire permits. Pipeline lengths in this analysis assume the pipelines will be relatively straight. Right of way negotiations may result in longer pipeline lengths which could increase the pipeline costs.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 104

Adequate disposal capacity for wastewater is always a risk when planning a uranium ISR facility. However, Cameco has applied for and obtained permit authorization from WDEQ to install deep disposal wells associated with their Gas Hills ISR Project (WDEQ, 2014). Cameco’s authorization allows for installation of up to three DDW’s which are located between 0.25 and 5.00 miles of the Central Unit. The wells are authorized for a maximum flow rate of 150 gallons per minute. Assuming actual disposal capacities compare favorably with the capacities estimated in the Cameco’s permit, DDW capacity will not be considered a risk to Project economics.

25.3.2	Markets and Contracts

The marketability of uranium and acceptance of uranium mining are subject to numerous factors beyond the control of enCore. History has shown that the price of uranium can experience volatile and significant price movements over short periods of time. Factors known to affect the market and the price of uranium include economic viability of nuclear power; political and economic conditions in uranium mining, producing and consuming countries; costs; interest rates, inflation and currency exchange fluctuations; governmental regulations; availability of financing of nuclear plants, reprocessing of spent fuel and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails or waste; sales of excess civilian and military inventories (including from the dismantling of nuclear weapons) by governments and industry participants; production levels and costs of production in certain geographical areas such as Asia, Africa and Australia; and changes in public acceptance of nuclear power generation as a result of any future accidents or terrorism at nuclear facilities.

Unlike other commodities, uranium does not trade on an open market. Contracts are negotiated privately by buyers and sellers. Changes in the price of uranium can have a significant impact on the economic performance of the Project. As discussed in Section 25.2, a $5.00 change in the spot commodity price results in a $20 million change to the pre-federal tax NPV at a discount rate of 8 percent. This Report assumes U3O8 production is sold at $87.00 per pound for the life of the Project. This price is based on a combination of projections from expert market analysts at institutions as noted in Section 19.0. There is a risk that uranium prices will be lower than the market analysts predict which would negatively affect the economics of this project.

25.3.3	Operations

Some operational risks such as reagents, power, labor and/or material cost fluctuations due to inflation, increasing demand, decreasing supply, or other market forces exist and could impact the OPEX and Project economic performance. These potential risks are generally considered to be addressable either though wellfield modifications or plant optimization.

Bonding costs and required collateral have been estimated in this Report based on costs encountered by other companies on reasonably sound financial footing. Bonding costs and/or collateral required as part of the bonding effort may increase for a number of reasons including poor performance in the future by enCore; uncertainty in market

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 105

conditions; volatility in uranium prices; and changes in bonding practices implemented by the regulatory authorities.

ISR mining is occurring at other ISR facilities in Wyoming and Texas. The process does not use any unusual methods and the reagents for the process are readily available from regional sources. Initial process optimization will be required to minimize the use of reagents, minimize loss of product and ensure proper product quality.

Health and safety programs will be implemented to control the risk of on-site and off-site exposures to uranium, operational incidents and/or process chemicals. Standard industry practices exist for this type of operation and novel approaches to risk control and management will not be required.

This analysis minimizes fixed operational costs by assuming a relatively short duration and constant production rate. If the production rate is lower than estimated in this Report, the OPEX costs will be increased.

Minimal wellfield design or layout has been completed for this project. Wellfield costs have been estimated based on similar projects. There is a chance that wellfield costs could vary due to well spacing, monitor well location constraints or other factors not yet considered. As this project advances, increasingly detailed wellfield design will improve wellfield cost estimates.

The CPP location, DDW location, pipeline alignments and other facilities have been placed on the map for pre-planning purposes. No engineering studies or right-of-way agreements have been completed to ensure that the locations are adequate. Costs are based on costs encountered at other sites and do not consider unique conditions at the Project. Additional design will be required to verify the costs presented in this Report.

CPP construction costs have been estimated primarily by utilizing previous cost estimates at the Dewey-Burdock facility. Since the costs were developed, the United States has experienced much higher than normal inflation. Official inflationary rate factors developed by the Federal government were applied to develop cost estimates. However, there is a risk that inflationary pressures specific to the uranium ISR industry may vary from national averages resulting in higher costs.

25.3.4	Permitting

The WDEQ-LQD and BLM will be the key regulatory authorities of the Project. This Report assumes the project will be permitted with low pH recovery, which is typical of mining operations around the world, including the United States, where uranium ISR mines have operated using low pH lixiviant since the early 1960’s. In 2019, Peninsula Energy, Ltd. amended the Ross ISR Project source and byproduct license along with Permit to Mine No. 802 to include low pH recovery. This has provided the WDEQ-LQD with familiarity and comfort level with low pH recovery methods as a recovery option. Low pH field test operations were initiated at the Ross ISR Project in 2018 (Peninsula Energy, 2019). Established uranium ISR using low pH recovery methods in the state of

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 106

Wyoming minimizes the risk that low pH recovery will require significant additional regulatory expense.

A large portion of the Project lies on BLM managed surface. Any development on federal land of this magnitude will require an approved plan of operations from the BLM and associated NEPA analysis. The BLM will be the primary lead federal agency for the NEPA analysis. This Report assumes that the BLM will require only an EA level of impact analysis in support of the approval process. However, there is a possibility that the BLM may require a more robust EIS. If the BLM evaluation requires the more robust EIS level of analysis, the pre-production permitting costs increase. Development of an EIS may increase the review and approval time as well though this cost was not addressed herein.

Certain areas of the Project are located immediately adjacent to areas designated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as a core sage grouse habitat. The West Unit and Central Unit lie wholly outside of the sage grouse core area whereas portions of Jeep and South Black Mountain lie within the sage grouse core area (Wyoming Game and Fish, 2024). The regulatory agencies may place stipulations or limitations on the portions of the Project that are within the sage grouse core area. The limitations may result in timing stipulations associated with some surface disturbance. Timing stipulations have the potential to increase OPEX costs.

25.3.5	Social and/or Political

As with any uranium project in the USA, there will undoubtedly be some social/political/environmental opposition to development of the Project. The Gas Hills is relatively remote and there are no residences within the immediate vicinity of the project. As such, there are very few people that could be directly impacted by the Project. In addition, the Gas Hills is the site of extensive historical uranium mining with significant long-term impacts. Wyoming is known to be friendly to mining which will help with permitting. The relative success of other similar ISR projects to obtain permits to operate in Wyoming indicates that, while it is ever present, social, political, or environmental opposition to the Project is not likely to be a major risk.

The Federal income taxes estimated in this analysis are based on tax codes and rates in 2024. The federal tax code is subject to change. Changes in the tax code could negatively affect the project economics.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 107
26.0	RECOMMENDATIONS
---	---

The QPs find the Project is potentially viable based on the assumptions contained herein. The Project is located in an area of extensive historical mining and the scale and quality of the ISR mineral resources indicate favorable conditions for future extraction from the Project. There is no certainty that the mineral recovery or the economic analyses presented in this Report will be realized. In order to realize the full potential benefits described in this Report, the following activities are recommended, at a minimum.

•	Complete all activities required to obtain necessary licenses and permits required to operate an in-situ uranium mine in the Gas Hills of Wyoming. The approximate cost for this is $2.5 million and is included in the cash flow statement as a regulatory cost.
•	Confirm hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for ISR operations within the Jeep and South Black Mountain Units.<br>Aquifer testing at Jeep and South Black Mountain has been included in the regulatory costs above since this work would be necessary for mine planning purposes in addition to supporting licensing.
---	---
•	Complete additional metallurgical testing to further verify and confirm the headgrade, estimated acid usage, lixiviant<br>composition, and overall resource recovery used in this analysis is appropriate. This work should also evaluate and help identify approaches to avoid potential operational issues such as gypsum precipitation and restorability of the groundwater.<br>Estimated costs for this work is $300,000.
---	---
•	Due to the lack of current data on alternative lixiviants and consistent with enCore’s significant experience<br>utilizing alkaline based lixiviants at their projects, the Authors recommend completing additional metallurgical studies and leach testing utilizing an alkaline based lixiviant. This work could be included with the other metallurgical testing<br>conducted to verify acid usage.
---	---
•	As an alternative to constructing a full CPP at the site, enCore may consider a satellite IX plant at the Project and<br>develop toll milling agreements with a processing facility to process loaded resin. Costs to develop agreements would be minimal and the cost of toll milling would be determined as part of the confidential agreement.
---	---
•	Advance wellfield design to verify the assumptions included herein are appropriate and that all the pounds in this<br>Report can be put under pattern. Approximate cost for the first stage of this would be $25,000. Subsequent stages of design would tier off the results of the initial stage of design.
---	---
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 108
---	---
•	Advance the CPP, pipeline, containment pond, and deep disposal well designs to permit level designs. Approximate cost<br>for permit level designs and details are estimated at $200,000.
---	---
•	Develop agreements for pipeline<br>right-of-ways. Costs may vary depending on specific ownership and agreements but are initially estimated at $25,000.
---	---
•	With favorable market conditions, conduct additional exploratory drilling to evaluate not fully explored mineral<br>trends throughout the Project area. Approximate costs for a moderately scaled exploration drilling program are estimated at $200,000 and could be combined with a core drilling program to support additional metallurgical testing.<br>
---	---
Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 109
---	---
27.0	REFERENCES
---	---

American Nuclear Corporation, 1985, Gas Hills Mineral Inventory Report as of January 1, 1984, 422p, 2 plates (claim location map), February 5, 1985.

Anonymous, 1979, Gas Hills Uranium District, Day Loma/ROX claims, Exploration Progress Report, June 1979, 33 p.

Armstrong, F.C., 1970, Geologic factors controlling uranium resources in the Gas Hills district, Wyoming: Wyoming Geol. Assoc. 22^nd^ Annual Field Conf. Guidebook, p. 31-44.

Beahm, Douglas L. (BRS), 2017, Amended and Restated Gas Hills Uranium Project Mineral Resource and Exploration Target NI 43-101 Technical Report Fremont and Natrona Counties Wyoming, USA, June 9, 2017.

Cameco, 2023: Reserves & Resources as of December 31, 2023. Available on the internet as of January 2025 https://www.cameco.com/sites/default/files/documents/2023-mineral-reserves-and-resources.pdf

Carbon Credits.com, 2025 Uranium Outlook: Will this Critical Commodity Endure its Golden Glow? Article prepared by Saptakee S. January 3,2025. https://carboncredits.com/2025-uranium-outlook-will-this-critical-commodity-endure-its-golden-glow/

Century Geophysical Corporation, 1975, Jerry West, Uranium Logging Techniques, Logging Operator’s Manual Section III-A, August 26, 1975.

Century Wireline Services, 2017, Uranium Logging Technique Brochure.

CPI, 2024, Consumer price Index Data, online database accessed at https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/, available online as of January 2025.

Dames & Moore, 1976, Evaluation of four uranium claim groups in Wyoming for Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation: unpublished report, 39 p. plus appendices, Denver, Colorado.

David Robinson & Associates, Inc., 1979, Estimate of uranium reserves, Day Loma and Rox claims for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Sept 11, 1979, 13 p., 3 maps.

Davis, J.F., 1969, Uranium Deposits of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming Uranium Issue, Contr. Geology, v. 8, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 131-141.

De Voto, R.H., 1978, Uranium Geology and Exploration, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 400 p.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 110

Dodd, P. H., Droullard, R.F., and Lathan, C. P., 1967, Borehole Logging Methods for Exploration and Evaluation of Uranium deposits, US Atomic Energy Commission, Grand Junction, Colorado, in Mining and Groundwater Geophysics, p. 401-415.

Energy Fuels, Inc., 1978, Geology and ore reserve calculations of the Gas Hills properties, Wyoming: 50p., 10 plates, June 2, 1978.

Energy Fuels, Inc., 1979, Gas Hills Uranium District, Day Loma/ROX claims, Exploration Progress Report, 100 p., 15 plates (drill hole and resource estimate maps), June 1979.

Fred, 2024 Fred Online Economic Data, Online database located at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF Accessed December 16, 2024.

Granger, H.C. and Warren, C.G., 1974, Zoning in the altered tongue associated with roll-type uranium deposits: International Atomic Energy Agency, Symposium uranium ore deposits, Athens, May 6-10, 1974.

Granger, H.C. and Warren, C.G., 1978, Some speculations on the genetic geochemistry and hydrology of roll-type uranium deposits: Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Guidebook, p. 341-361.

Graves, D.H and Cutler, 2019 S, NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment Dewey-Burdock Uranium ISR Project South Dakota, USA, Prepared for Azarga Uranium, Effective Date December 3, 2019, Report Date January 17, 2020.

Gregory, R.W., 2019, Uranium Geology and Resources of the Gas Hills District, Wind River Basin, Central Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey Public Information Circular No. 47, 31 p.

Harshman, E.N., 1962, Alteration as a guide to uranium ore, Shirley Basin, Wyoming, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 450-D, Article 122, p. D8-D10.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 2013, Appendix D6 Hydrogeology, from Strathmore Resources (USA) Ltd. Gas Hills Uranium Miner Permit Application, prepared for Strathmore Resources Ltd., August 2013.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 2018, Analysis of the Wind River Aquifer Water-Level Elevations in the Gas Hills, prepared for UColo Exploration Corp., April 2018.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 2018, Aquifer Analysis of the Wind River Aquifer Hydraulic Properties in the Gas Hills, prepared for UColo Exploration Corp., June 2018.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 2021, Modeling of the Potential ISR Mining at the George-Ver Mining Area, prepared for Azarga Uranium Corp., March 2021.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 111

King, J.W. and Austin S.R, 1966, Some characteristics of roll-type uranium deposits at Gas Hills, Wyoming: Mining Engineers, no. 5, p.73-80.

McKay, A. D., Stoker, K. F., Bampton, K. F., Lambert, I. B., 2007, Resource estimates for In Situ Leach Uranium and Reporting Under the JORC Code, Bulletin, December 2007.

Lyntek, 2013 “Preliminary Metallurgical Testing Summary, Agitation Test Work – Report 1, Uranium Heap Leach, Gas Hills Project” prepared for Strathmore Minerals Corp.

Lyntek, 2013 “Preliminary Metallurgical Test Summary, Winter 2011, Column Leach Report” prepared for Strathmore Minerals Corp.

Lyntek, 2013 “Preliminary Metallurgical Test Summary – Summer 2012, Column Leach Test Report III, Uranium Heap Leach Gas Hills Project” prepared for Strathmore Minerals Corp.

Lyntek and Alexander, B., 2013, “Gas Hills Uranium Recovery Project, Metallurgical Investigations, Ion Exchange Testing” prepared for Strathmore Minerals Corp.

Michel, Tom, 2021 Gas Hills ISR Mining Potential, Internal Technical Memorandum prepared for Azarga, March 24, 2021.

Peninsula Energy, ltd, 2019, Successful Mining Phase Outcomes from Low pH Field Demonstration, Company Announcement, Available online at https://www.pel.net.au/projects/lance-projects-wyoming/project-updates/ , April 1 2019.

Roughstock and WWC, 2021, NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA. August 2021.

Seeland, D.A., 1978, Sedimentologic and Structural Controls of Uranium Deposits in the Tertiary Basins of Wyoming, Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Grand Junction, Colorado, p. 99, February 1978.

Sprott, 2024. Uranium Markets Impacted by Market Signals and Uncertainty, article prepared by Jacob White. December 13, 2024. https://sprott.com/insights/uranium-markets-impacted-by-market-signals-and-uncertainty/

Sprott, 2025. Interview with Sprott CEO John Ciampaglia, January 28, 2025. https://sprott.com/insights/uranium-outlook-for-2025/

Snow, C.D., 1978, Gas Hills uranium district, Wyoming—A review of history and production: 30^th^ Annual Conf., Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Guidebook p. 329-333.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 112

Soister, P.E., 1968, Stratigraphy of the Wind River Formation in south-central Wind River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 594-A, 50 p.

Strathmore Resources Ltd. (Strathmore), 2013. Strathmore Gas Hills Project Permit to Mine Appendix D-5 Geology.

Trade Tech, 2023. 4th Quarter 2023 Market Outlook Report. Proprietary Report Paid for and Acquired by Encore, https://www.uranium.info/uranium_market.php

US Climate Data, 2021: Casper Wyoming Climate Data. Available on the internet as of June 20211 https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/casper/wyoming/united-states/uswy0030.

Van Houten, F.B., 1964, Tertiary Geology of the Beaver Rim Area, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming: U.S.G.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1164, 99 p. ill., maps, United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Woolery, R.G., Ramachandran, S., Hansen, D.J., and Weber, J.A., 1978, Heap Leaching of Uranium: A Case Study, Mining Engineering Journal, New York, v. 30(3), p. 285-290.

World Population Review, 2024, online population database located at https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/, accessed November 23, 2024.

WWC Engineering, 2022, 2022 Definitive Feasibility Study of Ross and Kendrick Areas at Lance, Prepared for Strata Energy (a wholly owned subsidiary of Peninsula Energy Limited). Completion date March 11, 2024; Effective Date December 31, 2023.

WWC Engineering, 2024 Amended Preliminary Assessment Shirley Basin Uranium Project Carbon County, Wyoming, USA, Prepared for Ur Energy Effective date December 31, 2023.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2014, Class 1 Injection Well Authorization Permit # 13-262 (UIC Facility number WYS-013-00116), issued February 5, 2014 to Cameco Resources (Gas Hills ISR Facility).

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2024, Interactive Sage grouse GIS map, https://wgfd.wyo.gov/wyoming-wildlife/sage-grouse-management/sage-grouse-data. accessed January, 2025.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 113

APPENDIX A:

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSONS

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 114

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties,

Wyoming, USA

I, Christopher McDowell, Wyoming Professional Geologist, of 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, do hereby certify that:

I have been retained by enCore Energy Corp., 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX 78401, to prepare and supervise the preparation of the documentation for the foregoing report “Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA” with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “Report”) to which this Certificate applies.

I am currently employed by WWC Engineering, 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, USA, as a Professional Geologist.

I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in August 2016 and a Master of Business Administration degree in August 2022 both from the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming.

I am a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming in good standing, license number 4135. I am a licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Texas in good standing, license number 15284. I am a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. My Registration Number is 4311521 and I am in good standing.

I have worked as a geologist for 9 years in natural resources extraction.

I have 9 years direct experience with uranium exploration, resource analysis, uranium ISR project development, project feasibility, permitting, and licensing. My relevant experience for the purposes of the Gas Hills Uranium Project includes roles as a geologist and project manager at WWC Engineering. My project experience includes, but is not limited to, preparing or assisting in the preparation of the NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Resources of the Moore Ranch Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, USA, April 30, 2019, the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Gas Hills Uranium Project Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA August 10, 2021, the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Shirley Basin ISR Uranium Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, USA, March 7, 2022 and March 11, 2024, the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Lost Creek Uranium Property Sweetwater County, Wyoming, USA March 7, 2022 and March 4, 2024, and acting as QP on the NI 43-101 Technical Report Kaycee Uranium Project Johnson County, WY USA dated September 6 2024.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 115

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration, and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person”.

I visited the Gas Hills Uranium Project on May 24, 2021.

I am responsible for the preparation and/or supervision of the preparation of responsible for development of sections 1-15 and 23-27 of this Report.

I am independent of enCore Energy Corp. as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

I have read NI 43-101 and certify that this Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101.

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, at the effective date of the Technical Report, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

Dated this 4^th^ day of February 2025

Signed and Sealed:

/s/ ChristopherMcDowell

Christopher McDowell, P.G.

SME Registered Member, Registration Number 4311521

Professional Geologist, Texas No. 15284

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 116

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON

Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties,

Wyoming, USA

I, Ray B. Moores, Wyoming Professional Engineer, of 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, do hereby certify that:

I have been retained by enCore Energy Corp., 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX 78401, to prepare and supervise the preparation of the documentation for the foregoing report “Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA” with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (the “Report”) to which this Certificate applies.

I am currently employed by WWC Engineering, 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming, USA, as a Civil Engineer/Project Manager.

I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering in December 2000 and a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering in May 2002 from the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming.

I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Wyoming. My registration number is 10702 and I am a member in good standing.

I have worked as an engineer for 22 years primarily in support of natural resources extraction.

I have 16 years of direct experience with ISR uranium mining, permitting, groundwater modeling, and mine infrastructure design and construction. My relevant experience for the purposes of the Gas Hills Uranium Project includes development of a groundwater model for Strata Energy’s Ross ISR Uranium Project, which included wellfield scale simulations, well spacing evaluations, and restoration evaluations; providing technical assistance for a number of ISR uranium mine projects in Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas and New Mexico, which included aquifer analyses, ISR mining amenability evaluations, and infrastructure evaluations in support of due diligence studies; permit preparer for Strata Energy’s Ross ISR Uranium Project; providing engineering design, cost estimates, and project management for a number of dams, diversions, evaporation ponds, and other infrastructure associated with Wyoming coal mines and oil and gas projects; preparation of socioeconomic impact analyses for new coal mining projects in Wyoming and West Virginia, qualified person on the NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment of Anatolia Energy’s Temrezli ISR Project in Yozgat, Turkey; qualified person on NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Shirley Basin Uranium Project in Carbon County Wyoming, dated January 27, 2015; qualified person on NI 43-101, Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, WY, dated June 28, 2021, qualified person on NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment Lost Creek ISR Uranium Property, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, USA dated March 4, 2024, and qualified person on NI 43-101 Amended Preliminary Economic Assessment Shirley Basin ISR Uranium Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, USA dated March 11, 2024.

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 117

I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 and certify that by reason of my education, professional registration, and relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for those purposes.

I visited the Gas Hills Uranium Project on May 24, 2021.

I am responsible for the preparation and/or supervision of sections 1-5, 16-22, and 24-27 of this Report

I am independent of enCore Energy Corp. as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

I have read NI 43-101 and certify that this Report has been prepared in compliance therewith.

To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, at the effective date of this Report, December 31, 2024, the Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Report not misleading.

Dated this 4^th^ day of February 2025

Signed and Sealed:

/s/ Ray B.Moores

Ray B. Moores, P.E.,

Professional Engineer, Wyoming No. 10702

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 118

APPENDIX B:

LIST OF LODE CLAIMS AND STATE LEASES

Gas Hills Uranium Project Technical Report – February 2025	Page 119

EX-96.3

Exhibit 96.3

Alta Mesa Uranium Project

BrooksCounty, Texas, USA

S-K 1300

Technical Report Summary

Effective Date: December 31, 2024

Report Date: February 19, 2025

Prepared for enCore Energy Corporation by:

Table of Contents

1.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	3
1.1 Property Description and Ownership	3
1.2 Geology and Mineralization	3
1.3 Exploration Status	4
1.4 Development and Operations	4
1.5 Mineral Resource Estimates	5
1.6 Summary Capital and Operating Cost Estimates	5
1.7 Permitting Requirements	6
1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations	6
2.0  INTRODUCTION	8
2.1 Registrant	8
2.2 Terms of Reference and Purpose	8
2.3 Information and Data Sources	8
2.4 QP Site Inspection	8
3.0  PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	9
3.1 Description and Location	9
3.2 Mineral Titles	9
3.3 Mineral Rights	9
3.3.1 Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease	9
3.3.2 Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement	10
3.4 Surface Rights	11
3.5 Encumbrances	11
3.5.1 Legacy Issues	11
3.5.2 Permitting and Licensing	12
3.6 Other Significant Factors and Risks	12
4.0  ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	16
4.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation	16
4.2 Access	17
4.3 Climate	17
4.4 Infrastructure	18
5.0  HISTORY	19
---	---
5.1 Ownership	19
5.2 Previous Operations and Work	19
6.0  GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT	21
6.1 Regional Geology	21
6.1.1 Surface Geology	21
6.1.2 Subsurface Geology	21
6.2 Local and Property Geology	22
6.2.1 Surface Geology	22
6.2.2 Subsurface Geology	22
6.3 Stratigraphy	23
6.3.1 Goliad Formation	23
6.3.2 Oakville Formation	24
6.3.3 Catahoula Formation	24
6.3.4 Jackson Group	24
6.4 Significant Mineralized Zones	31
6.4.1 Mineralization	31
6.5 Relevant Geologic Controls	31
6.6 Deposit Type	32
7.0  EXPLORATION	33
7.1 Drilling	33
7.2 Drilling Type and Procedures	33
7.3 Past Exploration	33
7.4 Accuracy and Reliability	36
8.0  SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY	37
8.1 Sample Methods	37
8.1.1 Downhole Geophysical Data	37
8.1.1.1 PFN Calibration	37
8.1.1.2 Disequilibrium	38
8.1.2 Drill Cuttings	39
8.1.3 Core Samples	39
8.2 Laboratory Analysis	39
8.3 Opinion on Adequacy	40
---	---
9.0  DATA VERIFICATION	41
9.1 Data Confirmation	41
9.2 Limitations	41
9.3 Data Adequacy	41
10.0  MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	42
11.0  MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	43
11.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters and Methods	43
11.1.1 Key Assumptions	43
11.1.2 Key Parameters	43
11.1.3 Key Methods	44
11.2 Resource Classification	44
11.2.1 Measured Mineral Resources	44
11.2.2 Indicated Mineral Resources	44
11.2.3 Inferred Mineral Resources	45
11.3 Mineral Resource Estimates	45
11.4 Material Affects to Mineral Resources	45
12.0  MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	46
13.0  MINING METHODS	47
13.1 Mine Designs and Plans	47
13.1.1 Patterns, Wellfields and Mine Units	47
13.1.2 Monitoring Wells	48
13.1.3 Wellfield Surface Piping System and Header Houses	48
13.1.4 Wellfield Production	48
13.1.5 Production Rates and Expected Mine Life	48
13.2 Mine Development	49
13.3 Mining Fleet and Machinery	50
14.0  PROCESS AND RECOVERY METHODS	52
14.1 Processing Facilities	52
14.2 Process Flow	52
14.2.1 Ion Exchange	52
14.2.2 Production Bleed	52
14.2.3 Elution Circuit	53
---	---
14.2.4 Precipitation Circuit	56
14.2.5 Product Filtering, Drying and Packaging	56
14.3 Water Balance	56
14.4 Liquid Waste Disposal	56
14.5 Solid Waste Disposal	57
14.6 Energy, Water and Process Material Requirements	57
14.6.1 Energy Requirements	57
14.6.2 Water Requirements	57
15.0  INFRASTRUCTURE	58
15.1 Utilities	58
15.1.1 Electrical Power	58
15.1.2 Domestic and Utility Water Wells	58
15.1.3 Sanitary Sewer	58
15.2 Transportation	58
15.2.1 Roads	58
15.3 Buildings	58
15.3.1 Central Processing Plant	58
15.3.2 Office	59
15.3.3 Maintenance Shop and Warehouse	59
15.3.4 Diesel and Gasoline Storage	59
15.3.5 Laboratory	59
15.3.6 Geophysical Logging Facility	59
16.0  MARKET STUDIES	61
16.1 Uranium Market	61
16.2 Uranium Price Projection	61
16.3 Contracts	61
17.0  ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL<br>INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS	62
17. 1 Environmental Studies	62
17.1.1 Potential Wellfield Impacts	62
17.1.2 Potential Soil Impacts	63
17.1.3 Potential Impacts from Shipping Resin, Yellowcake and 11.e.(2) Materials	64
---	---
17.1.3.1 Ion Exchange Resin Shipment	64
17.1.3.2 Yellowcake Shipment	65
17.1.3.3 11. e.(2) Shipment	65
17.2 Socioeconomic Studies and Issues	65
17.3 Permitting Requirements and Status	66
17.4 Community Affairs	67
17.5 Project Closure	67
17.5.1 Byproduct Disposal	68
17.5.2 Well Abandonment and Groundwater Restoration	68
17.5.3 Demolition and Removal of Infrastructure	69
17.5.4 Reclamation	69
17.6 Financial Assurance	69
17.7 Adequacy of Mitigation Plans	69
18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	70
18.1 Capital Cost Estimates	70
18.2 Operating Cost Estimates	72
18.3 Cost Accuracy	72
19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	75
19.1 Economic analysis	75
19.2 Taxes, Royalties and Other Interests	78
19.2.1 Federal Income Tax	78
19.2.2 State Income Tax	78
19.2.3 Production Taxes	78
19.2.4 Royalties	78
19.3 Sensitivity Analysis	79
19.3.1 NPV v. Uranium Price	79
19.3.2 NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost	79
20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES	81
21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	82
21.1 Other Relevant Items	82
22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	83
22.1 Risk Assessment	83
---	---
22.2 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves	83
22.3 Uranium Recovery and Processing	83
22.4 Permitting and Licensing Delays	84
22.5 Social and/or Political	84
23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS	85
24.0 REFERENCES	86
25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT	89
26.0 DATE, SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION	90

Tables

Table 1.1: Mineral Resources Summary	5
Table 1.2: Drilling Costs	7
Table 3.1: Amended Uranium Solution Mining Lease Royalties	10
Table 3.2: Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement Royalties	11
Table 3.3: Decommissioning Cost Summary	12
Table 7.1: Alta Mesa Project Drill Holes	33
Table 10.1: Alta Mesa Historic Production	42
Table 11.1: Summary of Mineral Resource Estimates	45
Table 17.1: Permitting Status	67
Table 18.1: Major Capital Components	70
Table 18.2: Capital Cost Forecast by Year	71
Table 18.3: Operating Cost Components	73
Table 18.4: Operating Cost Forecast by Year	74
Table 19.1: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Exclusion of Federal Income Tax	76
Table 19.2: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Inclusion of Federal Income Tax	77
Table 19.3: Alta Mesa 2024 Property Tax Information	78
Table 23.1: Drilling Costs	85
Table 25.1: Reliance on Other Experts	89

Figures

Figure 3.1: Project Location Map	13
Figure 3.2: Alta Mesa Mineral Ownership	14
Figure 3.3: Surface Use Agreements	15
Figure 4.1: Topography of the South Texas Uranium Province	17
Figure 6.1: Geologic Map	26
Figure 6.2: Generalized Cross Section	27
Figure 6.3: Stratigraphic Column	28
Figure 6.4: Detailed Cross Section	29
Figure 6.5: Type Log	30
Figure 6.6: Idealized Cross Section of a Sandstone Hosted Uranium Roll-Front Deposit	32
Figure 7.1: Drill Hole Locations	35
Figure 8.1: PFN Tool Calibration	38
Figure 8.2: Disequilibrium Graph Natural Gamma vs PFN Grade	39
Figure 13.1: Production Forecast Model	49
Figure 13.2: Alta Mesa Mine	51
Figure 14.1: CPP Process Flow Diagram	54
Figure 14.2: CPP General Arrangement	55
Figure 15.1: Project Infrastructure	60
Figure 19.1: NPV v. Uranium Price	79
Figure 19.2: NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost	80

Units of Measure and Abbreviations

Avg	Average
°	Degrees
ft	Feet
°F	Fahrenheit
g/L	Grams per liter
GT	Mineralization Grade times (x) Mineralization Thickness
gpm	Gallons per minute
kWh	Kilo Watt Hour
Lbs	Pounds
M	Million
Ma	One Million Years
mg/l	Milligrams per liter
Mi	Mile
ml	Milliliter
MBTUH	Million British Thermal Units per Hour
U3O8	Chemical formula used to express natural form of uranium
eU3O8	Radiometric equivalent U3O8 measured by a calibrated total gamma downhole probe
pCi/L	Picocuries per liter of air
pH	Potential of hydrogen
ppm	Parts per Million
%	Percent
+/-	Plus, or Minus
USD	United States Dollar

Definitions and Abbreviations

Alta Mesa	Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas
BRS	BRS Engineering
CIM	Canadian Institute of Mining
Cogema	Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires
CO	County
CPP	Central Processing Plant
D&D	Decontamination and Decommissioning
DDW	Deep Disposal Well
DEF	Disequilibrium Factor
ELI	Energy Laboratories Incorporated
enCore	enCore Energy Corporation
Energy Fuels	Energy Fuels Resources Incorporated
Energy Metals	Energy Metals Corporation
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
FC	Flood Control
FM	Farm to Market
GEIS	Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Goliad	Goliad Formation
FSEIS	Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
ISD	Independent School District
ISR	In Situ Recovery
IX	Ion Exchange
LLC	Limited Liability Company
LOM	Life of Mine
MBTUH	Million British Thermal Units per Hour
MCL	Maximum Contaminant Level
MSL	Mean Sea Level
Mesteña	Mesteña Uranium Limited Liability Company
NI 43-101	National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects
NI 43-101F1	Form 43-101 Technical Report Table of Contents
---	---
NPV	Net Present Value
NRC	Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PAA	Production Area Authorization
PFN	Prompt Fission Neutron
Project	Alta Mesa ISR Project
PV	Pore volume
QP	Qualified Person
RIX	Remote Ion Exchange
RO	Reverse Osmosis
SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
S-K 1300	United States Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements for mineral resources or mineral reserves, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
TCEQ	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDH	Texas Department of Health
Total Minerals	Total Minerals Incorporated
TSX	Toronto Stock Exchange
U	Uranium
URI	Uranium Resources Incorporated
US	United States
USDW	Underground Source of Drinking Water
USGS	United States Geological Survey
11.e.(2)	Tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium from processed ore
1.0	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
---	---

1.1 Property Description and Ownership

The Project is an advanced-stage ISR uranium mining project located in south Texas. The Project lies within the southern part of the South Texas Uranium Province. Uranium deposits in the South Texas Uranium Province extend from Starr County at the international border with Mexico northeastward through Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, Kleberg, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Atascosa, Karnes, Wilson, Goliad, and Gonzales counties.

The Project is located entirely within private land holdings of the Jones Ranch. The Jones Ranch is an approximately 380,000-acre ranch that was founded in 1897, and enCore controls over 200,000 of the 380,000 acres with mineral leases and options for uranium exploration and development.

Mineral leases and options include provisions for reasonable use of the land surface. Surface use agreements have also been entered into with all surface owners and provide, amongst other things, for stipulated damages to be for certain activities related to the exploration and production of uranium. Royalty agreements are established with mineral and surface owners, and surface owners are also paid an annual surface holding rental.

1.2 Geology and Mineralization

The Texas Gulf Coast comprises the western flank of the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin with active deposition throughout the mid to late Mesozoic Era and into the Cenozoic Era. Deposition is dominated by clastic sediments transported from continental highlands into the Gulf of Mexico basin for a period exceeding 50 million years. These sediments were transported to the coast by rivers and deposited in a variety of fluvial to marine depositional environments.

Structurally the Texas Gulf Coast consists of three regions, the Rio Grande Embayment, the San Marcos Arch, and the Houston Embayment. Other structural features found in the Texas Gulf Coast include the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins, and the Wilcox, Frio, and Vicksburg Fault Zones.

The San Marcos Arch is a broad gently sloping positive structural feature extending from the Llano Uplift in Central Texas to the Gulf Coast during the Ouachita Orogeny. The Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are thought to have resulted from subsidence induced by high rates of sedimentation (Dodge and Posey, 1981).

The Tertiary sediments deposited in the Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are characterized by deltaic sands and shales. High rates of clastic deposition resulted in the formation of normal listric growth faults. Constant sediment loading and coastal subsidence into the basin led to the accumulation of over 50,000 feet of Cenozoic strata into the Gulf Coast Basin.

Jurassic salt and younger shale diapirs are also present in the subsurface along the Gulf Coastal Plain. The displacement of shale and salt is generated by the accumulation of an

3

excessive thickness of overburden sediment causing plastic flow of the more ductile sediments. The resulting structures may cause local faulting and/or dip reversal along with the formation of domes and anticlinal structures.

Within the South Texas Uranium Province, uranium mineralization occurs primarily in the Cenozoic sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, Miocene Oakville Formation, Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, and the Eocene Jackson Group. Project deposits occur in the Goliad Formation which is a major fluvial system that represents a low to moderate energy environment composed of isolated mixed-load channel-fill sands separated by thick inter-channel clays.

Uranium deposits are roll-fronts, typical to others found in the South Texas Uranium Province. Deposit genesis is related to the presence of highly reduced groundwater systems generated from the biogenic decomposition of natural gas and/or hydrogen sulfide seepage derived from deeper formations through localized faulting. At Alta Mesa, uranium bearing groundwater moved from northwest to southeast within the Goliad Formation and encountered reduction zones associated with the Vicksburg fault system and the Alta Mesa salt dome and associated faulting which allowed the introduction of organics and other fluids upward through faults and fractures.

The deposits are characterized by numerous vertically stacked roll-fronts controlled by stratigraphic heterogeneity, host lithology, permeability, reductant type and concentration, and groundwater geochemistry. Individual roll-fronts are a few tens of feet wide, 4 to 10 feet thick, and often thousands of feet long. Collectively, roll-fronts result in an overall deposit that is up to a few hundred feet wide, 50 to 75 feet thick and continuous for miles in length.

1.3 Exploration Status

The Alta Mesa deposits were discovered by Chevron in the 1970’s and since that time numerous companies have explored and developed the Project. enCore has not conducted any exploration other than delineation drilling to define and expand wellfields.

1.4 Development and Operations

In February 2023, enCore completed acquisition of the Alta Mesa Project from Energy Fuels. In March, the company announced its formal decision to resume production in early 2024 and from March 2023 to Q2 2024, enCore renovated the CPP with equipment upgrades and refurbishments to the IX, elution and yellowcake processing circuits. enCore is upgrading and refurbishing the CPP in phases.

The CPP has three identical IX circuits designated, The South, West and North Plants, each with a capacity of 2,500 gpm or total CPP capacity of 7,500 gpm.

Phase 1 included refurbishment of the first IX train, and the elution and yellowcake processing circuits. The second IX circuit is being upgraded in Phase II with anticipated completion in Q1 2025. In Phase III, the third IX circuit will be upgraded. Completion of the third IX refurbishment is schedule for completion mid-year 2025.

During the Phase 1 timeframe, enCore also advanced development of PAA-7.

4

In PAA-7, 943 holes were drilled of which 224 were developed into injection and production wells. enCore also conducted drilling in future mine areas, PAAs 8 through 10.

enCore commenced mining operations in PAA-7 in June 2024 with plans to progressively ramp up uranium recovery rate to advance output. New modules will be developed progressively and commissioned at a rate to ensure adequate head grades, name plate flow rates and recovery rate objectives are maintained, as operating PAAs are depleted.

1.5 Mineral Resource Estimates

A summary of the Project’s mineral resources is provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Mineral Resources Summary

Category	Tons (x 1,000)	Avg Grade (%) U3O8	Total Lbs (x 1000) U3O8
Measured	263.7	0.136	691.4
Indicated	630.0	0.150	1,894.5
Total Measured and Indicated	894.0	0.145	2,585.9
Inferred	2,223.4	0.112	5,200.5
Total Inferred	2,223.4	0.112	5,200.5

Notes:

1.	enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral<br>reserves.
2.	The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole<br>information.
---	---
3.	Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of<br>0.30 ft% U3O8.
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.
---	---
5.	Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less<br>confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.
---	---
6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---

1.6 Summary Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Estimated capital costs are $25.9 M and includes $2.5 M for refurbishment of the CPP and $23.4 M for sustained wellfield development.

Operating costs are estimated to be $27.44 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development, production sequence, production quantity, and past production experience. Operating costs include plant and wellfield operations, product transactions, administrative support, decontamination and decommissioning, and restoration.

Taxes, royalties, and other interests are applicable to production and revenue. Total Federal income tax is estimated at $18.8 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $9.13. The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax, but the Project is subject to property taxes in the form of ad valorem in the amount of $0.62 M or $0.30 per pound of U3O8. The project is subject to a cumulative 3.0% surface and mineral royalty at an average LOM sales price of $83.43 per lb.

5

U3O8 for $5.4 M or $2.61 per pound.

The economic analysis assumes that 80% of the mineral resources are recoverable. The pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax, plant and wellfield operations, product transactions, administrative support, D&D and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs to estimate federal income tax.

Less federal tax, the Project’s cash flow is estimated at $83.3 M or $42.89 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $66.4 M. The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $64.9 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $52.03. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $51.6 M.

1.7 PermittingRequirements

Alta Mesa is a fully permitted and licensed commercially operable facility. The most significant permits and licenses that enCore possess to operate Alta Mesa are the (1) the Source and Byproduct Materials License, which was issued by TCEQ (formerly Texas Bureau of Radiation Control) in 2002; (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ in April 2000; and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) issued at various times since April 2000, two deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (UIC Class V) issued by TCEQ in April 2000 and an aquifer exemption issued by USEPA in 2002 and the area was expanded in a revised Aquifer Emption dated 2009. All permits are active or in timely renewal.

1.8 Conclusionsand Recommendations

As with any mining property there are risks to the Project and the key risk to Alta Mesa is with respect to the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves.

enCore decided to put Alta Mesa into production without first establishing mineral reserves supported by a technical report and completing a feasibility study. enCore made this decision based on the management team’s familiarity of the Project. Several members of enCore’s management and technical team were previously involved with the early stages of the Project when it was initially built and operated by Mesteña Uranium LLC. The team is intimately knowledgeable with the project and because of the project’s mineral resources, permitting and licensing status, existing infrastructure, favorable land position and infrastructure, the company made the decision to aggressively advance the Project, foregoing technical assessment, and taking advantage of the upswing in the uranium market.

Therefore, there is the risk to the project of economic failure. To avoid making misleading disclosure, enCore did not base the decision to start commercial operations on a feasibility study of mineral reserves demonstrating economic viability and there is uncertainty and economic risk associated with the production decision.

enCore is actively working to mitigate risk to ensure a profitable and successful project by conducting development drilling and land acquisition of properties adjacent to the Project where mineralization is known to continue off site.

6

enCore has a substantial mineral resources inventory of Inferred resources and substantial contiguous land holdings that exceeds any another other ISR mining company in the United States. To de-risk the project by increasing the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves it is recommended that enCore actively work to mitigate risk to ensure a profitable and successful project.

Therefore, it is recommended that enCore mitigates risk to ensure economics in the report are realized by:

●	Continue drilling campaign with larger programs verifying the geological and grade continuity of inferred mineral resources<br>and identify new mineralization.
●	Drill 200-hole program using following cost per hole of $7,026, for total program<br>cost of $1.41 M (Table 1.2).
---	---

Table 1.2: Drilling Costs

Item	Quantity	Unit Cost		Total
Drilling	550	$	8.00	$	4,400
Muds &<br>Polymers	550	$	0.67	$	369
Cement Service	1	$	300.00	$	300
Cement	1	$	600.00	$	600
Drill Bits & Underream<br>Blades	1	$	150.00	$	150
Dirt Work &<br>Reclamation	1	$	300.00	$	300
Washout	550	$	1.65	$	908
				$	7,026
●	Drill at least one core hole in any new PAAs to confirm deposit mineralogy, the state of uranium secular equilibrium, and<br>uranium content. Coring is estimated to cost $30 K per hole.
---	---

7

2.0	INTRODUCTION

2.1 Registrant

This report was prepared by SOLA Project Servicers LLC., for the registrant, enCore Energy Corporation.

enCore was incorporated in 2009 under the previous name of Tigris Uranium Corporation and is engaged in the identification, acquisition, exploration, development and operation of uranium properties in the United States. enCore is incorporated British Columbia, Canada. The company’s principal executive offices are located at 101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 450, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. enCore’s portfolio includes uranium mineral properties in Texas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico.

2.2 Terms of Reference and Purpose

This report was prepared to disclose mineral resources, updated development plans and the results of an economic analysis.

The technical and scientific information in this report reflects material changes in enCore’s mineral project development plans, which are material in the company’s affairs. The report has an effective date of December 31, 2024, and has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth under SEC Subpart 229.1300 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations.

2.3 Information and Data Sources

The report has been prepared with internal enCore Project technical and financial information, as well as data prepared by others. Documents, files and information provided by the registrant used to prepare this report are listed in Section 24.0 REFERENCES and Section 25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT.

2.4 QP Site Inspection

Stuart Bryan Soliz is the QP responsible for the content of this report. He visited the Project on January 7, 2025. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the site and to meet with the enCore team to review the details of material changes.

8

3.0	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Description and Location

The Project is an advanced-stage ISR uranium mining project located in south Texas. The Project forms part of the South Texas Uranium Province. Uranium deposits in the South Texas Uranium Province extend from Starr County at the international border with Mexico northeastward through Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, Kleberg, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Atascosa, Karnes, Wilson, Goliad, and Gonzales counties. The Project is located within a portion of the private land holdings of the Jones Ranch. The Jones Ranch was founded in 1897 and is comprised of approximately 380,000 acres.

The Project is comprised of the Alta Mesa Mining Lease and the Alta Mesa CPP. The Project consists of 4,597 acres. The active mine and CPP are located on the Alta Mesa project area approximately 35.5 miles southwest of Falfurrias via US Highway 281 to Ranch Road 755 to Ranch Road 430 to CR 314 to CR 315, Encino, Texas 78353, in Brooks County, Texas, at approximately 26° 54’ 08” North Longitude and 98° 18’ 54” West Latitude.

Figure 3.1 shows the location of the Project.

3.2 Mi n e r a l **** Ti tles ****

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

The Jones Ranch holdings include private surface and mineral rights for oil and gas and other minerals, including uranium. Figure 3.2 is map of the Project mineral ownership and Figure 3.3 illustrates surface use.

3.3 Mineral Rights

Royalty agreements have been established with mineral and surface owners. Furthermore, surface owners are paid an annual rental to hold the surface on behalf of enCore. Additionally, the agreements also provide for additional charges to the surface owner to cover surface damages and for reduction of husbandry grazing during field operations.

3.3.1 Amended **** and **** Restated **** Uranium **** Solution **** Mining **** Lease

The Uranium Solution Mining Lease, originally dated June 1, 2004, covers approximately 4,598 acres, out of the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, A-218, Brooks County, Texas and the

9

“Las Mesteñas Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, A-480, Brooks County, Texas. These have been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between enCore and the various holders of the Mesteña project. The Lease now comprises Tract 5 and a portion of Tracts 1, 4, and 6 of “W.W. Jones Subdivision”, said tract being out of the “La Mesteña Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, Abstract N0. 480 and the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, Abstract No. 218, Brooks County, Texas. The Lease now covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, other fissionable minerals, and associated minerals and materials under 4,597.67 acres.

The term of the amended lease is fifteen (15) years which commenced on June 16, 2016, or however long as the lessee is continuously engaged in any mining, development, production, processing, treating, restoration, or reclamation operations on the leased premises. The amended lease can be extended by the Lessee for an additional 15 years.

The lease includes provisions for royalty payments on net proceeds, less allowable deductions, received by the Lessee. The royalties range from 3.125 to 7.5% depending on the price received for the uranium. The lease also calls for a royalty on substances produced on adjacent lands but processed on the leased premises. Table 3.1 illustrates royalty details.

Table 3.1: Amended Uranium Solution Mining Lease Royalties

Royalty Holders	Acres	Lessor Royalty	Primary Term
Mesteña Unproven Ltd.,<br> <br><br><br><br>Jones Unproven Ltd.,<br> <br><br><br><br>Mestaña Proven Ltd.<br> <br><br><br><br>Jones Proven Ltd.	4597.67+/-	7.5% Market value > $95.00/lb. U3O8<br><br><br><br> <br>6.25% of Market Value > $65/lb. & </= $95/lb. U3O8<br><br><br><br> <br>3.125% of Market Value </= $65/lb. U3O8	15 years from amendment date with option for<br>additional 15 years or if uranium mining operations continue

3.3.2 Amended **** and **** Restated **** Uranium **** Testing **** Permit **** and **** Lease **** Option **** Agreement

The Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement (Table 3.2), originally dated August 1, 2006, covers all land containing mineral potential as identified through exploration efforts and covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, and all other fissionable materials, compounds, solutions, mixtures, and source materials. This agreement has been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Testing and Lease Option Agreement dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between enCore Energy and the various holders of the Mesteña project. It now covers 195,501 acres.

The term of the amended lease and option agreement is for eight (8) years which commenced on June 16, 2016. The amended lease and option agreement has been extended by the grantee for an additional seven (7) years by certain payments conducted in April 2024. The Lease Option was further amended to extend the lease option period by an additional five (5) years in June 2024.

10

Table 3.2: Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement Royalties

Royalty Holders	Acres	Lessor Royalty	Primary Term
Mesteña Unproven Ltd.,<br><br><br><br><br><br>Jones Unproven Ltd.,<br><br><br><br> <br>Mestaña Proven Ltd.<br><br><br><br> <br>Jones Proven Ltd.	195,501 +/-	7.5% of Market value > $95.00/lb U3O8<br><br><br><br> <br>6.25% of Market Value > $65/lb. & </= $95/lb.<br>U3O8<br> <br><br> <br>3.125% of Market Value </= $65/lb. U3O8	8 years from amendment date with option for additional 7 years or if uranium mining operations continue

3.4 Surface **** Rights

The mineral leases and options include provisions for reasonable use of the land surface for the purposes of ISR mining and mineral processing. Alta Mesa is a fully licensed, operable facility with sufficient sources of power, water, and waste disposal facilities for operations and aquifer restoration, and is fully staffed. Alta Mesa LLC either has in place or can obtain the necessary permits and/or agreements, and local resources are sufficient for current and future ISR operations within the Project.

Amended surface use agreements have been entered into with all the surface owners on the various prospect areas as part of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement between Energy Fuels Inc and the various holders of the Mesteña Project. These amended agreements, unchanged from those originally entered into on June 1, 2004, provide, amongst other things, for stipulated damages to be paid for certain activities related to the exploration and production of uranium.

Specifically, the agreements call for US Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted payments for the following disturbances: exploratory test holes, development test holes, monitor wells, new roads, and related surface disturbances. The lease also outlines an annual payment schedule for land taken out of agricultural use around the area of a deep disposal well, land otherwise taken out of agricultural use, and pipelines constructed outside of the production area.

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

3.5 E n cumbrances

3.5.1 Legacy Issues

Financial assurance instruments are held by the state for completed wells, ISR mining, and uranium processing to ensure reclamation and restoration of the affected lands and aquifers in accordance with State regulations and permit requirements. The current Project closure cost

11

estimate approved in November 2022 is provided in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3:Decommissioning Cost Summary

Program	Amount
TCEQ –<br>Radioactive Materials License		$8,502,109
TCEQ – UIC<br>Class I and Class III Permits		$1,754,649
	****	$10,256,758

3.5.2 Permitting and Licensing ****

The Project is a fully permitted and licensed commercially operable facility. The most significant permits and licenses that enCore possess to operate Alta Mesa are the (1) the Source and Byproduct Materials License, which was issued by TCEQ (formerly Texas Bureau of Radiation Control) in 2002; (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ in April 2000; and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) issued at various times since April 2000, two deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (UIC Class V) issued by TCEQ in April 2000 and an aquifer exemption issued by USEPA in 2002 and the area was expanded in a revised Aquifer Emption dated 2009. All permits are active or in timely renewal.

3.6 Ot h erSi gn i f ica n t **** F act o rs a n d R isks

There are no other significant factors or risks that may affect access, title or the right or ability to perform work on the property that have not been addressed elsewhere in this report.

12

Figure 3.1: Project Location Map

13

Figure 3.2: Alta Mesa Mineral Ownership

14

Figure 3.3: Surface Use Agreements

15

4.0	A CCE SS IBILIT Y , **** C LI MA T E ,LO CA L RES OU RC E S, INF RAS T R U C TU R E **** A ND PH Y S IOG RA PHY

4.1 Topog ra p h y , Ele v ati on and Vegetation

The Project is located on the coastal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Three major rivers in the region from south to north are: the Rio Grande, the Nueces, and the San Antonio. The Rio Grande flows into the Gulf of Mexico south of the project area. The Nueces River flows into the Corpus Christi Bay, and the San Antonio River flows into San Antonio Bay southeast of Victoria (Nicot, et al 2010). Figure 4.1 shows the general topographic conditions for the Project and region.

The project area is located within the South Texas Plains Ecoregion of Texas (TPWD 2011). Topography in the project area is relatively flat to gently rolling, ranging from approximately 295 feet (northeast) to 250 feet (southeast) above mean sea level.

Regionally, the area is classified as a coastal sand plain. Brooks County comprises 942 square miles of brushy mesquite land. The near level to undulating soils are poorly drained, dark and loamy or sandy; isolated dunes are found. In the northeast corner of the county the soil is light-colored and loamy at the surface and clayey beneath. The vegetation, typical of the South Texas Plains, includes live oaks, mesquite, brush, weeds, cacti and grasses. In addition to domestic stock, wildlife is abundant in the area including a variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, small mammals, and big game (White Tail Deer and exotics).

16

Figure 4.1: Topography of the South Texas Uranium Province

4.2 A c cess

The Project is accessible year-round and is located approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US Highway 281 (paved) and North Farm to Market Road 755 (paved), 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas.

4.3 C lima t e ****

Overall, the climate in the area is warm and dry, with hot summers and relatively mild winters. However, the region is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and, as a result, has a much more marine-type climate than the rest of Texas, which is more typically continental.

Monthly mean temperatures in the region range from 55°F in January to 96°F in August (Nicot, et al 2010). The area rarely experiences freezing conditions and as a result most of the processing facility and infrastructure are located outdoors, and wellfield piping and distribution

17

ines do not require burial for frost protection.

Annual precipitation ranges from 20 to 35 inches. Primary risk for severe weather is related to thunderstorms and potential effects of Gulf Coast hurricanes.

4.4 I n fras t r u ct u re

The Project is well supported by nearby towns and services. Larger cities, Corpus Christi, McAllen and Laredo, are each about 100 miles or less from the site and are ready sources of materials and equipment. Major power lines are located across the Project and are accessed for electrical service. The road system is comprehensive and well maintained and used for shipment of materials and equipment.

Human resources are employed from nearby population centers. Numerous local communities provide sources for labor, housing, offices and basic supplies. enCore utilizes local resources when and where possible supporting the local economy.

The site has uranium drill holes and related infrastructure (e.g., small mud pits temporarily constructed to facilitate drill operations and water supply ponds), trucks and other equipment, historic and new wellfields, a CPP, administration building, shop and warehouse, environmental office, logging building and test pits.

The site has telephone and internet service in the form of a T-1 fiber optics line. The CPP has an automated control and monitoring system that allows remote monitoring of the facility and includes fail safe systems that can shut down portions of the system in the event of an upset condition. The facility is also fully secured with on-site and remote monitoring.

Water supply for the Project is from established and permitted local wells. Liquid waste from the processing facility is disposed via deep well injection through two permitted Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I disposal wells. Solid waste is disposed off-site at licensed disposal facilities. No tailings or other related waste disposal facilities are needed.

Other land uses and associated infrastructure include, water wells, agricultural stock tanks/ponds, an aircraft landing strip located approximately 1.4 miles W of the CPP, cattle/horse ranches, and numerous caliche pits. In addition, agricultural cattle and horse grazing occurs in portions of the Project area and hunting stands and blinds are scattered throughout the area and are connected through a series of roads and senderos.

Oil and gas-related infrastructure on the Project includes oil and gas exploration and production wells, tank batteries, and numerous transmission and gathering pipelines.

18

5.0	H I S TORY ****

5.1 O w n e rs h ip

In the early 1970’s through June of 1985, Chevron Minerals held Project mineral leases. In 1985, Chevron allowed leases to expire reverting rights back to landowners.

From July 1988 to 1993 Total Minerals held the mineral the leases. Total engaged URI to complete a feasibility study of the project. In 1993, Total relinquished mineral leases to Cogema under directive from the French government.

From 1993 to 1996 Cogema held the Alta Mesa mineral leases, but once relinquished were acquired by URI. URI held the mineral leases from 1996 to 1998 and during their tenure obtained the Radioactive Material License.

In 1999, Mesteña Uranium LLC was formed by the landowners. Mesteña completed most of the drilling on the project and began construction of the ISR facility in 2004. Production began in the fourth quarter of 2005 and Mesteña operated the facility through February 2013. Due to downturn in the uranium market, in 2013 the project was put into care and maintenance standby.

Mesteña acquired the adjacent Mesteña Grande projects in 2006 through the execution of the Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option to explore on mineral rights outside of the existing Uranium In-Situ Mining Lease with the expectation that additional mineralized uranium resources could provide future feed for the Project.

On June 17, 2016, Energy Fuels acquired the Project, including both the Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande projects.

In November 2022, enCore entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement dated November 14, 2022, with EFR White Canyon Corp., a subsidiary of Energy Fuels, to acquire four limited liability companies that together hold 100% of the Project. Acquisition cost was US$120 million USD payable in a combination of cash and vendor take-back convertible note secured against the assets.

In February, the Company entered a joint venture with Boss Energy, Ltd. to develop and advance the Project. enCore retains ownership of 70% of the project and Boss Energy holds 30%.

5.2 Previous Operations and Work

Uranium was first discovered in Texas via airborne radiometric surveys in 1954 along the northern boundary of the South Texas Uranium Province where host formations outcrop. These initial discoveries led to the development of numerous conventional open pit mines. Subsequent exploration primarily, by drilling, extended mineralization down dip from the outcrop. At Alta Mesa, oil and gas drilling had been ongoing since the 1930’s.

The Alta Mesa deposits were discovered by Chevron in the mid 1970s while evaluating oil and

19

gas geophysical logs for natural gamma signatures. From 1981 to 1984, Chevron drilled approximately 360 holes, collected core and completed some wells.

Total and Cogema conducted small drilling programs and installed some monitor wells. Most of the Project drilling was completed by Mesteña between 1999 and 2013.

Mesteña developed six wellfields or production areas, identified as PAA-1 through PAA-6. All production was from the Goliad; however, from different formation sands. PAA-1 through PAA-3 were mined within the Goliad middle C-Sand. PAA-5 was mined within the B-Sand and wellfields PAA-4 and PAA-6 are within the lower C-Sand. Many of the wellfield drill holes intersected mineralization in sands above or below the wellfields indicating additional mineral resource potential. Approximately 3,000 holes are drilled within the wellfields.

Between 2005 and 2013 approximately 4.6 M lbs of uranium were produced by ISR mining. Maximum annual production achieved was 1.07 M pounds. Average annual production was 0.57 M pounds. The facility was in production from 2005 until February 2013 when the project was placed in care and maintenance due to unfavorable market conditions.

20

6.0	G E OLO G I CA L **** S E TTING,M I N ERA LIZ A TION AND DEPOSIT

6.1 Regional Geology

6.1.1 Surface Geology

The surface geology of the Texas Gulf Coast is an active sedimentary depositional basin characterized by numerous marine transgressions and regressions. These variations are manifested in the stratigraphic record as facies changes along strike and dip of the coast.

Geologic units outcrop at the surface as relatively broad coast-parallel bands. The relative width of bands reflects the thickness of the stratigraphic units, with broader outcrop bands corresponding to greater stratigraphic thickness. The relative age of the exposures becomes progressively younger toward the present margin of the coast. Strata dip at low angles and thicken toward the coast, except where strata is influenced locally by structural deformation (Mesteña, 2000).

6.1.2 Subsurface Geology

The Texas Gulf Coast is a sedimentary basin with active deposition throughout the Cenozoic Era. Deposition is dominated by clastic sediments transported from highlands in West Texas and northern Mexico. Most of these sediments were transported to the coast by rivers and deposited in a variety of fluvial-deltaic environments.

Structurally the Texas Gulf Coast consists of three regions, the Rio Grande Embayment, the San Marcos Arch, and the Houston Embayment. Other structural features found in the Texas Gulf Coast include the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins, and the Wilcox, Frio, and Vicksburg Fault Zones.

The San Marcos Arch is a broad gently sloping positive structural feature extending from the Llano Uplift in Central Texas to the Gulf Coast during the Ouachita Orogeny. The Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are thought to have resulted from subsidence induced by high rates of sedimentation (Dodge and Posey, 1981).

The Tertiary sediments deposited in the Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are characterized by deltaic sands and shales. High rates of clastic deposition resulted in the formation of normal listric growth faults. Deltaic sedimentation combined with growth faulting and continued subsidence have led to the accumulation of up to 40,000 feet of Cenozoic strata in the Gulf Coast Basin.

Salt and shale diapirs are also present in the subsurface along the Gulf Coastal Plain. The displacement of shale and salt is generated by the accumulation of an excessive thickness of overburden sediment causing plastic flow of the more ductile sediments. The resulting structures may cause local faulting and/or dip reversal along with the formation of domes and anticlinal structures.

21

6.2 Local and Property Geology

6.2.1 Surface Geology

In Brooks County and across the Project area, the Pliocene Goliad Formation and Quaternary windblown deposits dominate the surface outcrop. In most of the county, Goliad Formation sediments are partially overlain by windblown Holocene sediments brought inland by easterly and southeasterly winds. Figure 6.1 is a geologic map of the project area.

6.2.2 Subsurface Geology

The deposits are roll-fronts, typical of others found in the South Texas Uranium Province. The ore bodies are isolated within several sand units, which occur within the middle portion of the Goliad Formation.

Genesis of the ore deposits are related to the presence of chemical reductants trapped in the Goliad host formation. Reductants are believed to be associated with natural gas and/or hydrogen sulfide seepage from deeper formations through localized faulting.

The significant structural features in the area are the Vicksburg Fault and the associated Vicksburg Flexure and Alta Mesa Dome. The Vicksburg Fault is a large-scale, deep-seated growth fault, mainly affecting deeper stratigraphic units. Little, if any, displacement has occurred in Goliad and younger units. Activity on the Vicksburg Fault and related structural features has, however, influenced sedimentation patterns in the Goliad.

The Alta Mesa Dome is a deep-seated, non-piercement shale diapir structure associated with the Vicksburg Flexure. Deformation of the subsurface strata is considerable at depth but at the Goliad level, maximum uplift is on the order of only 100 to 125 feet. The location of the ore deposit closely coincides with the top of the dome at the Goliad stratigraphic level. Domal uplift is believed to have been active but subdued during deposition of the Goliad Formation. The rate of uplift was insufficient to divert fluvial deposition but did limit its extent.

As a result, strata thin over the dome and thicken off the dome. Clay interbeds are more abundant and more continuous over the dome. At the Goliad stratigraphic level, symmetry of the dome is broken on the western and northwestern flanks by a pair of subparallel, normal faults. These appear to be zones of structural failure associated with sporadic reactivation of domal uplift. The throw of these faults is opposite to each other, creating an intervening graben structure. Surface expression of faulting did not occur until after the ore mineralization phase.

The eastern fault of the two faults referenced in the paragraph above is the Jones Fault. The downthrown block lies to the west of the fault plane (an up-to-the-coast fault). Vertical displacement is up to 50 feet at the Goliad level and increases with depth. At the Goliad stratigraphic level, the vertical displacement along the fault disappears as the fault trends across the dome where structural integrity of the dome is preserved. The extension of the same fault plane continues in the far northern limits of the project area.

The Figueroa Fault formerly referred to as the Garcia-Ramos Fault by Chevron, a previous leaseholder, occurs just west of the Jones Fault. Its orientation is roughly northeast-southwest

22

and trends parallel to the Jones Fault. Displacement at the Goliad structural horizon is roughly 20 feet, downthrown to the east. Subsurface interpretation indicates the Figueroa Fault is antithetic to the Jones Fault, intersecting and terminating on the Jones Fault at depth.

Figure 6.2 is a generalized cross section illustrating the stratigraphic, structural and deposit characteristics of the Alta Mesa project area (Collins and Talbott, 2007). The presence and effects of salt domes are also recognized at other uranium deposits such as Palangana (UEC, 2010). Note that the location of the Figure 6.2 cross-section shown is referenced as section A-A’ on Figure 6.1.

6.3 Stratigraphy

The Project is in the South Texas Uranium Province, which is known to contain more than 100 uranium deposits (Nicot, et al., 2010). Within the South Texas Uranium Province, uranium mineralization is primarily hosted in the Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, Miocene Oakville Formation, Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, and the Eocene Jackson Group, respectively described in the following. Figure 6.3 is a stratigraphic column of the South Texas Uranium Province and Figure 6.4 is a detailed cross section of the project area.

6.3.1 Goliad **** Formation

The Goliad Formation unconformably overlies the Oakville and Fleming Formation outcropping in the northwest part of Brooks County. In the area, the Goliad ranges in thickness from approximately 400 to 1000 feet thick and consists of fine to medium-grained sands and poorly cemented sandstone (Meyers and Dale, 1967).

The Goliad is divided into three major zones (Basal, Middle and Upper) based on major fluvial regimes. The Lower Goliad is interpreted to represent a fluvial environment of low to moderate energy and is composed primarily of isolated mixed- load channel-fill sands separated by thick inter-channel clays. Basal Goliad sediments consist of bimodal sand and gravel conglomerates with poor bed form development and little sedimentary structure.

Middle Goliad sediments are finer grain and have well developed sedimentary structures and bedforms and contain relic caliche cementation. A slight increase in fluvial energy during the Middle Goliad deposition resulted in an extensive stack of onlapping mixed-load to bed-load channel-fill sands with subordinate amount of interchannel clays. Because stacking and onlapping of sands and claystone is common within the Middle Goliad, detailed distinction of upper and lower boundaries or lettered sand units is somewhat tenuous in places. Tops and bottoms are established at claystone interbeds which are most continuous on a large scale, although locally these may not be the most prominent claystones. Continuity of claystones is generally consistent on top of the dome and within the ore deposit but decreases off the dome where the sand units commonly merge and lose individual identity.

Fluvial energy appears to have fluctuated considerably in the Upper Goliad. Peak fluvial energy levels occurred with the deposition of significant amounts of bed-load channel fill sand and is locally conglomeratic. This change in texture in the upper Goliad Formation indicates

23

decreasing bed load energy, reduced source input, and a change to an arid or semi-arid climate (Hosman, 1996). Figure 6.5 is a type-log for the Project which illustrates the local stratigraphy.

6.3.2 Oakville **** Formation

The Miocene-age Oakville Formation overlies the Catahoula Formation and represents a major pulse in sediments thought to be due to uplift along the Balcones Fault Zone. The Oakville Sandstone is composed of sediments deposited by several fluvial systems, each of which had distinct textural and mineralogical characteristics (Smith et al., 1982). Together with the overlying Fleming Formation, they formed a major depositional episode. These two units are commonly grouped because they are both composed of varying amounts of interbedded sand and clay. Average thickness varies from 300 to 700 feet at the outcrop (Galloway et al., 1982), and the formation is thicker in the subsurface (Henry et al., 1982).

Oakville sediments grade into the mixed-load sediments of the Fleming and into the thicker deltaic and barrier systems farther downdip. Sand percentage is high in the paleochannels, whereas finer-grained floodplain deposits are more common in adjacent interchannel environments. Paleosols are not as frequent as in the Catahoula Formation and Jackson Group. Farther downdip the amount of sand increases as the formation thickens, but the sand fraction decreases because of additional mud facies.

Unlike the Jackson Group, Oakville sediments do not contain significant amounts of organic material.

6.3.3 Catahoula **** Formation

The Catahoula Formation unconformably overlies the Oligocene sediments of the Jackson Group. Catahoula sediments are fluvial rather than marine derived and are composed in varying proportions of sands, clays, and volcanic tuff, depending on location. Sediments of the Catahoula Formation reflect a strong volcanic influence, including numerous occurrences of airborne volcanic ash (Galloway 1977).

Thicknesses of strata at the outcrop range from 200 to 1,000 feet and thickens gulfward as is typical of other Gulf Coast sequences. Sand content ranges from <10% to a maximum of about 50% (Galloway, 1977). Sediments in the lower Catahoula Formation are predominantly gray tuff, whereas pink tuffaceous clay is more common in the upper strata, suggesting a change to more humid climatic conditions during deposition. Volcanic conglomerates and sandstone are most common in the midlevel of the unit. Bentonite and opalized clay layers and alteration products of volcanic glass (zeolites, Camontmorillonite, opal, and chalcedony) are present throughout the formation and indicate syndepositional alteration of tuffaceous beds. Widespread areas of calichification indicate long periods of exposure to soil-forming conditions at the surface (McBride et al., 1968).

6.3.4 Jackson **** Group

The Jackson Group is part of a major progradational cycle that also includes the underlying

24

Yegua Formation. The Jackson Group includes, from older to younger, the Caddell, the Wellborn, the Manning, and the Whitsett Formations (Eargle, 1959; Fisher et al., 1970).

Total thickness averages 1,100 feet in the subsurface but becomes thinner in the outcrop area and is characterized by a complex distribution of lagoon, marsh, barrier-island, and associated facies. The lower part of the Jackson Group consists of a basal 100-feet sequence of marine muds (Caddell Formation) overlain by 400 feet of mostly sands: Wellborn / McElroy Formation with the Dilworth Sandstone, Conquista Clay, and Deweesville / Stones Switch (Galloway et al., 1979) Sandstone members toward the top. The middle part consists of 200 to 400 feet of mostly muds (including the Dubose Clay Member). Several sand units are present in the 400- to 500-feet-thick upper section, including the Tordilla / Calliham Sandstone overlain by the Flashing Clay Member.

Units from the Dilworth unit up are grouped under the Whitsett Formation name (Eargle, 1959). Only the latter contains significant amounts of uranium mineralization in the Deweesville and Tortilla sand members. Kreitler et al. (1992, 38 Section 2) provided more details on these units near the Falls City Susquehanna-Western mill. Uranium mineralization occurs where the strike-oriented barrier sand belt intersects the outcrop. Sand is generally fine and heavily bioturbated with burrows and roots and contains lignitic material and silicified wood. Discontinuous lignite beds are also present (Fisher et al., 1970).

25

Figure 6.1: Geologic Map

26

Figure 6.2: Generalized Cross Section

27

Figure 6.3: Stratigraphic Column

28

Figure 6.4: Detailed Cross Section

29

Figure 6.5: Type Log

30

6.4 Significant Mineralized Zones

6.4.1 Minerali zation

Uranium mineralization occurs primarily as uraninite with some coffinite and like other deposits within the South Texas Uranium Province, is stratabound in clay-bounded sandstone packages. Mineralization occurs as roll front type deposits with “C” shaped configurations in cross section and elongated sinuous ribbons in plan-view. Deposits are diagenetic and/or epigenetic forming because of a geochemical process whereby oxidized surface water leaches uranium from source rocks (Finch, 1996). Source rocks of the south Texas deposits are generally agreed to be Miocene and Oligocene age volcanic ash from west Texas and/or Mexico (Galloway et al, 1977 and Aguirre-Diaz and Renne, 2008).

This ash was deposited by wind and fluvial systems and uranium was leached from the ash by oxygenated surface waters. Uranium bearing waters were transported to outcrop areas where sandstone formations were exposed and began to move downdip as groundwater. The movement of uranium continued in groundwater until a reductant source was encountered, such as hydrogen sulfide gas, pyrite or carbonaceous material resulting in uranium precipitating out of solution.

At Alta Mesa, uranium bearing groundwater moved from northwest to southeast and encountered a reduction zone associated with the Alta Mesa oil and gas field, caused primarily by hydrogen sulfide gas introduction through faults and fractures. Mineralization away from the oil and gas field occurs by the same geochemical processes; however, possibly from different reductant source.

The deposits are characterized by numerous vertically stacked roll-fronts controlled by stratigraphic heterogeneity, host lithology, permeability, reductant type and concentration, and groundwater geochemistry. Individual roll-fronts are a few tens of feet wide, 4 to 10 feet thick, and often thousands of feet long. Collectively, roll-fronts result in an overall deposit that is up to a few hundred feet wide, 50 to 75 feet thick and continuous for miles in length.

Depth of mineralization ranges from 500 to 600 feet.

6.5 Relevant Geologic Controls

The primary geologic controls for development of the Project’s deposit are:

●	Miocene and Oligocene volcanic ash uranium source,
●	Permeable sandstones within the Goliad, Oakville and Catahoula Formations,
---	---
●	Groundwater and formation geochemical conditions suitable for uranium transport,
---	---
●	Reductant source (hydrocarbons, pyrite or carbonaceous materials) within the sandstones to interact with uranium bearing<br>groundwater modifying oxidation/reduction potential of geochemical conditions and precipitation of uranium.
---	---

31

6.6 Deposit Type

The deposit type is being investigated and mined are sandstone hosted uranium roll-fronts, as defined in the “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification”, (IAEA, 2009). The geological model being applied in investigation and mining is illustrated in Figure 6.6.

Figure 6.6:Idealized Cross Section of a Sandstone Hosted Uranium Roll-Front Deposit

(Modified from Granger and Warren -1974 and De Voto- 1978)

●	A permeable host formation:
○	Sandstone units of the Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula formations.
---	---
●	A source of soluble uranium:
---	---
○	Volcanic ash-fall tuffs coincidental with Catahoula deposition containing elevated<br>concentration of uranium is the probable source of uranium deposits for the South Texas Uranium Province (Finch, 1996).
---	---
●	Oxidizing groundwaters to leach and transport the uranium:
---	---
○	Groundwaters regionally tend to be oxidizing and slightly alkaline.
---	---
●	Adequate reductant within the host formation:
---	---
○	Conditions resulting from periodic H2S gas migrating along faults and subsequent iron sulfide (pyrite) precipitation<br>created local reducing conditions.
---	---
○	Time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface.
---	---
○	Uranium precipitates from solution at the oxidation/reduction boundary (REDOX) as uraninite which is dominant (UO2, uranium<br>oxide) or coffinite (USiO4, uranium silicate).
---	---
●	The geohydrologic regime of the region has been stable over millions of years with groundwater movement controlled<br>primarily by high-permeability channels within the predominantly sandstone formations of the Tertiary.
---	---

32

7.0	E X PLO RA TION

7.1 Drilling ****

No exploration work has been conducted by or on behalf of enCore since acquisition of the Project. Since Project inception, over 11,800 holes have been drilled on the property by previous operators and the nature and extent of that information is discussed in the following. See Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1

Table 7.1: Alta Mesa Project Drill Holes

Area	Period	Number of Holes
Alta Mesa	Historical	10,744
	2023	433
	2024	647

7.2 Drilling Type and Procedures

Drilling is performed by surface drilling vertical holes. Holes are drilled using direct mud rotary drilling system, where drilling fluid is pumped through the drill pipe, drill bit ports, and back to surface between the pipe and borehole wall. Drilling fluid is typically a mix of clean water and industrial materials added to the water to lift cuttings, stabilize holes to prevent sidewall caving and sloughing, and to clean and lubricate the drilling system.

Hole depth is determined by depth of the deepest stratigraphic unit to be investigated. Hole diameter is determined by drill bit and pipe diameter used.

Drill holes are sampled by collection of drill cuttings, downhole geophysics and core. Cuttings are typically collected every 5 feet and assessed for lithology and color. If core is collected, a coring tool is used to drill and sample lithological material without comprising its natural condition. Holes are also logged for downhole geophysical characteristics to assess lithology type, stratigraphic and structural geologic features, and mineralization location and quality. The collar or surface location of each drill hole is surveyed for elevation, latitude and longitude. Since mineralized stratigraphic horizons are nearly horizontal and drill holes are nearly vertical, mineralization’s true thickness is represented in geophysical and core data.

Initial Project exploration was wide spaced drilling at miles or thousands of feet between drill holes. Closer spaced drilling was conducted increasing geologic knowledge and confidence.

7.3 Past Ex p l o ra t i o n ****

Uranium was first discovered in Texas via airborne radiometric surveys in 1954 along the northern boundary of the South Texas Uranium Province where host formations outcrop. These initial discoveries led to the development of numerous conventional open pit mines. Subsequent exploration primarily, by drilling, extended mineralization down dip from the outcrop. At Alta Mesa, oil and gas drilling had been ongoing since the 1930’s.

33

The Alta Mesa deposits were discovered by Chevron in the mid 1970s while evaluating oil and gas geophysical logs for natural gamma signatures. From 1981 to 1984, Chevron drilled approximately 360 holes, collected core and completed some wells.

Total and Cogema conducted small drilling programs and did install some monitor wells. Most of the Project drilling was completed by Mesteña between 1999 and 2013.

Mesteña had access to 3D seismic data developed for oil and gas exploration and used the results of that work as an exploration tool to locate sand channels and define geologic structures. This exploration technique led to the exploration of the Indigo Snake area and to a lesser extent has aided exploration of the South Alta Mesa property. Some exploratory drilling was completed in the South Alta Mesa project area and a single hole was completed on the Indigo Snake.

34

Figure 7.1: Drill Hole Locations

35

7.4 Accuracy and Reliability

Past drilling practices were conducted in accordance with industry standard procedures and the most recent drilling conducted by enCore, confirmed historical drill results in previously intersected mineralization for thickness, grade and location.

It is the opinion of this QP that there are no drilling, sampling or recovery factors that materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

36

8.0	S AM PLE P RE PA RA TION, **** A N A L Y SIS A ND S EC U R ITY ****

8.1 Sam p le **** M e t hods

Samples are collected from drill holes for drill cuttings, downhole geophysics and core samples. Cores are the only samples that are prepared and dispatched to an analytical or testing laboratory. Cuttings and geophysical data are prepared and analyzed in house. Sampling, sample preparation and security are described in the following sections.

8.1.1 Downhole Geophysical Data

Continuous measurement of downhole geophysical properties is measured from total hole depth to surface. Geophysical data is collected using logging probes equipped with gamma, resistivity, SP, PFN and downhole survey logging tools. This suite of logs is ideal for defining lithologic units in the subsurface. The resistivity and spontaneous potential tools are used to define lithology by qualitative measurements of water conductivities.

The gamma tool provides an indirect measurement of uranium content. Gamma radiation is measured in one-tenth foot intervals and converted to gamma ray readings measured in counts-per-second into %-eU3O8. Equivalent percent uranium grades are reported in one-half foot increments.

The PFN tool provides a direct measurement of uranium around the borehole. The pulsed neutron source electronically generates neutrons which cause fission of U^235^in the formation. Tool detectors count epithermal and thermal neutrons returning from the formation, thereby providing a direct measurement of uranium content within the formation.

Drill holes are also downhole surveyed measuring deviation by azimuth and declination, providing a holes true bottom location and depth.

enCore samples all drill holes with gamma, resistivity, spontaneous potential and downhole survey. Due to cost and time, enCore only PFN samples mineralized intervals with gamma measured grades above 0.02 %-eU3O8.

To ensure geophysical data quality control, gamma and PFN tools are calibrated at a US Department of Energy test pit in George West, Texas. Tools are also calibrated using onsite test pits at enCore’s Kingsville Dome Project. Test pit have known uranium source concentration and using industry calibration procedures tools are calibrated, to ensure consistent measurement and reporting of uranium concentrations from US deposits.

8.1.1.1 PFN Calibration

Figure 8.1 shows a typical calibration curve for the PFN tool.

37

Figure 8.1: PFN Tool Calibration

8.1.1.2 Disequilibrium

Radioactive isotopes decay until achieving a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U^238^ on the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope (McKay et.al., 2007). Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed due to differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters. Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters accumulate, and uranium is depleted. The DEF is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive DEF by a factor greater than 1, and negative DEF by a factor of less than 1. Figure 8.2 illustrates the disequilibrium relationship between natural gamma U3O8 equivalent and PFN measured grades.

Total applied a DEF of 1.13 to mineral resource estimates (Total, 1989). Mesteña used PFN measurements to determine uranium grade. enCore also uses PFN for uranium grade determination.

38

Figure 8.2: Disequilibrium Graph Natural Gamma vs PFN Grade

8.1.2 Drill Cu tt ings

Drill cuttings are collected at 5-foot intervals while drilling. Samples are arranged on the ground in order of depth to show changes in lithology and color. Lithology and color are recorded on a lithology log for entire hole depth. Particular attention is paid to color in the mineralized sand to assess oxidation/reduction potential. Cuttings are not chemically assayed as drilling mud will contaminate samples and precise sample location or depth cannot be determined from cuttings.

8.1.3 CoreSamp l es

Core samples are collected to conduct chemical analyses, metallurgical testing, and testing of physical parameters of lithologic units. Retrieved cores are measured to determine core recovery. Cores are also washed, photographed and described. In preparation for laboratory analysis, to maintain moisture content and prevent oxidation, core is wrapped in plastic, boxed and frozen or iced.

8.2 L a bo rat o r y **** A n a l y sis

When core is collected in the field, it is rinsed, measured for length and photographed. One half

39

of the core is sampled in 1-foot increments and either wrapped in plastic or vacuum sealed to maintain moisture content and prevent oxidation, boxed, frozen or iced and transferred to an analytical or testing laboratory.

The other half of core is preserved and used to describe lithologic characteristics (i.e., lithology, color, grain size and fraction).

Core preserved for testing is used for leach amenability determination. Leach amenability studies are intended to demonstrate that the uranium mineralization is capable of being leached and determination of the optimal mining lixiviant chemistry. Typically, sodium bicarbonate is used as the source for a carbonate complexing agent to form uranyldicarbonate (UDC) or uranyltricarbonate ion (UTC), and Oxygen or Hydrogen peroxide are used as the uranium-oxidizing agent. Tests are not designed to approximate in-situ conditions (permeability, porosity, pressure) but are an indication of an ore’s reaction rate and potential uranium recovery.

enCore adheres to security measures using Chain of Custody procedures to ensure the validity and integrity of samples through the analysis process. enCore may sample and transfer duplicate samples to assess reliability and precision of analytical results for quality control of sample collection or laboratory analysis procedures.

When core or other natural material samples are taken, they will be submitted to an analytical or testing laboratory that is certified through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, which establishes and promotes mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. The standards address analytical testing, with State and Federal agencies and serve as accrediting authorities with coordination facilitated by the EPA to assure uniformity.

8.3 O p i n i o n o n **** A d e q ua c y

Since enCore’s acquisition of the Project, there has been no sampling of natural materials for the assessment of geologic or hydrologic conditions that require preparation, analysis and security to submit samples to a laboratory; however, enCore does have sample preparation, methods of analysis, and sample and data security procedures that meet acceptable industry standards.

With respect to historical sample preparation, analysis and security of other previous operators, this information is not available and cannot be confirmed.

It is also the opinion of the QP that there are no known sampling preparation, analysis and security factors that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

40

9.0	DA TA VERIFICATION

The QP visited the site on January 7, 2025, to inspect the site and verify data in the technical report.

9.1 D ata Con fir m ati on

To verify data, the following steps were taken by the QP to review:

●	SOPs for drilling procedures, lithological and geophysical logging, and coring,
●	Drilling, lithological and geophysical logging in the field,
---	---
●	Geologists’ interpretation of lithology comparing drill cuttings to resistivity and SP geophysical results,<br>
---	---
●	Raw downhole geophysical data, grade calculations from raw data, and compositing method used to calculate average mineral<br>grade and determine thickness,
---	---
●	Geologists’ interpretation of deposit characteristics from gamma and PFN downhole geophysical data,<br>
---	---
●	Historic core information,
---	---
●	Workflow and data management including collection, processing, interpretation, digital documentation and database storage;<br>and,
---	---
●	Geophysical calibration records.
---	---

9.2 L imit a ti ons

Coring was not observed in the field as no coring activities were conducted during the duration of the site visit; however, the data for previously collected and sampled core was reviewed.

9.3 D ata **** A d e qu a c y

A considerable amount of work has been done by enCore and previous operators to ensure an adequate data set exists for the Project. It is the QP’s opinion that the data used in this technical report is adequate for technical reporting.

Based on data quality, efforts of others, and the QP’s review, it is the opinion of the QP that there are no known data factors that will materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

41

10.0	MIN ERA L P R O C E SS ING **** A NDM E T A LLU R GI CA L T ES TING

The Project is an operating mine that was in production from 2005 to 2013, with resumption of production in 2024. Therefore, there is considerable operational data to assess mineral processing and metallurgy from mining and processing data. Table 10.1 is a summary of production results from 2005 to 2013 and for enCore’s 2024 production.

Table 10.1: Alta Mesa Historic Production

Period	Production Area	Mineral Resource EstimateLbs (x 1000) U3O8	Production<br> <br>Lbs (x 1000) U3O8
2005 - 2013	PAA-1	1,921.3	1,610.0
	PAA-2	2,030.0	1,498.2
	PAA-3	262.0	290.4
	PAA-4	980.9	850.0
	PAA-5	89.6	35.0
	PAA-6	708.0	338.0
2024	PAA-7	237.5	190.0
		6,229.3	4,811.6

enCore has not performed any mineral processing or metallurgical testing analysis since past production demonstrates the adequacy of the existing ISR mining and recovery process. Furthermore, there are known processing factors or deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on economic extraction.

During initial development of the mine, Mesteña did conduct mineral processing and metallurgical testing, and key members of enCore’s management were part of the Mesteña team involved with the Project’s development.

42

11.0	MIN ERA L **** RES O U RC EE S TI MA T ES

enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. The amount of reported mineral resources does not include those amounts identified as mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have no demonstrated economic viability and do not meet the requirement for all the relevant modifying factors. Stated mineral resources are derived from estimated quantities of mineralized material recoverable by ISR methods.

11.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters andMethods

11.1.1 Key Assumptions

●	Mineral resources have been estimated based on the use of the ISR extraction method and yellowcake production,<br>
●	Price forecast, production costs and an 80% metallurgical recovery were used to estimate mineral resources.<br>
---	---
●	Average wellfield recovery of 80% that accounts for dilution from mining hydrologic efficiency and metallurgical recovery,<br>
---	---
●	Average plant recovery of 98%; and,
---	---
●	Average uranium price of $83.43 based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4.
---	---

11.1.2 Key Parameters

●	The mineral resources estimates are based on data collected from drillholes,
●	Grades (%<br>U3O8) were obtained from gamma radiometric and PFN probing,
---	---
●	Average density of 17.0 cubic feet per ton was used, based on historical sample measurements,
---	---
●	Minimum grade to define mineralized intervals is 0.020% eU3O8,
---	---
●	Minimum mineralized interval thickness is 1.0 feet,
---	---
●	Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness) cut-off per hole per mineralized interval for<br>grade-thickness contour modeling is 0.30 feet% U3O8,
---	---
●	Mineralized interval with GT values below the 0.30 feet% U3O8 GT cut-off is used for model definition but are not included within the mineral resource estimation,
---	---
●	Average annual production rate of approximately 0.4 M pounds,
---	---
●	Average annual estimated operating costs of $27.44 per pound,
---	---
●	Average annual estimated wellfield development costs of $11.33 per pound; and,
---	---
●	Average annual restoration and reclamation costs of $2.94 per pound.
---	---

43

11.1.3 Key Methods

●	Geological interpretation of the orebody was done on section and plan from surface drillhole information,<br>
●	The orebody was modeled creating roll-front outlines for each of the deposit’s individual mineralized zones,<br>
---	---
●	Pre-wellfield development, mineral resources within the roll-front outlines were<br>estimated by grade-thickness averaging, where the variable of uranium grade is multiplied by interval thickness and averaged within the roll-front outline,
---	---
●	Post-wellfield development, mineral resources within the roll-front outlines were estimated by grade-thickness contouring,<br>where the variable of uranium grade is multiplied by interval thickness and contoured area,
---	---
●	Wellfield recovery, lixiviant uranium head grades, wellfield flow rates and production requirements were used to define<br>production sequencing; and,
---	---
●	Geological modeling and mining applications used was ArcGIS Pro.
---	---

11.2 Resource Classification

Mineral resources are disclosed as required by United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 17, Chapter II, Part 229, §229.1303 and §229.1304, and are based upon and accurately reflect information and supporting documentation prepared by the QP, as defined in §229.1300.

The following classification criteria for each mineral resource category are applied for alignment with §229.1300 definitions of Measured, Indicated and Inferred mineral resources.

11.2.1 Measured Mineral Resources

Drilling is denser than 50 x 100 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support detailed wellfield planning and development with no or very little changes expected from additional drilling.

11.2.2 Indicated Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to or denser than 200 x 400 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development with some changes expected from additional drilling.

44

11.2.3 Inferred Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to about 800 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by less uniformity and not easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences but there is less confidence in geologic interpretation. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by insufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development due to significant changes expected from additional drilling.

11.3 Mineral Resource Estimates

A summary of the Project’s mineral resource estimates is provided in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1: Summary of Mineral Resource Estimates

Category	Tons (x 1,000)	Avg Grade (%) U3O8	Total Lbs (x 1000) U3O8
Measured	263.7	0.136	691.4
Indicated	630.0	0.150	1,894.5
Total Measured and Indicated	894.0	0.145	2,585.9
Inferred	2,223.4	0.112	5,200.5
Total Inferred	2,223.4	0.112	5,200.5

Notes:

1.	enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral<br>reserves.
2.	The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole<br>information.
---	---
3.	Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of<br>0.30 ft% U3O8.
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.
---	---
5.	Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less<br>confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.
---	---
6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---

11.4 Material Affects to Mineral Resources

It is the QP’s opinion that the quality of data, geological evaluation and modeling, in conjunction with metallurgical and hydrological testing results, are valid for mineral resource estimation.

To the extent that mineral resources may be impacted by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors, impacts could result in a material loss or gain to the Project’s mineral resources. The QP is not aware of any relevant factors that could materially affect the Project’s mineral resource estimates.

45

12.0	MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. The reference point at which mineral reserves are defined is the point where mineralization occurs under existing wellfields.

For the Project, no mineral reserves are yet defined as enCore continues updates to mineralization encountered during wellfield installation.

46

13.0	MINING METHODS

enCore is mining uranium using ISR. An alkaline leach system of carbon dioxide and oxygen is used as the extracting solution. Bicarbonate, resulting from the addition of carbon dioxide to the extracting solution, is the complexing agent. Oxygen is added to oxidize the uranium to a soluble +6 valence state.

ISR has been successfully used for over five decades in the United States as well as in other countries such as Kazakhstan and Australia. ISR mining was developed independently in the 1970s in the former Soviet Union and US for extracting uranium from sandstone hosted uranium deposits that were not suitable for open pit or underground mining. Many sandstones host deposits that are amenable to ISR, which is now a well-established mining method. As discussed in Section 5.0, Alta Mesa is an operating mine that was in production from 2005 to 2013, with resumption of production in 2024, demonstrates that uranium can be mobilized and recovered with an oxygenated carbonate lixiviant.

13.1 Mine Designs and Plans

13.1.1 Patterns, W ellfields and Mine Units

Production and injection wells are installed to facilitate the in-situ mining process. Injection wells are used to inject chemically fortified natural groundwater into the ore body liberating uranium. Production wells are used to recover the uranium rich waters by pumping the production fluid to the surface. Wells are completed in only one mineralized zone at a time and in a manner that focuses fluid flow across the deposit.

The fundamental production unit for design and production planning or scheduling is the pattern. A pattern is comprised of a production well and some number of injection wells.

Typical well patterns used are alternating single line drive, staggered line drive and five-spot. Pattern configuration is determined by the size and shape of the deposit, hydrogeological properties of the uranium bearing formation and mining economics.

Patterns are grouped into production units referred to as wellfields or modules. Modules form a practical means for design, development and production, where groups of 10-15 production wells and their associated injections wells are designed, constructed and operated, serving as the fundamental operating unit for distribution of the alkaline leach system.

To further facilitate planning, wellfields are grouped into PAAs. PAAs represent a collection of wellfields for which baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria have been established. These data are included in Production Area Authorization Application that is submitted to the TCEQ for approval prior to injection into a new mine unit.

An economic wellfield must cover the construction costs associated with well installation, connection of wells to piping that conveys the leach system between wellfields and the processing plant, and wellfield and plant operating costs.

47

13.1.2 Monitoring Wells

To establish baseline data, monitoring requirements and restoration criteria, baseline production zone and non-production zone monitor wells are installed for each mine unit.

Baseline monitor wells are completed in the wellfield within the deposit hosting sandstone to establish baseline water restoration criteria of the wellfield production zone. Perimeter monitor wells are installed in a ring around the entire wellfield. This ring is setback approximately 400 feet from the patterns and 400 feet apart. This monitor well ring will be used to ensure mining fluids are contained within the wellfield.

Monitor wells will also be completed in non-production zone hydro-stratigraphic units above (overlying) and, if required below (underlying), the production zone to monitor the potential for vertical lixiviant migration. These monitor wells will be completed in the first overlying aquifer. In the event a second overlying aquifer is identified, the thickness and integrity of the intervening aquitard will be evaluated to determine if the second aquifer will require monitoring.

13.1.3 Wellfield Surface Piping System and Header Houses

Each injection and production well will be connected within a network of polyethylene pipes to an injection or production manifold. Manifolds are fitted with meters, valves, and pressure gauges to measure and regulate flow to and from the wells. The manifolds are connected to larger trunk line pipes that convey fluids to and from the wellfield and CPP.

Since the climate is mild with winter temperatures rarely below freezing for prolonged periods of time, the production and injection pipelines and manifolds are not required to be buried below the ground. In colder climates ISR wellfields also need structures to house the manifolds and associated valves and instrumentation to prevent them from freezing. This expense is not necessary in south Texas. The ability to use surface piping reduces wellfield capital costs and reclamation costs.

13.1.4 Wellfield Production

Uranium is produced in wellfields by the dissolution of water-soluble uranium minerals from the deposit using a lixiviant at near neutral pH ranges. The lixiviant contains dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The addition of carbon dioxide increases the bicarbonate level; however, the natural bicarbonate in the ground is generally high enough that additional CO2 is not needed. The oxygen oxidizes the uranium, which is then complexed with the bicarbonate. The uranium-rich solution is then pumped from the production wells to the CPP for uranium concentration with ion exchange (IX) resin. A slightly greater volume of water is recovered from the hydro-stratigraphic unit than is injected, referred to as “bleed”, to create an inward flow gradient towards the wellfields. Thus, overall production flow rates will always be slightly greater than overall injection rates. This bleed solution is disposed, as permitted, via injection into Class I DDW’s.

13.1.5 Production Rates and Expected Mine Life

Flow rate and head grades will be maintained to achieve annual production rate. New wellfields will be developed and commissioned at a rate to ensure adequate head grades are maintained as operating

48

wellfields are depleted to achieve production objectives.

Production rate was calculated using the production model in Figure 13.1. The production model was applied to mineral resources using the following parameters:

●	Average recovery well flow rate of 45 gpm
●	Maximum CPP flow rate of 7,500 gpm
---	---
●	Average feed grade of 60 ppm U3O8
---	---
●	80% mineral recovery in 32 months
---	---

Production forecast by year is illustrated in Tables 19.1 and 19.2. For 2024, the Project’s wellfield solution head grades peaked at approximately 140 mg/L U3O8 and averaged approximately 65 mg/L U3O8.

Figure 13.1: Production Forecast Model

13.2 Mine Development

In February 2023, enCore completed acquisition of the Project from Energy Fuels, Inc establishing ownership of a second south Texas uranium processing plant. In March, the company announced its formal decision to resume commercial operations in early 2024 and commenced pre-construction and drilling activities preparing staging areas, drill pads and identification of equipment requiring maintenance or repair.

49

From March 2023 to Q2 2024, enCore renovated the CPP with equipment upgrades and refurbishments to the IX, elution and yellowcake processing circuits. During this timeframe, enCore also advanced mine development. The Project includes existing and new near-term production areas such as PAA-6 and PAA-7, which are fully permitted. Development is progressing in PAA-7, and brownfield drilling is being conducted in PAA-8, PAA-9 and PAA-10.

In PAA-7, 943 holes were drilled of which 224 were deemed suitable for further development into injection and production wells. In PAAs 8 through 10, 161 holes were drilled targeting mineralization in multiple horizons.

enCore commenced mining operations in PAA-7 in June 2024 and plans to ramp up production with a progressive process to advance and continually increase output. The plant has an operating flow capacity of 7,500 gpm. A new wellfield will be brought online on a near quarterly basis until the CPP name plate flow rate is achieved. The CPP has a design capacity of 2.0 million pounds U3O8 per year for IX elution, precipitation, slurry filtration, drying and packaging. The CPP has an IX uranium recovery capacity of 1.5 million pounds U3O8 per year through three separate IX circuits.

Flow rate and head grades will be maintained to achieve annual production rate. New wellfields will be developed and commissioned at a rate to ensure adequate head grades are maintained as operating wellfields are depleted to achieve production objectives. See Figure 13.2 Alta Mesa Mine.

13.3 Mining Fleetand Machinery

enCore owns sufficient rolling stock for production and restoration of the mine. Rolling stock and equipment includes pump hoists, cementers, forklifts, pickups, logging trucks, and generators. In addition, several pieces of heavy equipment are on site for excavation of mud pits, road maintenance, and reclamation activities.

50

Figure 13.2: Alta Mesa Mine

51

14.0	PROCESS AND REC O V ERY **** M E T HODS

14.1 Processing Facilities ****

The CPP collects and processes uranium. The CPP processing circuits consists of IX, elution, precipitation, dewatering, drying and packaging. Figure 14.1 is the CPP process flow diagram. Figure 14.2 is the CPP general arrangement.

Part of enCore’s operational plan is to mine uranium from satellite properties processing product at one of the company’s CPPs.

In February 2024, enCore submitted the License R05360 Renewal and Amendment Application to the TCEQ requesting amendment to the existing license activities authorization to construct and operate remote ion exchange (RIX) facilities within the existing license area and to process resin for uranium extraction that is generated from other sources.

RIX are self-contained stand-alone processing facilities with an IX circuit and a resin transfer system. RIX is the same uranium recovery process as IX in the CPP. Once uranium is recovered, loaded resin will be transferred via the resin transfer system and trucked to the CPP.

A description of the uranium recovery process is provided in the remainder of the section.

14.2 Process Flow

14.2.1 Ion Exchange

Uranium is recovered from pregnant lixiviant solution using the IX circuit. The IX circuit consists of three independent parallel process streams of four up-flow columns each that are operated in series. Each IX circuit has a 2,500 gallons per minute operational capacity for a total IX operational capacity of 7,500 gallons per minute. Each IX circuit has four (4) up flow IX columns each containing 500 cubic foot batch of anionic ion exchange resin to capture uranium from the pregnant lixiviant. The circuit does have a secondary downflow IX processing circuit downstream of the up-flow circuits to capture any residual uranium from the up-flow columns effluent. Production and Injection booster pumps are located upstream and downstream of the trains, respectively.

Vessels are designed to provide optimum contact time between pregnant lixiviant and IX resin. An interior stainless-steel piping manifold system distributes lixiviant evenly across the resin. The dissolved uranium in the pregnant lixiviant is chemically adsorbed onto the ion exchange resin. The resultant barren lixiviant exiting the vessels contains less than 2 ppm of uranium and is returned to the wellfield where oxygen and carbon dioxide are added prior to reinjection.

14.2.2 Production Bleed

A bleed is drawn from the injection stream prior to reinjection into the wellfield to maintain control of hydraulic conditions in the production zone. Bleed water is directed into the liquid waste stream and disposed of as discussed is Section 14.4.

52

14.2.3 Elu t ion Circuit

Loaded resin in the up-flow columns is eluted in-situ stripping uranium from the resin with a brine solution and forming a uranium rich eluate. The uranium rich eluate overflows from the up-flow columns and pumped to eluant tanks. The CPP has three sets of eluant tanks.

53

Figure 14.1: CPP Process Flow Diagram

54

Figure 14.2: CPP General Arrangement

55

14.2.4 Precipitation Circuit

Uranium rich eluate is transferred to a precipitation circuit. Sulfuric acid is added to the uranium rich eluate lowering the pH to the range of 2 to 3 where the uranyl carbonate breaks down, liberating carbon dioxide and leaving free uranyl ions. Next, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) is added to raise the pH to the range of 4 to 5. After this pH adjustment, hydrogen peroxide is added in a batch process to form an insoluble uranyl peroxide (UO2O2^.^H2O) compound. After precipitation, the pH is raised to approximately 7 and the uranium precipitate slurry is pumped to a filter press. The barren solution is disposed of via a deep injection well.

14.2.5 Product Fil t ering, Dr y ing and P a cka g ing

After precipitation, yellowcake is removed for washing, filtering, drying and product packaging in a separate building at the CPP. The yellowcake from the filter press is washed to remove excess chlorides and other soluble contaminants. The filter cake is transferred via progressive cavity pump to a yellowcake hopper and then to the yellowcake dryer.

The CPP is equipped with two rotary low temperature vacuum dryers. The yellowcake is dried at temperature ranging from approximately 176 to 212 °F. The dryer is an enclosed unit and heated by circulating propane heated oil through an external jacket. Drying time per batch typically ranges between 9 to 14 hours. The off gases generated during the drying cycle, which are primarily water vapor, are filtered through a bag house to remove entrained particulates and then condensed. Compared to conventional high temperature drying by multi-hearth systems, this dryer has no significant airborne particulate emissions.

The dried yellowcake is packaged into 55-gallon drums for storage before transport by truck to a conversion facility.

The yellowcake drying and packaging stations are segregated within the processing plant for worker safety. Dust abatement and filtration equipment is deployed in this area of the facility. Filled yellowcake drums are stored on a curbed concrete pad until transport.

14.3 W at e r **** B ala n ce

The water balance is based on a production maximum flow rate of 7,500 gpm and a 1% bleed to maintain hydraulic control of the mine units. In the CPP water will be used for make-up and washdown at a rate of approximately 12 gpm from a local fresh water supply well. Restoration activities will include 250 gpm feed to an RO, with 175 gpm returned to the wellfield and 75 gpm to a liquid effluent management system that includes the use of six above ground 44,000-gallon storage tanks and water injection into permitted Class I injection wells.

14.4 Liquid Waste Disposal

The Project uses deep disposal wells for disposal of liquid waste generated during production and restoration. Alta Mesa has two disposal wells that are permitted under the TCEQ’s Underground Injection Control Class I permit program.

56

14.5 Solid Waste Disposal ****

Waste classified as non-contaminated (non-hazardous, non-radiological) will be disposed of in the nearest permitted sanitary waste disposal facility. Waste classified as hazardous (non-radiological) will be segregated and disposed of at the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility. Radiologically contaminated solid wastes that cannot be decontaminated, are classified as 11.e.(2) byproduct material. This waste will be packaged and stored on-site temporarily and periodically shipped to a licensed 11.e.(2) byproduct waste facility or a licensed mill tailings facility.

14.6 Energy, Water and Process Material Requirements

14.6.1 Energy Requirements

It is estimated that approximately 1 MBTUH of propane will be consumed to operate one dryer for 12 hours per day. enCore studies have shown that electrical consumption is approximately 8.95 kw per pound of U3O8 produced.

14.6.2 Water Requirements

Bleed from the production stream is treated by RO and permeate is used to supplement fresh water in the various plant process. The RO concentrate is sent to disposal. Fresh water is supplied from two Goliad formation wells and used for process make-up, showers, domestic uses, and plant wash-down and yellowcake wash.

57

15.0	INF RAS T R U C TU R E

The basic infrastructure (power, water and transportation) necessary to support the project is located within reasonable proximity of the site as further described below and presented in Figure 15.1.

15.1 Utilities

15.1.1 Electrical Power

TXU Energy is the Project’s power provider.

Site electrical is provided via two established power lines run into the plant. AEP Texas is the owner of the main power lines that provide the plant power. Power lines inside the property are owned and installed by enCore.

15.1.2 Domestic and Utility Water Wells

Two water wells are used for domestic and utilities water supply, the Miller well and well 366. The Miller well is used to supply water for toilets, eye wash, laundry and other domestic needs. Well 366 supplies water for plant make-up water for plant processing circuits, wash down as well as drilling water. Both water supply wells are completed in the Goliad Formation.

15.1.3 Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary sewer waste is managed with a septic tank system and evaporation field. The system is designed in accordance with state and local health and sanitation requirements.

15.2 Transportation

15.2.1 Roads

Roads and highways proximal to the Project consist of a two-lane improved caliche base County Road (315) that runs north-south parallel to eastern Project boundary, Ranch to Market Roads 755 and 430, and U.S. Highway 281, which is approximately 10 miles east of the site and is the major north-south highway through the Rio Grande Valley.

Roads within the Project area are unimproved or have an improved caliche base.

15.3 Buildings

15.3.1 Central Processing Plant

The CPP is a partially open-air and partially enclosed facility located on a fully contained concrete foundation. The IX, elution and precipitation circuits are all open-air, the filtration circuit is partially covered, and the drying circuit is enclosed. Chemical storage is also located on the CPP foundation.

58

15.3.2 Office

Two office facilities are located on-site, Administration and Environmental-Safety to accommodate management, administrative, technical, regulatory and safety services for the project. The facilities are outfitted with all equipment, materials and supplies to ensure efficient operation of those functions. The Administration facility will accommodate approximately 30 personnel, with offices, conference/meeting room, administration, kitchen/lunchroom, and restroom facilities. The Environmental-Safety facility accommodates about 15 people with offices, a meeting room, kitchen/lunchroom and restroom facilities.

15.3.3 Maintenance Shop and Warehouse

A maintenance shop and warehouse facility are located on-site.

The shop is for maintenance and repair of rolling stock, and other equipment. The shop is outfitted with all equipment, material and supplies to ensure efficient maintenance and repair support of the site. The shop has office space, lunchroom, as well as change room with restroom and shower facilities. The shop also has storage for commonly used supplies and materials.

The shop is outfitted with all equipment, materials and supplies to ensure efficient warehouse operations. The warehouse shares office space, lunchroom and restroom facilities with Maintenance.

15.3.4 Diesel and Gasoline Storage

Diesel and gasoline are stored on-site in individual tanks. Tanks are manufactured for the use of fuel storage and are double walled for spill leak prevention. Tanks are set in a concrete containment area to prevent potential environmental impacts from leaks or spills. Diesel and gasoline transfer pumps are used to refuel vehicles, heavy equipment, and miscellaneous small equipment.

15.3.5 Laboratory

A laboratory is on-site for testing and sample analysis, as well as storage for sample receipts, sample preparation, chemicals, and analytical documentation. The laboratory is in a controlled access portion of the Administration building.

15.3.6 Geophysical Logging Facility

The on-site logging facility has an office building, covered storage, and PFN calibration test pits. The facility is outfitted with all equipment, materials and supplies to ensure efficient logging operations. The office building has office space, lunchroom and restrooms.

59

Figure 15.1: Project Infrastructure

60

16.0	M AR K E T STUDI E S ****

16.1 Uranium Market

The uranium market is experiencing a global renaissance as people around the world work to develop clean and reliable sources of energy. This market rise is supported by growing support for nuclear power and government efforts through legislative subsidies to reduce carbon emission, advancements nuclear technologies, and to ensure domestic fuel supplies.

The United States, which is the world’s largest consumer of uranium is also a minimal producer. Production in the United States has dropped from varying levels of 2.0 to 5.0 million pounds U3O8 produced, between 2000 to 2017, to less than 0.5 million pounds produced in 2023 (ref., USEIA, 2023). To meet US demand, which is more than 48.0 million pounds of U3O8 annually, the US is importing supply from around the world.

Therefore, companies such as enCore are positioning themselves to participate in this improving market producing and supplying uranium from its diverse asset portfolio.

16.2 Uranium PriceProjection

enCore’s uranium price forecast is based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4 and the report has been read by the qualified person. Based on TradeTech’s study and analysis of the uranium market, TradeTech forecasts SPOT LOW, SPOT HIGH, and TERM prices in Real US$/lb U3O8. enCore has assumed that spot pricing will be an average of the annual spot high and spot low prices. enCore has also assumed portfolio pricing will be a mix of average spot and term sales prices. Using this approach, enCore’s is using a uranium sales price that ranges from $82.00 to $85.75, with an average LOM sales price of $83.43, for the economic analysis.

16.3 Contracts

enCore’s contracting and sales strategy is defined by a blend of pricing collars and exposure to the spot market. enCore has six sales agreements with five U.S. nuclear utilities that includes three large multi-reactor operators and one legacy contract with a trading firm. Contracts are structured with pricing that reflects market conditions at the time of execution with floors and ceilings that are adjusted annually for inflation. Inflation adjusted floor and ceiling prices provide base levels of revenue assuring an operating margin while providing significant upside exposure to spot market pricing. At current prices, enCore plans to contract less than 50% of planned production rates but contracting will likely increase if spot prices begin to spike. enCore’s current contracts represent less than 30% of planned production through 2032 and the company is reviewing other contracting opportunities.

61

17.0	E N V I R ON ME NTAL **** STU D I ES ,P ERM ITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS

17.1 EnvironmentalStudies

Mesteña conducted an environmental baseline data collection program the results of which were included in the RML application dated June 1, 2000. The company performed environmental sampling programs to characterize pre-mining conditions related to geology, surface hydrology, sub-surface hydrology, geochemistry, wetlands, air quality, vegetation, soil, wildlife, archeology, meteorology, and background radionuclide concentrations in the environment.

In addition to the baseline environmental data, TDH staff prepared an Environmental Assessment of the project. The EA addressed environmental issues associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility, as well as ground water restoration at the facility. The EA and the Applications submitted for Class I and Class III IUC permits were used as the basis for approval of the Alta Mesa license application.

The EA indicates that moderate to significant environmental concerns are unlikely for the Project. There are no known environmental issues that could materially impact enCore’s ability to extract the mineral resource.

The license and mine permit applications were developed to document baseline conditions, describe the proposed operations and evaluate the potential for impacts to the environment. The applications were submitted to and approved by the TCEQ. Evaluation subjects included: existing and anticipated land use, transportation, geology, soils, seismic risk, water resources, climate/meteorology, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, air quality, noise, and historic and cultural resources. Additionally, socioeconomic characteristics in the vicinity of the Property were evaluated. In these evaluations, no impacts from project development were identified that could not be mitigated.

The Texas Bureau of Radiation Control issued final approval of the Mesteña RML in November of 2002 and since then the license has been amended 19 times, the most recent one occurring July 17, 2023.

Discussion of the results of the potential impacts of the project included below.

17.1.1 Potential Wellfield Impacts

The injection of treated groundwater as part of uranium recovery or as part of restoration of the production zone is unlikely to cause changes in the underground environment except to restore the water quality consistent with baseline or other TCEQ approved limits and to reduce mobility of any residual radionuclides. Further, industry standard operating procedures, which are accepted by TCEQ and other regulating agencies for ISR operations, include a regional pump test prior to licensing, followed by more detailed pump tests after licensing and before production, for each individual mine area (mine unit).

During wellfield operations, potential environmental impacts include consumptive use, horizontal fluid

62

excursions, vertical fluid excursions, and changes to groundwater quality in production zones. As the federal regulator under the Atomic Energy Act, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) has conducted a thorough analysis in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Uranium Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (NUREG-1910), the NRC concluded that that impacts of wellfield operations on the environment will be small. Wellfield operations will have environmental effects that are either not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the area’s groundwater resources.

TCEQ staff concluded the potential environmental impact of consumptive groundwater use during wellfield operation will be small at the Project because such consumptive use will result in limited drawdown near the project area, water levels will recover relatively rapidly after groundwater withdrawals cease. The TCEQ has granted approval of the permit after considering important site-specific conditions such as the proximity of water users’ wells to wellfields, the total volume of water in the production hydro-stratigraphic units, the natural recharge rate of the production hydro-stratigraphic units, the transmissivities and storage coefficients of the production hydro-stratigraphic units, and the degree of isolation of the production hydro-stratigraphic units from overlying and underlying hydro-stratigraphic units.

TCEQ staff also concluded the potential environmental impact from horizontal excursions at the Project will be small. This is because i) EPA will exempt a portion of the uranium-bearing aquifer from protection as a source of underground drinking water, according to the State equivalent criteria under 40 CFR 146.4, ii) enCore is required to submit wellfield operational plans for TCEQ approval, iii) inward hydraulic gradients will be maintained to ensure groundwater flow is toward the production zone, and iv) enCore’s TCEQ mandated groundwater monitoring plan will ensure that excursions, if they occur, are detected and corrected.

Similarly, potential impacts from vertical excursions were concluded by TCEQ staff to be small. The reasons given for the conclusion included:

●	uranium-bearing production zones in Goliad Formation and are hydrologically isolated from adjacent aquifers by thick, low<br>permeability layers,
●	there is a prevailing upward hydraulic gradient across the major hydro-stratigraphic units; and,
---	---
●	enCore is required to implement a mechanical integrity testing program to mitigate the impacts of potential vertical<br>excursions resulting from borehole failure.
---	---

Lastly, potential impacts of wellfield operations on groundwater quality in production zones were concluded by TCEQ staff to be small because enCore must initiate groundwater restoration in the production zone to return groundwater to Commission-approved background levels, EPA MCL’s or to TCEQ approved alternative water quality levels at the end of ISR operations.

17.1.2 Potential Soil Impacts

TCEQ staff have concluded that potential impacts to soil during all phases of construction, operation, groundwater restoration, and decommissioning of the Project will be small. During construction, earthmoving activities (topsoil clearing and land grading) associated with the construction of the Project’s access roads, wellfields, and pipelines will be minimal. Topsoil removed during these

63

activities will be stored and reused later to restore disturbed areas. The limited areal extent of the construction area, the soil stockpiling procedures, the implementation of best management practices, the short duration of the construction phase, and mitigative measures such as reestablishment of native vegetation will further minimize the potential impact on soils due to construction activities.

During groundwater restoration, the potential impact to soils from spills and leaks of treated wastewater will be comparable to those described for the operations phase. During decommissioning, disruption or displacement of soils will occur during facility dismantling and surface reclamation; however, disturbed lands will be restored to their pre-ISR land use. Stored topsoil will be spread on reclaimed areas, and the surface will be graded to its original topography.

The following proposed measures will be used to minimize the potential impacts to soil resources:

●	Salvage and stockpile topsoil from disturbed areas.
●	Reestablish temporary or permanent native vegetation as soon as possible after disturbance utilizing the latest<br>technologies in reseeding and sprigging, such as hydroseeding.
---	---
●	Decrease runoff from disturbed areas by using structures to temporarily divert and/or dissipate surface runoff from<br>undisturbed areas.
---	---
●	Retain sediment within the disturbed areas by using silt fencing, retention ponds, and hay bales.
---	---
●	Drainage design will minimize potential for erosion by creating slopes less than 4 to 1 and/or provide riprap or other soil<br>stabilization controls.
---	---
●	Construct roads using techniques that will minimize erosion, such as surfacing with a gravel road base, constructing stream<br>crossings at right angles with adequate embankment protection and culvert installation.
---	---
●	Use a spill prevention and cleanup plan to minimize soil contamination from vehicle accidents and/or wellfield spills or<br>leaks.
---	---

17.1.3 Potential Impacts from Shipping Resin, Yellowcake and 11.e.(2) Materials ****

The Project operations will require truck shipment of resin, yellowcake and 11.e.(2) materials.

17.1.3.1 Ion Exchange Resin Shipment

Since all the resin loading operations at Project will occur at the main processing facility there will be no need to transfer ion exchange resin by truck. This will eliminate any potential impacts to soil from resin spills during transport by truck

For future development, it is anticipated that loaded resin will be transported by tanker trucks from remote RIX’s to the Alta Mesa Plant. The radiological risk of these shipments is lower than shipping finished yellowcake because

●	loaded resin has lower uranium concentrations than yellowcake concentrates,
●	uranium is chemically bound to resin beads; therefore, it is less likely to spread and easier to remediate in the event of<br>a spill, and
---	---
●	loaded resin shipments are transported over shorter distances between the satellite and CPP versus over-the-road yellowcake shipments which are transported from site to a conversion facility.
---	---

64

The NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 71 and the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for shipping ion exchange resins, which are enforced by TCE, also provide confidence that safety is maintained and the potential for environmental impacts regarding resin shipments remains small. (ref. US NRC, 2009 and 2014).

17.1.3.2 Yellowcake Shipment

After yellowcake is produced at the Alta Mesa processing facility, it is transported to a US approved conversion plant for sampling and conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF6). NRC and others have previously analyzed the hazards associated with transporting yellowcake and have determined potential impacts are small. Previously reported accidents involving yellowcake indicate that in all cases spills were contained and cleaned up quickly (by the shipper with state involvement) without significant health or safety impacts to workers or the public. Safety controls and compliance with existing transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 add confidence that yellowcake can be shipped safely with a low potential for adversely affecting the environment. Transport drums, for example, must meet specifications of 49 CFR Part 173, which is incorporated in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 71. To further minimize transportation-related yellowcake releases, delivery trucks are recommended to meet safety certifications and drivers must hold appropriate licenses).

17.1.3.3 11. e.(2) Shipment

Operational 11.e.(2) byproduct materials (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) will be shipped from the Alta Mesa Project by truck for disposal at a licensed disposal site. All shipments will be completed in accordance with applicable NRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 71 and U.S. Department of Transportation requirements in 49 CFR Parts 171–189. Risks associated with transporting yellowcake were determined by NRC to bound the risks expected from byproduct material shipments, owing to the more concentrated nature of shipped yellowcake, the longer distance yellowcake is shipped relative to byproduct material, and the relative number of shipments of each material type. Therefore, potential environmental impacts from transporting byproduct material are considered small (ref., USNRC, 2009 and 2014).

17.2 Socioeconomic Studies and Issues

The Texas Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA) commissioned a study in May 2011 by the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas that examined the economic and fiscal impacts of uranium production in Texas. It found that the Texas uranium mining industry not only contributes $311 million annually in economic impact to local economies but also helps those economies grow by attracting additional business and industry.

All phases of the Alta Mesa Project require materials and supplies needed for construction, operation, and closure which will be purchased from local, state, and regional suppliers and vendors. The most common growth because of the project has been seen in sectors such as food services, wholesale trade, mining support services, architectural and engineering, real estate and healthcare.

Effects to infrastructure and services such as roads/traffic, school enrollment, utilities (supply and capacity), commodity prices, tax burden, and emergency medical services are sensitive to the

65

ultimate location or relocation of additional workers. enCore expects that most of the workers employed during the operational phase of the Alta Mesa Project would come from various communities in the immediate area such as Falfurrias, Encino, Hebbronville, Edinburg, and Rio Grande City resulting in no additional impacts to the above-mentioned infrastructure and services.

In summary, since the maximum increase in population due to anticipated employment needs for the project is insignificant, effects to infrastructure and services are not anticipated in Brooks or neighboring counties. The expansion of the Alta Mesa project should therefore involve minimal negative impacts to the community.

17.3 Permitting Requirements and Status ****

The most significant permits and licenses required to operate the Project are (1) the Source and Byproduct Materials License, which was issued by TCEQ (formerly Texas Bureau of Radiation Control) in 2002; (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ in April 2000; and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) issued at various times since April 2000, two deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (V wells) issued by TCEQ in April 2000 and an aquifer exemption issued by USEPA in 2002 and the area was expanded in a revised Aquifer Emption dated 2009.

PAA-1 has been mined, and the groundwater restoration has been approved by the TCEQ. PAA-2 through PAA-6 are either in standby or in the process of groundwater restoration. PAA-7 is currently being mined.

The status of the various federal and state permits and licenses are summarized in Table 17.1.

66

Table 17.1: Permitting Status

Permit/License	Status
FCC - Radio License FRN0020106654	Active
Sewage System OSSF	Active
PAA-1	Active
PAA-2	Active
PAA-3	Active
PAA-4	Active
PAA-5	Active
PAA-6	Active
PAA-7	Active
Uranium Exploration Permit 125	Active
Radioactive Material License - R05360	Timely Renewal
L05939 - Sealed Source RML for PFN	Active
TCEQ Aquifer Exemption	Active
EPA Aquifer Exemption	Active
UIC Class III Mine Area Permit UR03060	Timely Renewal
USCOE 404 exemption SWG-1998-02466	Active
UIC Class I disposal well permit WDW-365	Active
UIC Class I disposal well permit WDW-366	Active

17.4 Community Affairs

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

The Project is located in Brooks County, Texas. Brooks County is generally rural and according to the 2020 United States Census, there were 7,076 people living in the county. The population density was 7.5 people per square mile.

The Alta Mesa project area is permitted for ISR mining and recovery of uranium and has been in operation (active and standby) since 2002. Since the project is located on a large ranch that controls both surface and mineral rights and the ranch is in a rural county in south Texas, there have only been positive reactions from the local community. In the past 20 years of operations the project has been well received by the surrounding community and there have been no public objections to the project.

17.5 Project Closure

Decommissioning, reclamation, and restoration at each project site is comprised of primary activities

67

that include the following:

●	Groundwater restoration within affected wellfields
●	Plugging and abandonment of injection, production, and monitor wells
---	---
●	Radiological decontamination and/or demolition of buildings, process vessels, and other structures, in the affected areas<br>
---	---
●	Removal of the CPP and auxiliary structures
---	---
●	Soil reclamation of restored wellfields and processing areas
---	---
●	Plugging and abandonment of WDW-365 and<br>WDW-366
---	---

When site decommissioning is complete, the land and underlying water will have been returned to those conditions described in baseline environmental programs within applicable permits and licenses, mitigating any long-term impact of the mining activity. Final decommissioning will take place after all mining and groundwater restoration is complete.

Groundwater restoration is accomplished as wellfields are mined out. Cased wells will be plugged as soon as groundwater restoration is complete and approved by the TCEQ.

Before release of an area to unrestricted use, enCore will provide information to TCEQ verifying that radionuclide concentrations meet applicable regulatory standards. Specifically, any byproduct contaminated soils will be removed to levels required in 30 TAC §336.356(a).

Equipment will not be released unless it meets the surface contamination criteria of 30 TAC §336.364. Solid byproduct material which does not meet the release criteria of 30 TAC §336.364 will be disposed of off-site at a licensed uranium mill tailings facility. Currently, enCore utilizes the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah for disposal of byproduct material.

Both the surface reclamation plan and groundwater restoration plan are intended to return areas affected by mining activities to a condition which supports the pre-mining land uses of cattle grazing, and wildlife habitat.

17.5.1 Byproduct Disposal

The 11.e.(2) or non-11.e.(2) byproduct disposal methods are discussed in Section 20. Deep disposal wells, landfills, and licensed 11.e.(2) facilities will be used depending on waste classification and type.

17.5.2 Well Abandonment and Groundwater Restoration

Groundwater restoration will begin as soon as practicable after uranium recovery is completed in each wellfield. If a depleted wellfield is near an area that is being recovered, a portion of the depleted area’s restoration may be delayed limiting interference with the on-going mining operations.

Groundwater restoration will require the circulation of native groundwater and extraction of mobilized ions through reverse osmosis treatment and subsequent reinjection of the RO permeate. The intent of groundwater restoration is to return the groundwater quality parameters consistent with that established during the pre-operational sampling for each wellfield. As previously noted, groundwater from the production aquifer does not meet EPA drinking water standards, as established in the site characterization baseline data.

68

Restoration estimates assume up to six pore volumes of groundwater will be extracted and treated by reverse osmosis. Following completion of successful restoration activities, stability monitoring, and regulatory approval, the injection and recovery wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with TCEQ regulations. Monitor wells will also be abandoned following verification of successful groundwater restoration.

17.5.3 Demolition and Removal of Infrastructure

Simultaneous with well abandonment operations, the trunk and feeder pipelines will be removed, tested for radiological contamination, segregated as either solid 11.e.(2) or non-11.e.(2), then chipped and transported to appropriate disposal facilities. The facilities’ processing equipment and ancillary structures will be demolished, tested for radiological properties, segregated and either scrapped or disposed of in appropriate disposal facilities based on their radiological properties.

17.5.4 Reclamation

All disturbances will be reclaimed including wellfields, plant sites and roads. The site will be re-graded to approximate pre-development contours, and the stockpiled topsoil placed over disturbed areas. The disturbed areas will then be seeded.

17.6 Financial Assurance

The Project has financial security in the form of a bond for the estimated total facility closure costs which include groundwater restoration, facility decommissioning and reclamation. Two other bonds are in place to cover the cost of well closure and abandonment of the Class III wells and the two Class I wells. The financial surety is based on the estimated previous year’s costs plus the cost for reclamation for the current years planned activities. The cost estimates assume closure by a third-party contactor including a 25% contingency. These cost estimates are reviewed and approved by TCEQ annually. The financial security instrument is in the name of the TCEQ.

17.7 Adequacy of Mitigation Plans

It is the QP’s opinion that enCore’s plans to address any issues related to environmental compliance, permitting and local individuals or groups are adequate. enCore is proactive with an ongoing community affairs program maintaining routine contacts with landowners, local communities, businesses, and the public. The company has good relationships with regulatory agencies and is a proactive steward of the Project.

69

18.0	CA PIT A L **** A ND O P ERA TING C O S TS

Capital and operating costs are on a 100% cost basis. All costs are based on 2024 USD and the estimated production throughput. Cost projections do not contain any estimates associated with development, mining or processing of inferred mineral resources.

18.1 C a p ital Co st Es t i mates

Estimated capital costs are $25.9 with major component costs listed in Table 18.1. Labor costs for wellfield construction are included in wellfield development costs. Table 18.2 is the capital cost forecast by year.

Table 18.1: Major Capital Components

Major Components	Cost US$000s (No Sales Tax)
Plant Refurbishments	$ 2,500
Wellfields	$23,400
	$25,900

70

Table 18.2: Capital Cost Forecast by Year

Table 18.2: Capital Cost Forecast by Year Cash Flow Line Items Units Total or Average $ per Pound 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Less: Plant Development Costs\ US$000s $2,500 $1.21 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Less: Wellfield Development Costs US$000s $23,431 $11.33 $3.546 $3.976 $4,533 $3.556 $4.598 $2,475 $655 $91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Costs US$000s $25,931 $12.54 $6,046 $3.976 $4.533 $3,556 54.598 $2,475 $655 $91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

71

18.2 O p era t i n g Co stE s timates

Estimated operating costs for plant and wellfield operations, product transaction, administrative support, decontamination, and decommissioning, and restoration are presented in Table 18.3: Operating Cost Components and over the LOM in Table 18.4: Operating Cost Forecast by Year.

Wellfield operating costs include electricity, replacement wells and associated equipment, rental equipment, rolling stock, equipment fuel and maintenance, and wellfield chemicals.

Plant operating expenses include plant chemicals, electricity, equipment fuel and maintenance, waste management operations, rentals and supplies, RO operations and product handling.

Product transaction costs include costs for product shipping and conversion fees.

D&D and restoration costs include costs for restoration of the wellfields, decontamination and decommissioning of facilities, and reclamation of the site.

Administrative support costs include corporate overhead and technical support costs as well as taxes, insurance, salaries, rent, legal fees, land and mineral acquisitions, permit and license application costs, regulatory fees, insurance, office supplies and financial assurance.

Operating costs are estimated to be $27.44 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development and production sequence and quantity, in conjunction with past production knowledge.

Labor costs associated with wellfield and plant operations, restoration and administration are included in operating costs.

18.3 Cost Accuracy

The Project is an operating mine, and capital and operating cost estimates are very accurate. Costs are based on current actual costs and budgetary estimates.

To assess the accuracy of capital and operating costs and cost estimates, the QP has reviewed actual costs and methods used to arrive at actuals and estimates.

As part of this analysis, the QP has taken into consideration the completeness of relevant factors in review of actual costs and cost estimates. Relevant factors considered include site infrastructure, mine design and planning, processing plant, environmental compliance and permitting, capital costs, operating costs and economic analysis.

With respect to site infrastructure, access roads, plant and other infrastructure are in place. All utilities are in place and actual costs are used for budgeting.

The mining method is employed, and mines are in operation, construction and planning. Development and production plans have been implemented, and the required equipment fleet is operational.

The CPP is operational and fit for purpose.

Permits and licenses are active, and the Project is in environmental compliance.

An economic analysis is included. Taxes are evaluated and described in detail. Revenues are

72

estimated based on a detailed market analysis and economics are assessed in detail using an after-tax discounted cash flow analysis.

It is the QP’s opinion that the accuracy of capital and operating cost estimates does comply with § 229.1302 of Regulation S–K for a technical report summary.

Table 18.3: Operating Cost Components

73

Table 18.4: Operating Cost Forecast by Year

Table 18.4: Operating Cost Forecast by Year 1 Cash Flow Line Items Units Total or $per Pound 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 less Plant & wellfield operating Costs Less product transactions Costs less administrative support Costs less D&D. and restoration costs ‘.UXMs us$000s .us$000s $38,955 $1,209 $10,519 $6,070 $18 84 $0 58 $5.09$2 94 $5 979 $183 $1 504 $0 $6 386 $205 $1 504 $0 $6 912 $234 $1.504 $0 $5 988 $183 $2002 $0 $6 974 $237 $2 002 $346 $3 324 $128 $2002 $346 $1 341 $34 $0’ $779 $686 $5 $0 $980 $333 $0 $0 $1,144 $133 $0 $0 $958 $233 $0 $0 $665 $233 $0 $0 $651 $2.33 $0 $0 $157 S’ St. $C $44 Operating Costs US$0098 $56,753 $27.44 $7,686 $8,095 $8,651 $8,174 $9,559 $5,800 $2,154 $1,671 $1,478 $1,291 $898 $884 $390 $44

74

19.0	ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

19.1 Economic analysis

The Project economic analysis illustrates a cash flow forecast on an annual basis using mineral resources and mineral reserves and an annual production schedule for the LOM NPV. A summary of taxes, royalties, and other interests, as applicable to production and revenue are also discussed, as well as the impact of significant parameters such as uranium sales price, and capital and operating costs to economic sensitivity. The analysis assumes no escalation, no debt, no debt interest, no capital repayment and no state income tax since Texas does not impose a corporate income tax.

enCore is using a uranium sales price ranging from $82.00 to $85.75, with an average sales price of $83.43. Price basis is discussed in Section 16.

The economic analysis assumes that 80% of the mineral resources and mineral reserves are recoverable. The pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax in the form of ad valorem, plant and wellfield operations, product transaction, administrative and technical support, D&D, and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, to estimate federal income tax.

Less federal tax, the Projects cash flow is estimated at $83.8 M or $42.89 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $66.4 M (Table 19.1). The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $64.9 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $52.03. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $51.6 M (Table 19.2).

75

Table 19.1: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Exclusion of Federal Income Tax

Table 19.1: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Exclusion of Federal Income Tax Cash flow line items Units Total or Average S per Pound 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Uranium Producion as UsOa’ Lbs000s 2.068 313 351 400 314 406 218 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uranium Pries far U yda3 US$46 $03.43 - 8415 83.75 8315 8200 8350 8350 85.00 85.75 86.75 88.00 8800 8825 8900 8900 Uranium Gross Revenue $0 $172,536 $26 369 $29390 $33306 $25,736 $33,885 $18242 $4917 691 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Less: Surface &Mineral Royalifies USSOOOs $5,400 $2.61 $825 $920 $1X42 $806 $1X61 $571 $154 $22 $0 $0 SO SO SO $0 Taxable Revenue USSOOOs $167,135 $25,543 $28X70 $32164 $24X30 532 825 $17,671 $4,763 $669 SO $0 $0 so $0 $0 Less: Property Tax us$ooos $617 $030 $48 $49 $65 $96 $67 568 $54 $55 $56 $58 so $0 $0 so Net Gross Sales USSOOOs $166,518 $25495 $28X21 $32,199 $24X34 $32.758 517.603 $4,709 S6I4 -556 -558 $0 so $0 $0 Less plant wellfield Operating Costs USSCOCs $38.955$ $1184 55379 $6.38€ $6.912 $5988 $6,974 $’.324 $1.34- $666 $333 $33’ $233 $233 $233 $0 less product transactions $3000s $1209 $0.58: $183 $205 $734 $183 $237 $128 $34 $S $0 $< $< $< $< $< less administrative support* costs us$000s $10519 $5.09 $• #04 $1504 $15 04 $2002 S?$2002 $2002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0c $0 $C $0 less: D&D and restoration costs us$000s $6X70 s; 34 $C $C $C sc $346 $346 $770 $960 $1’44 $95€ $€65 $€51 $157 $44 net operating cash flow USSOCOs SI OS 76* $17129 $20326 $23 #48 $116660 $23 198 $11803 2555 $1057 $1534 $1349 $898 $884 $390K $44 less plant development costs US$C0C, $2300 $• .’i $?#0C $C $C $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $C $c $c $c $c Less:Wellield Development Costs USSOOOs $23X31 $1113 53.546 $3,976 $4,533 $3,556 $4X98 $2X75 $655 $91 $0 SO $0 so $0 50 Net Before-Tax Cash Flow USSOOOs$83,834 Total cost per pound: Discount Rate NPV $4219 $11,703 $15150 8% 566,393 $19X15 $13,105 $18,600 $9,328 $1,900 -$1,148 $1X34 $1149 $898 $884 $300 $44

76

Table 19.2: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Inclusion of Federal Income Tax

Table 19.2: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Inclusion of Federal Income Tax Units Total or Spar Pound 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 LDSUUUS LSStn 2068 183.43 313 $84 26 $83.75 400 $33 25 314 $82.00 406 $8350 218 $8350 SB $85.00 8 $85.75 0 $86.75 0 $88.00 0 $88.00 0 $88 25 0 $89.00 0 $89.00 USSOOOs 1172,536 326369 $29,390 $33,306 $25,736 $33,885 $18,242 $4,917 $691 10 $0 $0 $0 10 $0 USSOOOs 35.400 32.61 $825 $920 $1,042 $806 $1,061 $571 $154 $22 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 USSOOOs 1167,135 325,543 $28,470 $32264 $24,930 $32,825 $17,671 $4,763 $669 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 USJOOOs 1617 3030 $48 $49 $65 $96 $67 $68 $54 $55 $56 $58 $0 $0 so So USSOOOs 3166.518 325,495 $28,421 $32,199 $24,634 $32,758 $17,603 $4,709 $614 -$56 -$58 $0 $0 $0 so URIC Me 131.075 IN 84 MS.’S 38 38€ $69-7 $5 587 $6 514 $5324 $134’ $6>6 $333 $33$ $233 $233 $>33 IC U8K Ms 11 KO $: 58 3183 $236 $234 $183 $237 1’28 $54 15 $3 IC K $i IC us$000s 11CS10 S3 OS $•’34 $’534 $•534 $2X02 $2”2 $2X2 $3 $3 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 sc USCOCs MW 32 M $0 $C $< $346 $346 $778 $883 $1’44 $858 $885 $651 $15/ $44 USSOOOs 3109,765 317,829 $20,326 $23548 $16,660 $23,198 $11,803 $2,555 -$1,057 -$ 1,534 -$1349 â– $898 -$884 -1390 $44 USCXa MW $221 51205 $932 $665 $476 $475 $476 $238 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so uSOOCa VW $3.82 $558 $558 $558 $558 $558 $558 $558 $558 $558 $558 M58 $558 $558 $558 USCXa $23,431 $11.33 $563 $2,094 $3,083 $3 332 $3,577 $3,181 $2574 $2347 $1387 $891 $538 $164 $0 $0 USOOOs $73,866 315,403 $16,742 $19241 $12295 $18,568 $7,589 -$814 -$3,662 -$3,479 -$2,798 -$1,994 -$1,606 -$948 -S602 USOOOs 118,889 $9.13 $3253 $3,516 $4fl41 $2582 $3,904 $1594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO so USOOOs $54,508 312239 $13226 $15201 $9,713 $14,635 $5,995 -$814 -S3.662 -$3,479 -$2,798 -$1,994 -$1,606 -$948 -$602 USSOOOs $36,368 517.59 $2336 $3584 $4307 $4266 $4,610 $4215 $3,369 $2,605 $1,945 $1,449 $1,096 $722 $558 $558 US$0006 32,500 $121 32,500 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 So USSOOOs $23,431 $1133 53.546 $3,976 $4533 $3,556 $4598 $2,475 $655 $91 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO so USOOOs 164.945 18,529 $12,334 $14,974 $10523 $14,697 17.735 $1,900 -11.148 -$1,534 -11.349 -1898 -1884 -S3 90 -144 Discount Rate 8% NPV $51500

77

19.2 Taxes, **** Ro y alties **** and **** Other **** Interests

19.2.1 Federal Income Tax

Total federal income tax for LOM is estimated at $18.9 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $9.13. Federal income tax estimates do account for depreciation of plant and wellfield capital costs.

19.2.2 S t a t e Inco m e Tax

The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax.

19.2.3 Produc t ion Tax e s

Production taxes in Texas include property tax in the form of ad valorem tax.

The Projects personal property (i.e., uranium facilities, buildings, machinery and equipment) are subject to property tax by the following taxing jurisdictions: Brooks County, Brooks County Roads & Bridges, Brooks County Independent School District, Brooks County Farm to Market & Flood Control Fund and Brush Country Groundwater Conservation District.

In 2024, Alta Mesa personal property was valued at $1,352 M and subject to the following tax rates resulted in 2024 property tax of $0.03 M.

Table 19.3: Alta Mesa 2024 Property Tax Information

Taxing Jurisdiction	Tax Rate	Market Value	Estimated Tax
Brooks County	0.792191	$1,351,720	$10,708
Brooks County Rd &<br>Bridges	0.069828		$943.88
Brooks County ISD	1.323800		$17,894
Brooks CO FM &<br>FC	0.038828		$524.85
Brush County Groundwater<br>Conservation District	0.010791		$145.86
	2.24		$30,216

(https://esearch.brookscad.org/Property/View/162755?year=2024&ownerId=138685)

Ad valorem tax is estimated to increase by 15% per year over LOM. The total production tax burden for LOM is estimated at $0.62 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $0.30.

19.2.4 R o y al t ies

Royalties are assessed on gross proceeds. The project is subject to a cumulative 3.0% surface and mineral royalty at an average LOM sales price of $83.43 per lb. U3O8 for $5.4 M or $2.61 per pound.

78

19.3 Sensitivity **** Anal y s is

19.3.1 NPV v. Uranium Price ****

This analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound of U3O8 and the cash flow results. The Project is most sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. A $5.0 change in the price of uranium can have an impact to the NPV of more than $8.0 M at a discount rate of 8%. See Figure 19.1.

Figure 19.1: NPV v.Uranium Price

19.3.2 NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost

The Project NPV is also sensitive to changes in either capital or operating costs as shown on Figure 22.2 (NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost). A 5% change in the operating cost can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $2.0 M based on a discount rate of 8% and a uranium price of $83.43 per pound of U3O8. Using the same discount rate and sales price, a 5% change in the capital cost can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $1.0 M.

79

Figure 19.2: NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost

80

20.0	A D JA CE NT P R OP ER TI E S

There are no operating uranium mines near the Project. The deposits mined at the Project continue off the property trending onto the adjacent Garcia property. Chevron conducted exploration drilling on the Garcia properties in the 1970’s confirming the existence of the uranium mineralization. Historic data and reports exist for this area, however, the author of this Technical Report has not verified the information.

81

21.0	OTH E R RE L E V A N T DA TA A NDIN F O RMA TION

21.1 Other Relevant Items

As with any mining property there are risks to the Project and the key risk is with respect to the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves.

enCore acquired and made the decision to place the Project into production without first establishing mineral reserves supported by a technical report and completing a feasibility study. enCore made this decision based on the management team’s working knowledge of the Project. Several members of enCore’s management and technical team previously worked on the Project, and in some instances were involved with the early stages of the Project when it was initially built and operated by Mesteña.

Since the Project is permitted and licensed and in good standing, existing infrastructure required relatively minimal rehabilitation, the Project is located in a pro-business jurisdiction with an experienced work force, and most importantly the Project has a substantially sized contiguous land position with previously identified mineralization and considerable Inferred mineral resources, the company made the decision to aggressively advance the Project, foregoing technical assessment, and taking advantage of the upswing in the uranium market.

The company is aware of the potential concern regarding the risk to the Project of economic failure; however, believe the risk is low due to the points noted above. However, to avoid making misleading disclosure, enCore discloses that its production decision was not based on a feasibility study of mineral reserves demonstrating economic viability and there is uncertainty and economic risk associated with the production decision.

82

22.0	INT ER P RE T A TION A ND C ON C LU S I ONS

Based on the quality and quantity of geologic data, stringent adherence to geologic evaluation procedures and thorough geological interpretative work, deposit modeling, resource estimation methods, historic and recent production, quality and substantial quantity of historic and recent detailed cost inputs, and a detailed economic analysis, the QP responsible for this report considers that the current mineral resource estimates are relevant and reliable.

Less federal tax, the Projects cash flow is estimated at $83.8 M or $42.89 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $66.4 M. The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $64.9 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $52.03. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $51.6 M.

Estimated capital costs are $25.9 M and includes $23.4 M for wellfield development and $2.5 M for refurbishment of the CPP and associated infrastructure.

Operating costs are estimated to be $27.44 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development and production sequence and quantity, in conjunction with historic site production results.

22.1 Risk Assessment

As with any mining property, there are project risks. Those risks have been identified and can be de-risked with proper planning. The following sections discuss these risks.

22.2 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves

enCore decided to put the Project into production without first establishing mineral reserves supported by a technical report and completing a feasibility study. enCore made this decision based on the management team’s familiarity with the Project. Several members of enCore’s management and technical team were previously involved with the early stages of the Project when it was initially built and operated by Mesteña Uranium LLC. The team is intimately knowledgeable with the Project and because of the Project’s mineral resources, permitting and licensing status, existing infrastructure, favorable land position and infrastructure, the company made the decision to aggressively advance the Project, foregoing technical assessment, and taking advantage of the upswing in the uranium market.

Therefore, there is the risk to the project of economic failure. To avoid making misleading disclosure, enCore has not based it’s production decision on a feasibility study of mineral reserves demonstrating economic viability and there is uncertainty and economic risk associated with the production decision.

22.3 Uranium Recovery and Processing

Historic and enCore’s 2024 production demonstrates that uranium recovery is economically achievable, grade, flow rate and mine recovery can be determined with a high level of certainty.

83

A potential risk to meeting the production and thus financial results will be associated with the success of wellfield operation and the efficiency of recovering uranium. A potential risk in the wellfield recovery process depends on whether geochemical conditions that affect solution mining uranium recovery rates from the mineralized zones are comparable to previously mined area. If they prove to be different, then potential efficiency or financial risks might arise.

Capacity of wastewater disposal systems is another process risk. Limited capacity of deep disposal wells can affect the ability to achieve production and timely groundwater restoration. enCore has two Class I wells in operation and if disposal capacities were to decrease, then operational and financial risks might arise.

22.4 Permitting and Licensing Delays

enCore possesses all the permits and licenses required to operate the project, and all permits and licenses are active or are in timely renewal. For new mining, PAAs will be issued by the TCEQ. Typically, the regulatory review and approval process is timely; however, if this process were to slow then approval to operate new mine areas might be delayed impacting annual production objectives.

22.5 Social and/or Political

Texas is an industry business-friendly state with low taxes, minimal regulations, large workforce, and considerable infrastructure, making it one of the more favorable mineral development jurisdictions in the United States. The Project does not draw negative attention from environmental NGOs, and individuals in the public. Local communities are supportive of enCore’s activities and the company’s contribution to the local job market, money invested into local goods and services and financial benefits to the local tax base. Texas also has a balanced regulatory philosophy that strives to protect public health and natural resources that are consistent with sustainable economic development.

84

23.0	REC OM ME NDATIONS

The key risk to the Project is with respect to the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves. As discussed in Section 24, enCore has a substantial mineral resources inventory of Inferred resources and substantial contiguous land holdings that exceeded any another other ISR mining company in the United States. To de-risk the project by increasing the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves it is recommended that enCore mitigate risk to ensure a profitable and successful project by:

●	In addition to wellfield development, expand drilling campaigns to develop previously identified mineralization and to<br>identify new mineralization,
●	Drill 100-hole program using following cost per hole of $7,026, for total program<br>cost of $0.7 M (Table 23.1).
---	---

Table 23.1: Drilling Costs

Item	Quantity		Unit Cost		Total
Drilling		550	$	8.00	$	4,400
Muds &<br>Polymers		550	$	0.67	$	369
Cement Service		1	$	300.00	$	300
Cement		1	$	600.00	$	600
Drill Bits &<br>Underream Blades		1	$	150.00	$	150
Dirt Work &<br>Reclamation		1	$	300.00	$	300
Washout		550	$	1.65	$	908
					$	7,026
●	Drill at least one core hole in any new PAAs to confirm deposit mineralogy, the state of uranium secular equilibrium, and<br>uranium content. Coring is estimated to cost $30 K per hole.
---	---

85

24.0	RE FE RE N C ES

BRS Engineering, 2023. Technical Report Summary for the Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA, National Instrument 43 101, Technical Report, January 19, 2023.

CIM Council, 2003. Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Best Practice Guidelines, adopted November 23, 2003.

Finch, W.I., 1996. Uranium Provinces of North America - Their Definition, Distribution and Models. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2141, 24 p.

Neuman, S.P. and Witherspoon, P.A., 1972. Field Determination of the Hydraulic Properties of Leaky Multiple Aquifer Systems, Water Resources Research, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 1284-1298, October 1972.

TradeTech, 2023. Uranium Market Study Issue 4.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2023. Domestic Uranium Production Report (2009-23), Table 9.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, NUREG-1910, Volumes 1 and 2, May 2009.

Beahm, Douglas L, BRS Engineering Inc., “Alta Mesa Uranium Project Technical Report, Mineral Resources and Exploration Target, National Instrument 43-101, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA”, June 1, 2014, prepared on behalf of Mesteña Uranium LLC.

Beahm, Douglas L, BRS Engineering Inc., “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Mineral resources and Exploration Target, Technical Report National 43-101” and with an effective date of the report of July 19, 2016, prepared by BRS Inc., on behalf of Energy Fuels Inc.

Beahm, Douglas L, BRS Engineering Inc., “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg counties, Texas, USA” which has an effective date of December 31, 2021, prepared by BRS Inc. and Energy Fuels Inc. as a non-independent report on behalf of Energy Fuels Inc.

Collins, J. and H. Talbot, U2007 Conference, Corpus Christi, Presented by Mesteña Uranium LLC

Hosman, R.L., and Weiss, J.S.,1991, Geohydrologic units of the Mississippi Embayment and Texas Coastal uplands aquifer systems, South Central United State-regional aquifer system analysis- Gulf Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1416-B, 1996.

Brogdon, L.D., C.A. Jones, and J.V Quick, “Uranium favorability by lithofacies analysis, Oakville and Goliad Formations, South Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 1977.

Smith, G. E., W. E. Galloway, and C. D. Henry, Regional hydrodynamics and hydrochemistry of the uranium-bearing Oakville Aquifer (Miocene) of South Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 124, 1982.

86

Galloway, W. E., Epigenetic zonation and fluid flow history of uranium-bearing fluvial aquifer systems, south Texas uranium province: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 119, 1982.

Galloway, W. E., Catahoula Formation of the Texas coastal plain: depositional systems, composition, structural development, ground-water flow history, and uranium deposition: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 87, 1977.

Galloway, W. E., R. J. Finley, and C. D. Henry, South Texas uranium province geologic perspective: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook No. 18, 1979.

McBride, E. F., W. L. Lindemann, and P. S. Freeman, Lithology and petrology of the Gueydan (Catahoula) Formation in south Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 63, 1968.

Eargle, D. H., Stratigraphy of Jackson Group (Eocene), South-Central, Texas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 43, 1959.

Fisher, W. L., C. V. Proctor, W. E. Galloway, and J. S. Nagle, Depositional systems in the Jackson Group of Texas-Their relationship to oil, gas, and uranium: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 20, 1970.

Kreitler, C. W., T. J. Jackson, P. W. Dickerson, and J. G. Blount, Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of the Falls City uranium mine tailings remedial action project, Karnes County, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, prepared for the Texas Department of Health under agreement No IAC(92-93)-0389, September, 1992.

De Voto, R. H. “Uranium Geology and Exploration” Colorado School of Mines, 1978.

Finch, W. I., Uranium provinces of North America—their definition, distribution, and models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2141, 1996.

Finch, W. I. and Davis, J. F., “Sandstone Type Uranium Deposits – An Introduction” in Geological Environments of Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits Technical Document, Vienna: IAEA, 1985.

Granger, H. C., Warren, C. G., “Zoning in the Altered Tongue Associated with Roll-Type Uranium Deposits” in Formation ofUranium Ore Deposits, Sedimentary Basins and Sandston-Type Deposits, IAEA, 1974.

IAEA, “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification” 2009 Edition, Vienna: IAEA, 2009.

Nicot, J. P., et al, “Geological and Geographical Attributes of the South Texas Uranium Province”, Prepared for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Bureau of Economic Geology, April, 2010.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division, NUREG-1910 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report Manuscript Completed and Published: May 2009.

87

McKay, A. D. et al, “Resource Estimates for In Situ Leach Uranium Projects and Reporting Under the JORC Code”, Bulletin November/December 2007.

Mesteña Uranium, LLC, Radioactive Material License (RML)Application, 2000.

Stoeser, D.B., Shock, Nancy, Green, G.N., Dumonceaux, G. M., and Heran, W.D., in press, A Digital Geologic Map Database for the State of Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series.

US Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 229, 230, 239 and 249, Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants.

TradeTech, Uranium Market Study.

Unpublished Reports:

Goranson, P., Mesteña Uranium LLC, Internal Memorandum Re: Review of Reserve Estimates, July 2007.

Personal Communication Goranson, P., enCore Energy Corp. , Alta Mesa Wellfield Economics, January 2023.

Web Sites:

Texas Monthly Magazine: https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-biggest-ranches/

Texas State Historical Association- Handbook of Texas: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mineral-rights-and-royalties

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Nuclear Materials: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-methods/isl-recovery-facilities.html

88

25.0	RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

The QP has relied upon information provided by enCore regarding, legal, environmental and tax matters relevant to the technical report, as noted in Table 25.1.

Table 25.1: Reliance on Other Experts

Source	Category	Document	Section
Paul Goranson (enCore Chief Executive Officer)	Legal	Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease, June 16, 2016.	4.3.1 Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease including royalties
		Amended and Restated Uranium Testing and Lease Option Agreement, June 16, 2016.	4.3.2 discussion of Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement including royalties
		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, 2004.	4.4 discussion of surface rights
Peter Luthiger (enCore Chief Operating Officer)	Environmental	U.S. NRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, 2009.	20.1 discussion of environmental studies and potential impacts
		RML Surety Details, 2024.<br><br><br><br> <br>Class III P&A Details, 2024.<br><br><br><br> <br>WDW 365 & 366 Closure Cost	20.5 discussion of project closure
Shelly Simpson (enCore Projects & Tax Lead)	Taxes	Estimation Valuation Report, December 20, 2023.<br><br><br><br> <br>Fixed asset and refurbishment schedules, September 2024.	22.2 discussion of taxes, royalties and other interests

89

26.0	DATE, SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION

This S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary titled “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA” dated February 19, 2025, with an effective date of December 31, 2024, was prepared and signed by SOLA Project Services, LLC. SOLA is an independent, third-party consulting company and certify that by education, professional registration, and relevant work experience, SOLA’s professionals fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300 reporting.

(“Signed and Sealed”) SOLA Project Services, LLC.
February 19, 2025
/s/ Stuart Bryan Soliz
Stuart Bryan Soliz	Principal
Wyoming Board of Professional Geologists License Number PG-3775
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, & Exploration Registered Member Number 4068645
4912 Stoneridge Way
Casper, Wyoming 82601
United States of America

90

EX-96.4

Exhibit 96.4

Mesteña Grande Uranium Project

Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary

Initial Assessment

Effective Date: December 31, 2024

Report Date: February 19, 2025

Prepared forenCore Energy Corporation by:

Table of Contents

1.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
1.1  Property Description and Ownership	1
1.2  Geology and Mineralization	1
1.3  Exploration Status	2
1.4  Development and Operations	2
1.5  Mineral Resource Estimates	3
1.6  Summary Capital and Operating Cost Estimates	3
1.7  Permitting Requirements	4
1.8  Conclusions and Recommendations	4
2.0  INTRODUCTION	6
2.1  Registrant	6
2.2  Terms of Reference and Purpose	6
2.3  Information and Data Sources	6
2.4  QP Site Inspection	6
3.0  PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	8
3.1  Description and Location	8
3.2  Mineral Titles	8
3.3  Mineral Rights	8
3.3.1 Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease	8
3.3.2 Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement	9
3.4  Surface Rights	10
3.5  Encumbrances	10
3.5.1 Legacy Issues	10
3.6  Permitting and Licensing	11
3.7  Other Significant Factors and Risks	11
4.0  ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	15
4.1  Topography, Elevation and Vegetation	15
4.2  Access	16
4.3  Climate	16
4.4  Infrastructure	16
5.0  HISTORY	17
---	---
5.1  Ownership	17
5.2  Previous Operations and Work	17
6.0  GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT	18
6.1  Regional Geology	18
6.1.1 Surface Geology	18
6.1.2 Subsurface Geology	18
6.2  Local and Property Geology	18
6.2.1 Surface Geology	18
6.2.2 Subsurface Geology	19
6.3  Stratigraphy	20
6.3.1 Goliad Formation	20
6.3.2 Oakville Formation	20
6.3.3 Catahoula Formation	21
6.3.4 Jackson Group	21
6.4  Significant Mineralized Zones	28
6.4.1 Mineralization	28
6.5  Relevant Geologic Controls	28
6.6  Deposit Type	29
7.0  EXPLORATION	30
7.1  Drilling Type and Procedures	30
7.2  Drilling Extent	30
8.0  SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY	33
8.1  Sample Methods	33
8.1.1 Downhole Geophysical Data	33
8.1.1.1 PFN Calibration	33
8.1.1.2 Disequilibrium	34
8.1.2 Drill Cuttings	35
8.1.3 Core Samples	35
8.2  Laboratory Analysis	35
8.3  Opinion on Adequacy	36
9.0  DATA VERIFICATION	37
9.1  Data Confirmation	37
---	---
9.2  Limitations	37
9.3  Data Adequacy	37
10.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	38
11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES	39
11.1  Key Assumptions, Parameters and Methods	39
11.1.1 Key Assumptions	39
11.1.2 Key Parameters	39
11.1.3 Key Methods	40
11.2  Resource Classification	40
11.2.1 Measured Mineral Resources	40
11.2.2 Indicated Mineral Resources	40
11.2.3 Inferred Mineral Resources	40
11.3  Mineral Resource Estimates	41
11.4  Material Affects to Mineral Resources	41
12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES	42
13.0 MINING METHODS	43
13.1  Mine Designs and Plans	43
13.1.1 Patterns, Wellfields and Mine Units	43
13.1.2 Monitoring Wells	43
13.1.3 Wellfield Surface Piping System	44
13.1.4 Wellfield Production	44
13.1.5 Production Rates and Expected Mine Life	44
13.2  Mining Fleet and Machinery	45
14.0 PROCESS AND RECOVERY METHODS	46
14.1  Processing Facilities	46
14.2  Process Flow	46
14.2.1 Ion Exchange	46
14.2.2 Production Bleed	46
14.3  Water Balance	49
14.4  Liquid Waste Disposal	49
14.5  Solid Waste Disposal	49
14.6  Energy, Water and Process Material Requirements	49
---	---
14.6.1 Energy Requirements	49
14.6.2 Water Requirements	49
15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE	50
15.1  Utilities	50
15.1.1 Electrical Power	50
15.1.2 Domestic and Utility Water Wells	50
15.1.3 Sanitary Sewer	50
15.2  Transportation	50
15.2.1 Roads	50
15.3  Buildings	50
15.3.1 RIX Facilities	50
16.0 MARKET STUDIES	52
16.1  Uranium Market	52
16.2  Uranium Price Projection	52
16.3  Contracts	52
17.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS<br>OR GROUPS	53
17.1  Environmental Studies	53
17.1.1 Potential Wellfield Impacts	53
17.1.2 Potential Soil Impacts	54
17.1.3 Potential Impacts from Shipping Resin, Yellowcake and 11.e.(2) Materials	55
17.1.3.1 Ion Exchange Resin Shipment	55
17.1.3.2 Yellowcake Shipment	55
17.1.3.3 11. e.(2) Shipment	56
17.2  Socioeconomic Studies and Issues	56
17.3  Permitting Requirements and Status	56
17.4  Community Affairs	57
17.5  Project Closure	57
17.5.1 Byproduct Disposal	58
17.5.2 Well Abandonment and Groundwater Restoration	58
17.5.3 Demolition and Removal of Infrastructure	58
17.5.4 Reclamation	58
17.6 Financial Assurance	59
---	---
17.7 Adequacy of Mitigation Plans	59
18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS	60
18.1 Capital Costs	60
18.2 Capital Cost Basis	60
18.3 Operating Costs	62
18.4 Operating Cost Basis	62
18.5 Cost Accuracy	62
19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	65
19.1 Economic analysis	65
19.2 Taxes, Royalties and Other Interests	68
19.2.1 Federal Income Tax	68
19.2.2 State Income Tax	68
19.2.3 Production Taxes	68
19.2.4 Royalties	68
19.3 Sensitivity Analysis	69
19.3.1 NPV v. Uranium Price	69
19.3.2 NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost	69
20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES	71
21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	72
21.1 Other Relevant Items	72
22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	73
22.1 Risk Assessment	73
22.2 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves	73
22.3 Uranium Recovery and Processing	73
22.3.1 Permitting and Licensing Delays	74
22.4 Social and/or Political	74
23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS	75
24.0 REFERENCES	76
25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT	79
26.0 DATE, SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION	80

Tables

Table 1.1: Mineral Resources Summary	3
Table 1.2: Drilling Costs	5
Table 3.1: Amended Uranium Solution Mining Lease Royalties	9
Table 3.2: Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement Royalties	10
Table 7.1: Drill Results	31
Table 11.1: Summary of Mineral Resource Estimates	41
Table 18.1: Major Capital Components	60
Table 18.2: Capital Cost Forecast by Year	61
Table 18.3: Major Operating Categories	62
Table 18.4: Operating Cost Forecast by Year	64
Table 19.1: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Exclusion of Federal Income Tax	66
Table 19.2: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Inclusion of Federal Income Tax	67
Table 19.3: Alta Mesa 2024 Property Tax Information	68
Table 23.1: Drill Costs	75
Table 25.1: Reliance on Other Experts	79

Figures

Figure 3.1: Project Location Map	12
Figure 3.2: Mineral Ownership	13
Figure 3.3: Surface Use Agreements	14
Figure 4.1: Topography of the South Texas Uranium Province	15
Figure 6.1: Geologic Map	23
Figure 6.2: Generalized Cross Section	24
Figure 6.3: Regional Stratigraphic Column	25
Figure 6.4: Detailed Cross Section	26
Figure 6.5: Type Log	27
Figure 6.6: Idealized Cross Section of a Sandstone Hosted Uranium Roll-Front Deposit	29
Figure 7.1: Drill Hole Locations	32
Figure 8.1: PFN Tool Calibration	34
Figure 8.2: Disequilibrium Graph Natural Gamma vs PFN Grade	35
Figure 14.1: RIX Facility P&ID	47
Figure 14.2: RIX Facility General Arrangement	48
Figure 15.1: Project Infrastructure	51
Figure 19.1: NPV v. Uranium Price	69
Figure 19.2: NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost	70

Units of Measure and Abbreviations

Avg	Average
°	Degrees
ft	Feet
ft	Cubic Feet
°F	Fahrenheit
g/L	Grams per liter
GT	Mineralization Grade times (x) Mineralization Thickness
gpm	Gallons per minute
kWh	Kilo Watt Hour
Lbs	Pounds
M	Million
Ma	One Million Years
mg/l	Milligrams per liter
Mi	Mile
ml	Milliliter
MBTUH	Million British Thermal Units per Hour
U3O8	Chemical formula used to express natural form of uranium
eU3O8	Radiometric equivalent U3O8 measured by a calibrated total gamma downhole probe
pCi/L	Picocuries per liter of air
pH	Potential of hydrogen
ppm	Parts per Million
%	Percent
+/-	Plus, or Minus
USD	United States Dollar

Definitions and Abbreviations

BRS	BRS Engineering
CIM	Canadian Institute of Mining
Cogema	Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires
CO	County
D&D	Decontamination and Decommissioning
DDW	Deep Disposal Well
DEF	Disequilibrium Factor
ELI	Energy Laboratories Incorporated
enCore	enCore Energy Corporation
Energy Fuels	Energy Fuels Resources Incorporated
Energy Metals	Energy Metals Corporation
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
FC	Flood Control
FM	Farm to Market
GEIS	Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Goliad	Goliad Formation
FSEIS	Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
IA	Initial Assessment
ISD	Independent School District
ISR	In Situ Recovery
IX	Ion Exchange
LLC	Limited Liability Company
LOM	Life of Mine
MBTUH	Million British Thermal Units per Hour
MCL	Maximum Contaminant Level
MSL	Mean Sea Level
Mesteña	Mesteña Uranium Limited Liability Company
NI 43-101	National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects
NI 43-101F1	Form 43-101 Technical Report Table of Contents
NPV	Net Present Value
NRC	Nuclear Regulatory Commission
---	---
PAA	Production Area Authorization
PFN	Prompt Fission Neutron
Project	Alta Mesa ISR Project
PV	Pore volume
QP	Qualified Person
RIX	Remote Ion Exchange
RO	Reverse Osmosis
SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
SP	Spontaneous Potential
S-K 1300	United States Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements for mineral resources or mineral reserves, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
TCEQ	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDH	Texas Department of Health
Total Minerals	Total Minerals Incorporated
TSX	Toronto Stock Exchange
U	Uranium
URI	Uranium Resources Incorporated
US	United States
USDW	Underground Source of Drinking Water
USGS	United States Geological Survey
11.e.(2)	Tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium from processed ore

1.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Property Description and Ownership

The Project is an ISR uranium project located in south Texas. The Project lies within the southern part of the South Texas Uranium Province. Uranium deposits in the South Texas Uranium Province extend from Starr County at the international border with Mexico northeastward through Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, Kleberg, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Atascosa, Karnes, Wilson, Goliad, and Gonzales counties.

Part of enCore’s operational plan is to mine uranium from satellite properties processing IX resin at one of the company’s CPPs. At the Alta Mesa Project, enCore has an active mine and CPP. Portions of the Project are located adjacent to the south and to the north of the Alta Mesa Project, with other parts located as much as 50 miles northwest of the CPP. enCore plans to develop and advance the Project and process uranium at Alta Mesa.

The Project is located entirely within private land holdings of the Jones Ranch. The Jones Ranch is an approximately 380,000-acre ranch that was founded in 1897, and enCore controls over 200,000 of the 380,000 acres with mineral leases and options for uranium exploration and development.

Mineral leases and options include provisions for reasonable use of the land surface. Surface use agreements have also been entered into with all surface owners and provide, amongst other things, for stipulated damages to be for certain activities related to the exploration and production of uranium. Royalty agreements are established with mineral and surface owners, and surface owners are also paid an annual surface holding rental.

1.2 Geology and Mineralization

The Texas Gulf Coast comprises the western flank of the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin with active deposition throughout the mid to late Mesozoic Era and into the Cenozoic Era. Deposition is dominated by clastic sediments transported from continental highlands into the Gulf of Mexico basin for a period exceeding 50 million years. These sediments were transported to the coast by rivers and deposited in a variety of fluvial to marine depositional environments.

Structurally the Texas Gulf Coast consists of three regions, the Rio Grande Embayment, the San Marcos Arch, and the Houston Embayment. Other structural features found in the Texas Gulf Coast include the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins, and the Wilcox, Frio, and Vicksburg Fault Zones.

The San Marcos Arch is a broad gently sloping positive structural feature extending from the Llano Uplift in Central Texas to the Gulf Coast during the Ouachita Orogeny. The Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are thought to have resulted from subsidence induced by high rates of sedimentation (Dodge and Posey, 1981).

The Tertiary sediments deposited in the Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are characterized by deltaic sands and shales. High rates of clastic deposition resulted in the formation of normal listric growth faults. Constant sediment loading and coastal subsidence into the basin led to the accumulation of over 50,000 feet of Cenozoic strata into the Gulf Coast Basin.

Jurassic salt and younger shale diapirs are also present in the subsurface along the Gulf Coastal

1

Plain. The displacement of shale and salt is generated by the accumulation of an excessive thickness of overburden sediment causing plastic flow of the more ductile sediments. The resulting structures may cause local faulting and/or dip reversal along with the formation of domes and anticlinal structures.

Within the South Texas Uranium Province, uranium mineralization occurs primarily in the Cenozoic sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, Miocene Oakville Formation, Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, and the Eocene Jackson Group. Project deposits occur in the Goliad Formation which is a major fluvial system that represents a low to moderate energy environment composed of isolated mixed-load channel-fill sands separated by thick inter-channel clays.

Uranium deposits are roll-fronts, typical to others found in the South Texas Uranium Province. Deposit genesis is related to the presence of highly reduced groundwater systems generated from the biogenic decomposition of natural gas and/or hydrogen sulfide seepage derived from deeper formations through localized faulting. At Alta Mesa, uranium bearing groundwater moved from northwest to southeast within the Goliad Formation and encountered reduction zones associated with the Vicksburg fault system and the Alta Mesa salt dome and associated faulting which allowed the introduction of organics and other fluids upward through faults and fractures. At Mesteña Grande, uranium mineralization occurs in numerous locations within the Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula Formations and is formed in much the same way as at Alta Mesa. Uranium bearing groundwater within each of these formations encountered reduction within the groundwater associated with major growth fault systems within the region.

The deposits at Mesteña Grande are characterized by vertically stacked roll-fronts controlled by stratigraphic heterogeneity, host lithology, permeability, reductant type and concentration, and groundwater geochemistry. Individual known roll-fronts may be few tens of feet wide, 2 to 10 feet thick, and often thousands of feet long. Collectively, roll-fronts are inferred to result in an overall deposit that is up to a few hundred feet wide, 50 to 75 feet thick and continuous for miles in length.

1.3 Exploration Status

The Mesteña Grande deposits were discovered by Mesteña Uranium, LLC in 2006. Prior to enCore’s acquisition, exploration holes 420 had been drilled on the Project.

1.4 Development and Operations

In February 2023, enCore completed acquisition of the Project from Energy Fuels. enCore did conduct a drilling program in 2024. Drilling started in June and was ongoing through year-end. Both greenfield and brownfield programs were conducted targeting the Catahoula, Oakville, Lagarto and Goliad formations. The objectives of the program were to establish a stratigraphic framework across the property, identification of regional and local fault zones and salt structures over the 35-mile x 30-mile project area.

As of December 31, 2024, enCore drilled forty-one (41) holes for total footage of 49,850 feet. Hole depths range from 700 to 1,550 feet, with an average drill depth of approximately 1,216 feet.

2

1.5 Mineral Resource Estimates

A summary of the Project’s mineral resources is provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Mineral Resources Summary

Category	Tons (x 1,000)	Avg Grade (%)U3O8	Total Lbs (x 1000) U3O8
Measured	0.0	0.000	0.0
Indicated	0.0	0.000	0.0
Total Measured and Indicated	0.0	0.000	0.0
Inferred	5,852.8	0.119	13,887.9
Total Inferred	5,852.8	0.119	13,887.9

Notes:

1.	enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral<br>reserves.
2.	The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole<br>information.
---	---
3.	Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of<br>0.30 ft% U3O8.
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.
---	---
5.	Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less<br>confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.
---	---
6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---

1.6 Summary Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

The economic assessment is preliminary in nature as all the Project’s mineral resources are inferred and inferred mineral resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the economics in this report will ever be realized and there is the risk to the project of economic failure.

Estimated capital costs are $108.1 M and includes $13.7 M for processing facilities and $94.4 M for sustained wellfield development.

Operating costs are estimated to be $25.49 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development, production sequence, production quantity, and past production experience. Operating costs include plant and wellfield operations, product transactions, administrative support, decontamination and decommissioning, and restoration.

Taxes, royalties, and other interests are applicable to production and revenue. Total Federal income tax is estimated at $90.1 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $10.82. The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax, but the Project is subject to property taxes in the form of ad valorem in the amount of $2.5 M or $0.30 per pound of U3O8. The project is subject to a cumulative 3.6% surface and mineral royalty at an average LOM sales price of $85.48 per lb. U3O8 for $30.0 M or $3.60 per pound.

The economic analysis assumes that 60% of the mineral resources are recoverable. The pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax, plant and wellfield operations, product transactions, administrative

3

support, D&D and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, to estimate federal income tax.

Less federal tax, the Project’s cash flow is estimated at $366.6 M or $41.48 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Project’s NPV is $205.8 M. The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $276.5 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $53.18. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $154.4 M.

1.7 Permitting Requirements

The Project is not permitted or licensed to operate except for the permits necessary for exploration.

The most significant permits and licenses that will be required to operate the Project are (1) the TCEQ Source and Byproduct Materials License, (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) that are issued at various times through LOM, deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (V wells) issued by TCEQ, and an USEPA aquifer exemption.

The timing to prepare the applications and for agency review and approval is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. The length of time is not entirely in enCore’s control. The TCEQ’s ability to process enCore’s applications is dependent on the workload of the agency. With the renewed interest in uranium recovery, the application process timeline could be longer due to additional requests for ISR permits and licenses.

1.8Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the quality and quantity of geologic data, stringent adherence to geologic evaluation procedures and thorough geological interpretative work, deposit modeling, resource estimation methods, quality and quantity of cost inputs, and an economic analysis, the QP responsible for this report considers that the current mineral resource estimates are relevant and reliable to evaluate the Project’s economic potential.

As with any mining property there are risks and the key risk to the Project is with respect to the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves.

When assessing the Project’s scientific, technical and economic potential, it is important to consider the size and continuity of the Project’s land position, like geologic setting and proximity to the Alta Mesa Project. No other ISR uranium property in the United States has a land position with these characteristics as well as the amount of geologic evidence to imply geological and grade continuity over such a large area.

To de-risk the project by increasing the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves, it is recommended that enCore mitigate risk to ensure economics in the report are realized by:

●	Continue drilling campaign with larger programs verifying the geological and grade continuity of inferred mineral resources<br>and identify new mineralization.
●	Drill 200-hole program using following cost per hole of $7,026, for total program<br>cost of $1.41 M (Table 1.2).
---	---

4

Table 1.2: Drilling Costs

Item	Quantity		Unit Cost		Total
Drilling		1,000 ft	$	8.00	$	8,000
Muds &<br>Polymers		1,000 ft	$	0.67	$	670
Cement Service		each hole	$	600.00	$	600
Cement		each hole	$	200.00	$	600
Drill Bits & Underream<br>Blades		each hole	$	300.00	$	300
Dirt Work &<br>Reclamation		each hole	$	300.00	$	470
Washout		1,000 ft	$	1.65	$	1,650
					$	12,300
●	Drill at least one core hole in any new PAAs to confirm deposit mineralogy, the state of uranium secular equilibrium, and<br>uranium content. Coring is estimated to cost $30 K per hole. Analyses, leach testing, and mineralogical work is estimated to be $25 k per hole.
---	---

5

2.0  INTRODUCTION

2.1 Registrant

This report was prepared by SOLA Project Servicers LLC., for the registrant, enCore Energy Corporation.

enCore was incorporated in 2009 under the previous name of Tigris Uranium Corporation and is engaged in the identification, acquisition, exploration, development and operation of uranium properties in the United States. enCore is incorporated British Columbia, Canada. The company’s principal executive offices are located at 101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 450, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. enCore’s portfolio includes uranium mineral properties in Texas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico.

2.2 Terms of Reference and Purpose

This report was prepared to disclose mineral resources, development plans and the results of an IA economic analysis.

enCore has commenced development activities, and this IA is prepared as an initial technical and economic study of the economic potential of the Projects mineral resources.

Technical and economic factors have been reasonably assumed and together with operational factors demonstrate there is reasonable prospect for economic extraction.

The IA is based solely on inferred mineral resources. Inferred resources have too high a level of geologic uncertainty to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the IA economics will be realized.

The basis for the report is Project’s technical and scientific information. Due to the speculative nature of inferred mineral resources, the QP has qualified the LOM resources by reducing the typical ISR mine recovery from 80% to 60%. It is also assumed that technical, scientific and financial information from enCore’s Alta Mesa Project is applicable in the assessment of the Project.

The technical and scientific information in this report reflects changes in enCore’s mineral project development plans. The report has an effective date of December 31, 2024, and has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines set forth under SEC Subpart 229.1300 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations.

2.3 Information and Data Sources

The report has been prepared with internal enCore Project technical and financial information, as well as data prepared by others. Documents, files and information provided by the registrant used to prepare this report are listed in Section 24.0 REFERENCES and Section 25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT.

2.4 QP Site Inspection

Stuart Bryan Soliz is the QP responsible for the content of this report. He visited the Project on January 7, 2025. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the site and to meet with the enCore team to review current

6

work and project development plans.

7

3.0  PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Description and Location

The Project is an ISR uranium project located in south Texas. The Project forms part of the South Texas Uranium Province. Uranium deposits in the South Texas Uranium Province extend from Starr County at the international border with Mexico northeastward through Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, Kleberg, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Atascosa, Karnes, Wilson, Goliad, and Gonzales counties. The Project is located within a portion of the private land holdings of the Jones Ranch. The Jones Ranch was founded in 1897 and is comprised of approximately 380,000 acres.

The Project properties includes multiple project areas, including Mesteña Grande North (MGN), Mesteña Grande Central (MGC), Mesteña Grande South (MGS) Mesteña Grande Alta Vista (MGAV), Mesteña Grande El Sordo (MGES), Mesteña Grande North Alta Mesa (MGNAM) and Mesteña Grande South Alta Mesa (MGSAM) project areas. The properties collectively total 194,119 acres. The northwest corner of the Project is adjacent to and extends for about 36 miles north-northwest of the Alta Mesa CPP from Brooks County into Jim Hogg County, Texas. The center point of the Project is at approximately 27.089° North Longitude and 98.501° West Latitude. The project extents cover approximately 30 miles in an east-west direction, and approximately 35 miles in a north-south direction.

Figure 3.1 shows the location of the Project.

3.2 Mineral Titles

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

The Jones Ranch holdings include private surface and mineral rights for oil and gas and other minerals, including uranium. Figure 3.2 is map of the Project mineral ownership and Figure 3.3 illustrates surface use.

3.3 Mineral Rights

3.3.1 Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease

Uranium recovered at the Project will be processed at the Alta Mesa CPP under the current Uranium Solution Mining Lease, as described below.

The Alta Mesa Uranium Solution Mining Lease, originally dated June 1, 2004, covers approximately 4,598 acres, out of the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, A-218, Brooks County, Texas and the “Las Mesteñas Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, A-480, Brooks County, Texas. These have been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between enCore and the various holders of the

8

Mesteña project. The Lease now comprises Tract 5 and a portion of Tracts 1, 4, and 6 of “W.W. Jones Subdivision”, said tract being out of the “La Mesteña Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, Abstract N0. 480 and the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, Abstract No. 218, Brooks County, Texas. The Lease now covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, other fissionable minerals, and associated minerals and materials under 4,597.67 acres.

The term of the amended lease is fifteen (15) years which commenced on June 16, 2016, or however long as the lessee is continuously engaged in any mining, development, production, processing, treating, restoration, or reclamation operations on the leased premises. The amended lease can be extended by the Lessee for an additional 15 years.

The lease includes provisions for royalty payments on net proceeds, less allowable deductions, received by the Lessee. The royalties range from 3.125 to 7.5% depending on the price received for the uranium. The lease also calls for a royalty on substances produced on adjacent lands but processed on the leased premises. Table 3.1 illustrates royalty details.

Table 3.1: Amended Uranium Solution Mining Lease Royalties

Royalty Holders	Acres	Lessor Royalty	Primary Term
Mesteña Unproven Ltd.,<br> <br><br><br><br>Jones Unproven Ltd.,<br> <br><br><br><br>Mestaña Proven Ltd.<br> <br><br><br><br>Jones Proven Ltd.	4597.67+/-	7.5% Market value<br>> $95.00/lb. U3O8<br> <br><br> <br>6.25% of Market Value > $65/lb. & </= $95/lb. U3O8<br><br><br><br> <br>3.125% of Market Value </= $65/lb. U3O8	15 years from amendment date with option for additional 15 years or if uranium mining operations continue

3.3.2 Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement

The Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement (Table 3.2), originally dated August 1, 2006, covers all land containing mineral potential as identified through exploration efforts and covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, and all other fissionable materials, compounds, solutions, mixtures, and source materials. This agreement has been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Testing and Lease Option Agreement dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between enCore Energy and the various holders of the Mesteña project. It now covers 195,501 acres.

The term of the amended lease and option agreement is for eight (8) years which commenced on June 16, 2016. The amended lease and option agreement has been extended by the grantee for an additional seven (7) years by certain payments conducted in April 2024. The Lease Option was further amended to extend the lease option period by an additional five (5) years in June 2024.

9

Table 3.2: Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement Royalties

Royalty Holders	Acres	Lessor Royalty	Primary Term
Mesteña Unproven Ltd.,<br> <br><br><br><br>Jones Unproven Ltd.,<br> <br><br><br><br>Mestaña Proven Ltd.<br> <br><br><br><br>Jones Proven Ltd.	195,501 +/-	7.5% of Market value<br>> $95.00/lb U3O8<br> <br><br> <br>6.25% of Market Value > $65/lb. & </= $95/lb. U3O8<br><br><br><br> <br>3.125% of Market Value </= $65/lb. U3O8	8 years from amendment date with option for additional 7 years or if<br>uranium mining operations continue

3.4 Surface Rights

The mineral leases and options include provisions for reasonable use of the land surface for the purposes of ISR mining and mineral processing.

Amended surface use agreements have been entered into with all the surface owners on the various prospect areas as part of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement between Energy Fuels Inc and the various holders of the Mesteña Project. These amended agreements, unchanged from those originally entered into on June 1, 2004, provide, amongst other things, for stipulated damages to be paid for certain activities related to the exploration and production of uranium.

Specifically, the agreements call for US Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted payments for the following disturbances: exploratory test holes, development test holes, monitor wells, new roads, and related surface disturbances. The lease also outlines an annual payment schedule for land taken out of agricultural use around the area of a deep disposal well, land otherwise taken out of agricultural use, and pipelines constructed outside of the production area.

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

3.5 Encumbrances

3.5.1Legacy Issues

For uranium mining operation, financial assurance instruments are held by the state for completed wells, ISR mining, and uranium processing to ensure reclamation and restoration of the affected lands and aquifers in accordance with State regulations and permit requirements.

The amount of the bond is reviewed annually by the TCEQ and adjusted. The cost estimate assumes that the work is accomplished by a third-party contractor and therefore includes contractor overhead and profit. The cash flow calculations include estimates of reclamation and restoration cost performed by enCore and do not include contractor overhead and profit.

10

3.6 Permitting and Licensing

The Project is not permitted or licensed to operate except for permits necessary for exploration.

The most significant permits and licenses that will be required to operate the Project are (1) the TCEQ Source and Byproduct Materials License, (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) that are issued at various times through LOM, Class I non-hazardous disposal wells issued by TCEQ, and an USEPA aquifer exemption.

The timing to prepare the applications and for agency review and approval is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. The length of time is not entirely in enCore’s control. The TCEQ’s ability to process enCore’s applications is dependent on the workload of the agency. With the renewed interest in uranium recovery, the application process timeline could be longer due to additional requests for ISR permits and licenses.

The costs to obtain these licenses and permits is estimated to be $2.87 M. These costs include environmental baseline sampling of the air, water (surface and subsurface), soils, and vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed activities. The background radionuclide concentrations in the environment will also be determined. For the UIC Class III permits monitor wells will be installed and sampled to establish baseline water quality prior to mining.

3.7 Other Significant Factors and Risks

There are no other significant factors or risks that may affect access, title or the right or ability to perform work on the property that have not been addressed elsewhere in this report.

11

Figure 3.1: Project Location Map

12

Figure 3.2: Mineral Ownership

13

Figure 3.3: Surface Use Agreements

14

4.0	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

4.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation

The Project is located on the coastal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Three major rivers in the region from south to north are: the Rio Grande, the Nueces, and the San Antonio. The Rio Grande flows into the Gulf of Mexico south of the project area. The Nueces River flows into the Corpus Christi Bay, and the San Antonio River flows into San Antonio Bay southeast of Victoria (Nicot, et al 2010). Figure 4.1 shows the general topographic conditions for the Project and region.

The project area is located within the South Texas Plains Ecoregion of Texas (TPWD 2011). Topography in the project area is relatively flat to gently rolling, ranging from approximately 750 feet (northwest) to 250 feet (southeast) above mean sea level.

Regionally, the area is classified as a coastal sand plain. Jim Hogg County comprises 1,152 square miles of brushy mesquite land. The near level to undulating soils are poorly drained, dark and loamy or sandy; isolated dunes are found. In the northeast corner of the county the soils are light-colored and loamy at the surface and clayey beneath. The vegetation, typical of the South Texas Plains, includes live oaks, mesquite, brush, weeds, cacti and grasses. In addition to domestic stock, wildlife is abundant in the area including a variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, small mammals, and big game (White Tail Deer and exotics).

Figure 4.1: Topography of the South Texas Uranium Province

15

4.2 Access

The Project is accessible year-round from two primary locations: 1) a ranch gate located approximately 5 miles east of Hebbronville, Texas along State Highway 285 (paved); and 2) a ranch gate located approximately 19 miles south of Hebbronville along Farm to Market Road 1017 (paved), as well as from the adjacent the Alta Mesa Project. The Alta Mesa Project location is approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US Highway 281 (paved) and North Farm to Market Road 755 (paved), 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas.

4.3 Climate

Overall, the climate in the area is warm and dry, with hot summers and relatively mild winters. However, the region is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and, as a result, has a much more marine-type climate than the rest of Texas, which is more typically continental.

Monthly mean temperatures in the region range from 55°F in January to 96°F in August (Nicot, et al 2010). The area rarely experiences freezing conditions and as a result most of the processing facility and infrastructure is located outdoors, and wellfield piping and distribution lines do not require burial for frost protection.

Annual precipitation ranges from 20 to 35 inches. Primary risk for severe weather is related to thunderstorms and potential effects of Gulf Coast hurricanes.

4.4 Infrastructure

The Project is well supported by nearby towns and services. Larger cities, Corpus Christi, McAllen and Laredo, are each about 100 miles or less from the site and are ready sources of materials and equipment. Major power lines are located across the Project and are accessed for electrical service. The road system is comprehensive and well maintained and used for shipment of materials and equipment.

Human resources are employed from nearby population centers. Numerous local communities provide sources for labor, housing, offices and basic supplies. enCore utilizes local resources when and where possible supporting the local economy.

The site has uranium drill holes and related infrastructure (e.g., small mud pits temporarily constructed to facilitate drill operations and water supply ponds), and trucks and other equipment. Because of the Project’s proximity to Alta Mesa, Alta Mesa does serve as a base of operation for, administration, shop and warehouse, environmental support, and logging services.

Water supply for the Project is from established and permitted local wells. Solid waste is disposed off-site at licensed disposal facilities. No tailings or other related waste disposal facilities are needed.

16

5.0	HISTORY

5.1 Ownership

In 1999, Mesteña Uranium LLC was formed by the landowners. Mesteña completed most of the drilling on the adjacent Alta Mesa project and began construction of the Alta Mesa ISR facility in 2004. Production began in the fourth quarter of 2005 and Mesteña operated the facility through February 2013. Due to a downturn in the uranium market, in 2013 the project was put into care and maintenance standby.

Mesteña Uranium, LLC acquired the Mesteña Grande projects in 2006 as an exploration option to provide additional uranium feed to the Alta Mesa plant.

On June 17, 2016, Energy Fuels acquired the Project, including both the Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande projects.

In November 2022, enCore entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement dated November 14, 2022, with EFR White Canyon Corp., a subsidiary of Energy Fuels, to acquire four limited liability companies that together hold 100% of the Project. Acquisition cost was US$120 million USD payable in a combination of cash and vendor take-back convertible note secured against the assets.

In February, the Company entered a joint venture with Boss Energy, Ltd. to develop and advance the Project. enCore retains ownership of 70% of the project and Boss Energy holds 30%.

5.2 Previous Operations and Work

Uranium was first discovered in Texas via airborne radiometric surveys in 1954 along the northern boundary of the South Texas Uranium Province where host formations outcrop. These initial discoveries led to the development of numerous conventional open pit mines. Subsequent exploration primarily, by drilling, extended mineralization down dip from the outcrop. At Alta Mesa, oil and gas drilling had been ongoing since the 1930’s.

The deposits were discovered by Mesteña Uranium, LLC in 2006 and drilled 460 holes.

Mesteña Uranium, LLC had access to 3D seismic data developed for oil and gas exploration and used the results of that work as an exploration tool to locate sand channels and define geologic structures. This exploration technique led to the exploration of the Indigo Snake area and to a lesser extent has aided exploration in the Mesteña Grande Central and Mesteña Grande North areas, as well as of the South Alta Mesa property. Limited exploratory drilling was completed in both the South Alta Mesa and North Alta Mesa project areas and a single hole was completed on the Indigo Snake.

17

6.0	GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT

6.1 Regional Geology

6.1.1 SurfaceGeology

The surface geology of the Texas Gulf Coast is an active sedimentary depositional basin characterized by numerous marine transgressions and regressions. These variations are manifested in the stratigraphic record as facies changes along strike and dip of the coast.

Geologic units outcrop at the surface as relatively broad coast-parallel bands. The relative width of bands reflects the thickness of the stratigraphic units, with broader outcrop bands corresponding to greater stratigraphic thickness. The relative age of the exposures becomes progressively younger toward the present margin of the coast. Strata dip at low angles and thicken toward the coast, except where strata is influenced locally by structural deformation (Mesteña, 2000).

6.1.2 Subsurface Geology

The Texas Gulf Coast is a sedimentary basin with active deposition throughout the Cenozoic Era. Deposition is dominated by clastic sediments transported from highlands in West Texas and northern Mexico. Most of these sediments were transported to the coast by rivers and deposited in a variety of fluvial-deltaic environments.

Structurally the Texas Gulf Coast consists of three regions, the Rio Grande Embayment, the San Marcos Arch, and the Houston Embayment. Other structural features found in the Texas Gulf Coast include the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins, and the Wilcox, Frio, and Vicksburg Fault Zones.

The San Marcos Arch is a broad gently sloping positive structural feature extending from the Llano Uplift in Central Texas to the Gulf Coast during the Ouachita Orogeny. The Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are thought to have resulted from subsidence induced by high rates of sedimentation (Dodge and Posey, 1981).

The Tertiary sediments deposited in the Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are characterized by deltaic sands and shales. High rates of clastic deposition resulted in the formation of normal listric growth faults. Deltaic sedimentation combined with growth faulting and continued subsidence have led to the accumulation of up to 40,000 feet of Cenozoic strata in the Gulf Coast Basin.

Salt and shale diapirs are also present in the subsurface along the Gulf Coastal Plain. The displacement of shale and salt is generated by the accumulation of an excessive thickness of overburden sediment causing plastic flow of the more ductile sediments. The resulting structures may cause local faulting and/or dip reversal along with the formation of domes and anticlinal structures.

6.2 Local and PropertyGeology

6.2.1 Surface Geology

In Jim Hogg County and across the Project area, the Eocene Jackson Group, the Miocene Catahoula and Frio Formations, the Pliocene Goliad Formation and Quaternary windblown deposits outcrop at the surface. In most of the county these units subcrop beneath a blanket of Holocene sediments

18

brought inland by easterly and southeasterly winds. The Miocene age Oakville Formation and Lagarto Clays do not outcrop in this area. Figure 6.1 is a geologic map of the project area.

6.2.2 Subsurface Geology

The deposits are roll-fronts, typical to others found in the South Texas Uranium Province. The ore bodies are isolated within several sand units, which occur within the middle portion of the Goliad Formation.

Genesis of the ore deposits are related to the presence of chemical reductants trapped in the various host formations (Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula). Reductants are believed to be associated with natural gas and/or hydrogen sulfide seepage from deeper formations through localized faulting.

The significant structural features in the vicinity of Alta Mesa include the Vicksburg Fault and the associated Vicksburg Flexure and Alta Mesa Dome. The Vicksburg Fault is a large-scale, deep-seated growth fault, mainly affecting deeper stratigraphic units. Little, if any, displacement has occurred in Goliad and younger units. Activity on the Vicksburg Fault and related structural features has, however, influenced sedimentation patterns in the Goliad.

The Alta Mesa Dome is a deep-seated, non-piercement shale diapir structure associated with the Vicksburg Flexure. Deformation of the subsurface strata is considerable at depth but at the Goliad level, maximum uplift is on the order of only 100 to 125 feet. The location of the ore deposit closely coincides with the top of the dome at the Goliad stratigraphic level. Domal uplift is believed to have been active but subdued during deposition of the Goliad Formation. The rate of uplift was insufficient to divert fluvial deposition but did limit its extent.

As a result, strata thin over the dome and thicken off the dome. Clay interbeds are more abundant and more continuous over the dome. At the Goliad stratigraphic level, symmetry of the dome is broken on the western and northwestern flanks by a pair of subparallel, normal faults. These appear to be zones of structural failure associated with sporadic reactivation of domal uplift. The throw of these faults is opposite to each other, creating an intervening graben structure. Surface expression of faulting did not occur until after the ore mineralization phase.

Figure 6.2 is a generalized cross section illustrating the stratigraphic, structural and deposit characteristics of the Alta Mesa project area (Collins and Talbott, 2007). The presence and effects of salt domes are also recognized at other uranium deposits such as Palangana (UEC, 2010). Note that the location of the Figure 6.2 cross-section shown is referenced as section line A-A’ on Figure 6.1.

The significant structural features in the vicinity of the Project include the Vicksburg and Midway Fault Zones, along with numerous, regional and local scale growth faults. Analyses of cross-sections indicate significant faulting has occurred during Catahoula and Oakville time, with the degree of faulting lessening upward into Goliad time. Lagarto sediments include thick fluvial sequences of bedload and mixed-load channel systems indicating increased fluvial processes were active during deposition in this region of south Texas.

Fluvial systems within the Catahoula, Oakville, Lagarto, and Goliad sequences all exhibit a significant reduction in energy toward the coast, with sediment size and process complexity decreasing in each to the east

19

6.3 Stratigraphy

The Project is part of the South Texas Uranium Province, which is known to contain more than 100 uranium deposits (Nicot, et al., 2010). Within the South Texas Uranium Province, uranium mineralization is primarily hosted in the Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, Miocene Oakville Formation, Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, and the Eocene Jackson Group, respectively described in the following. Figure 6.3 is a stratigraphic column of the South Texas Uranium Province and Figure 6.4 is a detailed cross section of the project area.

6.3.1 Goliad Formation

The Goliad Formation unconformably overlies the Oakville and Fleming Formation outcropping in the northwest part of Brooks County. In the area, the Goliad ranges in thickness from approximately 400 to 1000 feet thick and consists of fine to medium-grained sands and poorly cemented sandstone (Meyers and Dale, 1967).

The Goliad is divided into three major zones (Basal, Middle and Upper) based on major fluvial regimes. The Lower Goliad is interpreted to represent a fluvial environment of low to moderate energy and is composed primarily of isolated mixed- load channel-fill sands separated by thick inter-channel clays. Basal Goliad sediments consist of bimodal sand and gravel conglomerates with poor bed form development and little sedimentary structure.

Middle Goliad sediments are finer grain and have well developed sedimentary structures and bedforms and contain relic caliche cementation. A slight increase in fluvial energy during the Middle Goliad deposition resulted in an extensive stack of onlapping mixed-load to bed-load channel-fill sands with subordinate amount of interchannel clays. Because stacking and onlapping of sands and claystone is common within the Middle Goliad, detailed distinction of upper and lower boundaries or lettered sand units is somewhat tenuous in places. Tops and bottoms are established at claystone interbeds which are most continuous on a large scale, although locally these may not be the most prominent claystones. Continuity of claystones is generally consistent on top of the dome and within the ore deposit but decreases off the dome where the sand units commonly merge and lose individual identity.

Fluvial energy appears to have fluctuated considerably in the Upper Goliad. Peak fluvial energy levels occurred with the deposition of significant amounts of bed-load channel fill sand and is locally conglomeratic. This change in texture in the upper Goliad Formation indicates decreasing bed load energy, reduced source input, and a change to an arid or semi-arid climate (Hosman, 1996). Figure 6.5 is a type-log for the Project which illustrates the local stratigraphy.

6.3.2 Oakville Formation

The Miocene-age Oakville Formation overlies the Catahoula Formation and represents a major pulse in sediments thought to be due to uplift along the Balcones Fault Zone. The Oakville Sandstone is composed of sediments deposited by several fluvial systems, each of which had distinct textural and mineralogical characteristics (Smith et al., 1982). Together with the overlying Fleming Formation, they comprise a major depositional episode. These two units are commonly grouped because they are both composed of varying amounts of interbedded sand and clay. Average thickness varies from 300

20

to 700 feet at the outcrop (Galloway et al., 1982), and the formation is thicker in the subsurface (Henry et al., 1982).

Oakville sediments grade into the mixed-load sediments of the Fleming and into the thicker deltaic and barrier systems farther downdip. Sand percentage is high in the paleochannels, whereas finer-grained floodplain deposits are more common in adjacent interchannel environments. Paleosols are not as frequent as in the Catahoula Formation and Jackson Group. Farther downdip the amount of sand increases as the formation thickens, but the sand fraction decreases because of additional mud facies.

Unlike the Jackson Group, Oakville sediments do not contain significant amounts of organic material.

6.3.3 Catahoula Formation

The Catahoula Formation unconformably overlies the Oligocene sediments of the Jackson Group. Catahoula sediments are fluvial rather than marine derived and are composed in varying proportions of sands, clays, and volcanic tuff, depending on location. Sediments of the Catahoula Formation reflect a strong volcanic influence, including numerous occurrences of airborne volcanic ash (Galloway 1977).

Thicknesses of strata at the outcrop range from 200 to 1,000 feet and thickens gulfward as is typical of other Gulf Coast sequences. Sand content ranges from <10% to a maximum of about 50% (Galloway, 1977). Sediments in the lower Catahoula Formation are predominantly gray tuff, whereas pink tuffaceous clay is more common in the upper strata, suggesting a change to more humid climatic conditions during deposition. Volcanic conglomerates and sandstone are most common in the midlevel of the unit. Bentonite and opalized clay layers and alteration products of volcanic glass (zeolites, Camontmorillonite, opal, and chalcedony) are present throughout the formation and indicate syndepositional alteration of tuffaceous beds. Widespread areas of calichification indicate long periods of exposure to soil-forming conditions at the surface (McBride et al., 1968).

6.3.4 Jackson Group

The Jackson Group is part of a major progradational cycle that also includes the underlying Yegua Formation. The Jackson Group includes, from older to younger, the Caddell, the Wellborn, the Manning, and the Whitsett Formations (Eargle, 1959; Fisher et al., 1970).

Total thickness averages 1,100 feet in the subsurface but becomes thinner in the outcrop area and is characterized by a complex distribution of lagoon, marsh, barrier-island, and associated facies. The lower part of the Jackson Group consists of a basal 100-feet sequence of marine muds (Caddell Formation) overlain by 400 feet of mostly sands: Wellborn / McElroy Formation with the Dilworth Sandstone, Conquista Clay, and Deweesville / Stones Switch (Galloway et al., 1979) Sandstone members toward the top. The middle part consists of 200 to 400 feet of mostly muds (including the Dubose Clay Member). Several sand units are present in the 400- to 500-feet-thick upper section, including the Tordilla / Calliham Sandstone overlain by the Flashing Clay Member.

Units from the Dilworth unit up are grouped under the Whitsett Formation name (Eargle, 1959). Only the latter contains significant amounts of uranium mineralization in the Deweesville and Tortilla sand members. Kreitler et al. (1992, 38 Section 2) provided more details on these units near the Falls City

21

Susquehanna-Western mill. Uranium mineralization occurs where the strike-oriented barrier sand belt intersects the outcrop. Sand is generally fine and heavily bioturbated with burrows and roots and contains lignitic material and silicified wood. Discontinuous lignite beds are also present (Fisher et al., 1970).

22

Figure 6.1: Geologic Map

23

Figure 6.2: Generalized Cross Section

24

Figure 6.3: Regional Stratigraphic Column

25

Figure 6.4: Detailed Cross Section

26

Figure 6.5: Type Log

27

6.4 Significant Mineralized Zones

6.4.1 Mineralization

Uranium mineralization occurs primarily as uraninite with some coffinite and like other deposits within the South Texas Uranium Province, is stratabound in clay-bounded sandstone packages. Mineralization occurs as roll front type deposits with “C” shaped configurations in cross section and elongated sinuous ribbons in plan-view. Deposits are diagenetic and/or epigenetic forming because of a geochemical process whereby oxidized surface water leaches uranium from source rocks (Finch, 1996). Source rocks of the south Texas deposits are generally agreed to be Miocene and Oligocene age volcanic ash from west Texas and/or Mexico (Galloway et al, 1977 and Aguirre-Diaz and Renne, 2008).

This ash was deposited by wind and fluvial systems and uranium was leached from the ash by oxygenated surface waters. Uranium bearing waters were transported to outcrop areas where sandstone formations were exposed and began to move downdip as groundwater. The movement of uranium continued in groundwater until a reductant source was encountered, such as hydrogen sulfide gas, pyrite or carbonaceous material resulting in uranium precipitating out of solution.

At Alta Mesa, uranium bearing groundwater moved from northwest to southeast and encountered a reduction zone associated with the Alta Mesa oil and gas field, caused primarily by hydrogen sulfide gas introduction through faults and fractures. Mineralization away from the oil and gas field occurs by the same geochemical processes; however, possibly from different reductant source.

The deposits at Mesteña Grande are characterized by vertically stacked roll-fronts controlled by stratigraphic heterogeneity, host lithology, permeability, reductant type and concentration, and groundwater geochemistry. Individual known roll-fronts are a few tens of feet wide, 2 to 10 feet thick, and often thousands of feet long. Collectively, roll-fronts are inferred to result in an overall deposit that is up to a few hundred feet wide, 50 to 75 feet thick and continuous for miles in length.

Depth of known mineralization occurs at various depths, from 400 to over 1,200 feet.

6.5 Relevant Geologic Controls

The primary geologic controls for development of the Project’s deposit are:

●	Miocene and Oligocene volcanic ash uranium source,
●	Permeable sandstones within the Goliad, Oakville and Catahoula Formations,
---	---
●	Groundwater and formation geochemical conditions suitable for uranium transport,
---	---
●	Reductant source (hydrocarbons, pyrite or carbonaceous materials) within the sandstones to interact with uranium bearing<br>groundwater modifying oxidation/reduction potential of geochemical conditions and precipitation of uranium.
---	---

28

6.6 Deposit Type

The deposit type is being investigated and mined are sandstone hosted uranium roll-fronts, as defined in the “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification”, (IAEA, 2009). The geological model being applied in investigation and mining is illustrated in Figure 6.6.

Figure 6.6: Idealized Cross Section of a Sandstone Hosted Uranium Roll-Front Deposit

(Modified from Granger and Warren -1974 and De Voto- 1978)

•	A permeable host formation:
o	Sandstone units of the Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula formations.
---	---
•	A source of soluble uranium:
---	---
o	Volcanic ash-fall tuffs coincidental with Catahoula deposition containing<br>elevated concentration of uranium is the probable source of uranium deposits for the South Texas Uranium Province (Finch, 1996).
---	---
•	Oxidizing groundwaters to leach and transport the uranium:
---	---
o	Groundwaters regionally tend to be oxidizing and slightly alkaline.
---	---
•	Adequate reductant within the host formation:
---	---
o	Conditions resulting from periodic H2S gas migrating along faults and subsequent iron sulfide (pyrite) precipitation<br>created local reducing conditions.
---	---
o	Time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface.
---	---
o	Uranium precipitates from solution at the oxidation/reduction boundary (REDOX) as uraninite which is dominant (UO2,<br>uranium oxide) or coffinite (USiO4, uranium silicate).
---	---
•	The geohydrologic regime of the region has been stable over millions of years with groundwater movement controlled<br>primarily by high-permeability channels within the predominantly sandstone formations of the Tertiary.
---	---

29

7.0  EXPLORATION

The nature and extent of all relevant exploration is discussed in the following. All exploration work has been conducted by drilling. To date, no other surveys, investigations, groundwater or geotechnical sampling have been conducted, including coring.

7.1 Drilling Type and Procedures

Drilling is performed by surface drilling vertical holes. Holes are drilled using direct mud rotary drilling system, where drilling fluid is pumped through the drill pipe, drill bit ports, and back to surface between the pipe and borehole wall. Drilling fluid is typically a mix of clean water and industrial materials added to the water to lift cuttings, stabilize hole to prevent sidewall caving and sloughing, and to clean and lubricate the drilling system.

Hole depth is determined by depth of the deepest stratigraphic unit to be investigated. Hole diameter is determined by drill bit and pipe diameter used.

Drill holes are sampled by collection of drill cuttings, downhole geophysics and core. Cuttings are typically collected every 5 feet and assessed for lithology and color. If core is collected, a coring tool is used to drill and sample lithological material without comprising its natural condition. Holes are also logged for downhole geophysical characteristics to assess lithology type, stratigraphic and structural geologic features, and mineralization location and quality. The collar or surface location of each drill hole is surveyed for elevation, latitude and longitude. Since mineralized stratigraphic horizons are nearly horizontal and drill holes are nearly vertical, the mineralization’s true thickness is represented in geophysical and core data.

Initial Project exploration was wide spaced drilling at miles or thousands of feet between drill holes. Closer spaced drilling was conducted increasing geologic knowledge and confidence.

7.2 Drilling Extent

In 2024, enCore conducted a drilling program on the Project. Drilling started in June and was ongoing at the time of report completion. Both greenfield and brownfield programs were conducted targeting the Catahoula, Oakville, Lagarto and Goliad formations, primarily at central Mesteña Grande, Alta Vista and North Alta Mesa.

Drilling has been wide spaced with the objective of establishing a stratigraphic framework across the region, identification of regional and local fault zones and salt structures over the 35-mile x 30-mile project area.

As of December 31, 2024, enCore has drilled 41 holes for a total footage of 49,850 feet. Hole depths range from 700 to 1,550 feet, with an average drill depth of approximately 1,216 feet. Drill results are presented in Table 7.1. Drill holes locations are illustrated on Figure 7.1

30

Table 7.1: Drill Results

31

Figure 7.1: Drill Hole Locations

32

8.0  SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSIS AND SECURITY

8.1 Sample Methods

Samples are collected from drill holes for drill cuttings, downhole geophysics and core samples. Cores are the only samples that are prepared and dispatched to an analytical or testing laboratory. Cuttings and geophysical data are prepared and analyzed in house. Sampling, sample preparation and security are described in the following sections.

8.1.1 Downhole Geophysical Data

Continuous measurement of downhole geophysical properties is measured from total hole depth to surface. Geophysical data is collected using logging probes equipped with gamma, resistivity, SP, PFN and downhole survey logging tools. This suite of logs is ideal for defining lithologic units in the subsurface. The resistivity and spontaneous potential tools are used to define lithology by qualitative measurements of water conductivities.

The gamma tool provides an indirect measurement of uranium content. Gamma radiation is measured in one-tenth foot intervals and converted to gamma ray readings measured in counts-per-second into %-eU3O8. Equivalent percent uranium grades are reported in one-half foot increments.

The PFN tool provides a direct measurement of uranium around the borehole. The pulsed neutron source electronically generates neutrons which cause fission of U^235^in the formation. Tool detectors count epithermal and thermal neutrons returning from the formation, thereby providing a direct measurement of uranium content within the formation.

Drill holes are also downhole surveyed measuring deviation by azimuth and declination, providing a holes true bottom location and depth.

enCore samples all drill holes with gamma, resistivity, spontaneous potential and downhole survey. Due to cost and time, enCore only PFN samples mineralized intervals with gamma measured grades above 0.02 %-eU3O8.

To ensure geophysical data quality control, gamma and PFN tools are calibrated at a US Department of Energy test pit in George West, Texas. Tools are also calibrated using onsite test pits at enCore’s Kingsville Dome Project. Test pit have known uranium source concentration and using industry calibration procedures tools are calibrated, to ensure consistent measurement and reporting of uranium concentrations from US deposits.

8.1.1.1 PFN Calibration

Figure 8.1 shows a typical calibration curve for the PFN tool.

33

Figure 8.1: PFN Tool Calibration

8.1.1.2 Disequilibrium

Radioactive isotopes decay until achieving a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U^238^ on the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope (McKay et.al., 2007). Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed due to differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters. Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters accumulate, and uranium is depleted. The DEF is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive DEF by a factor greater than 1, and negative DEF by a factor of less than 1. Figure 8.2 illustrates the disequilibrium relationship between natural gamma U3O8 equivalent and PFN measured grades.

Total applied a DEF of 1.13 to mineral resource estimates (Total, 1989). Mesteña used PFN measurements to determine uranium grade. enCore also uses PFN for uranium grade determination.

34

Figure 8.2: Disequilibrium Graph Natural Gamma vs PFN Grade

8.1.2 Drill Cuttings

Drill cuttings are collected at 5-foot intervals while drilling. Samples are arranged on the ground in order of depth to show changes in lithology and color. Lithology and color are recorded on a lithology log for entire hole depth. Particular attention is paid to color in the mineralized sand to assess oxidation/reduction potential. Cuttings are not chemically assayed as drilling mud will contaminate samples and precise sample location or depth cannot be determined from cuttings.

8.1.3 Core Samples

Core samples are collected to conduct chemical analyses, metallurgical testing, and testing of physical parameters of lithologic units. Retrieved cores are measured to determine core recovery. Cores are also washed, photographed and described. In preparation for laboratory analysis, to maintain moisture content and prevent oxidation, core is wrapped in plastic, boxed and frozen or iced.

Mesteña and Energy Fuels drilled no core, and to date enCore has not collected any core.

8.2 Laboratory Analysis

When core is collected in the field, it is rinsed, measured for length and photographed. One half of the

35

core is sampled in 1-foot increments and either wrapped in plastic or vacuum sealed to maintain moisture content and prevent oxidation, boxed, frozen or iced and transferred to an analytical or testing laboratory.

The other half of core is preserved and used to describe lithologic characteristics (i.e., lithology, color, grain size and fraction).

Core preserved for testing is used for leach amenability determination. Leach amenability studies are intended to demonstrate that the uranium mineralization is capable of being leached and determination of the optimal mining lixiviant chemistry. Typically, sodium bicarbonate is used as the source for a carbonate complexing agent to form uranyldicarbonate (UDC) or uranyltricarbonate ion (UTC), and Oxygen or Hydrogen peroxide are used as the uranium-oxidizing agent. Tests are not designed to approximate in-situ conditions (permeability, porosity, pressure) but are an indication of an ore’s reaction rate and potential uranium recovery.

enCore adheres to security measures using Chain of Custody procedures to ensure the validity and integrity of samples through the analysis process. enCore may sample and transfer duplicate samples to assess reliability and precision of analytical results for quality control of sample collection or laboratory analysis procedures.

Core samples are submitted to an analytical or testing laboratory that is certified through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, which establishes and promotes mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. The standards address analytical testing, with State and Federal agencies and serve as accrediting authorities with coordination facilitated by the EPA to assure uniformity.

8.3 Opinion on Adequacy

Since enCore’s acquisition of the Project, there has been no sampling of natural materials for the assessment of geologic or hydrologic conditions that require preparation, analysis and security to submit samples to a laboratory; however, enCore does have sample preparation, methods of analysis, and sample and data security procedures that meet acceptable industry standards.

With respect to historical sample preparation, analysis and security of other previous operators, this information was not available and cannot be confirmed.

It is the opinion of this QP that there are no known sampling preparation, analysis and security factors that when used will materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

36

9.0  DATA VERIFICATION

The QP visited the site on January 7, 2025, to inspect the site and verify data in the technical report.

9.1 Data Confirmation

To verify data, the following steps were taken by the QP to review:

●	SOPs for drilling procedures, lithological and geophysical logging, and coring,
●	Drilling, lithological and geophysical logging in the field,
---	---
●	Geologists’ interpretation of lithology comparing drill cuttings to resistivity and SP geophysical results,<br>
---	---
●	Raw downhole geophysical data, grade calculations from raw data, and compositing method used to calculate average mineral<br>grade and determine thickness,
---	---
●	Geologists’ interpretation of deposit characteristics from gamma and PFN downhole geophysical data,<br>
---	---
●	Workflow and data management including collection, processing, interpretation, digital documentation and database storage;<br>and,
---	---
●	Geophysical calibration records.
---	---

9.2 Limitations

Coring was not observed in the field as no coring activities were conducted during the duration of the site visit and no historic core data exists for the Project.

9.3 Data Adequacy

A considerable amount of work has been done by enCore and previous operators to ensure an adequate data set exists for the Project. It is the QP’s opinion that the data used in this technical report is adequate for technical reporting.

Based on data quality, efforts of others, and the QP’s review, it is the opinion of the QP that there are no known data factors that will materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

37

10.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

enCore has not performed any mineral processing or metallurgical testing for the Project.

38

11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. The amount of reported mineral resources does not include those amounts identified as mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have no demonstrated economic viability and do not meet the requirement for all the relevant modifying factors. Stated mineral resources are derived from estimated quantities of mineralized material recoverable by ISR methods.

11.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters and Methods

11.1.1 Key Assumptions

●	Mineral resources have been estimated based on the use of the ISR extraction method and yellowcake production,<br>
●	Price forecast, production costs and an average wellfield recovery of 60% that accounts for dilution from mining hydrologic<br>efficiency and metallurgical recovery, were used to estimate mineral resources.
---	---
●	Average plant recovery of 98%; and,
---	---
●	Average LOM uranium price of $85.48 based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4.
---	---

11.1.2 Key Parameters

●	The mineral resources estimates are based on data collected from drillholes,
●	Grades (%<br>U3O8) were obtained from gamma radiometric and PFN probing,
---	---
●	Average density of 17.0 cubic feet per ton was used, based on historical sample measurements,
---	---
●	Minimum grade to define mineralized intervals is 0.020% eU3O8,
---	---
●	Minimum mineralized interval thickness is 1.0 feet,
---	---
●	Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness) cut-off per hole per mineralized interval for<br>grade-thickness contour modeling is 0.30 feet% U3O8,
---	---
●	Mineralized interval with GT values below the 0.30 feet% U3O8 GT cut-off is used for model definition but are not included within the mineral resource estimation,
---	---
●	Average annual production rate of approximately 1.2 M pounds,
---	---
●	Average annual estimated operating costs of $25.49 per pound,
---	---
●	Average annual estimated wellfield development costs of $11.33 per pound; and,
---	---
●	Average annual restoration and reclamation costs of $2.94 per pound.
---	---

39

11.1.3 Key Methods

●	Geological interpretation of the orebody was done on section and plan from surface drillhole information,<br>
●	The orebody was modeled creating roll-front outlines for each of the deposit’s individual mineralized zones; and,<br>
---	---
●	Geological modeling and mining applications used was ArcGIS Pro.
---	---

11.2 Resource Classification

Mineral resources are disclosed as required by United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 17, Chapter II, Part 229, §229.1303 and §229.1304, and are based upon and accurately reflect information and supporting documentation prepared by the QP, as defined in §229.1300.

The following classification criteria for each mineral resource category are applied for alignment with §229.1300 definitions of Measured, Indicated and Inferred mineral resources.

11.2.1 Measured Mineral Resources

Drilling is denser than 50 x 100 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support detailed wellfield planning and development with no or very little changes expected from additional drilling.

11.2.2 Indicated Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to or denser than 200 x 400 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development with some changes expected from additional drilling.

11.2.3 Inferred MineralResources

Drilling density equivalent to about 800 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by less uniformity and not easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences but there is less confidence in geologic interpretation. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by insufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development due to significant changes expected from additional drilling.

40

11.3 Mineral Resource Estimates

A summary of the Project’s mineral resource estimates is provided in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1: Summary of Mineral Resource Estimates

Category	Tons (x 1,000)	Avg Grade (%)U3O8	Total Lbs (x 1000) U3O8
Measured	0.0	0.000	0.0
Indicated	0.0	0.000	0.0
Total Measured and Indicated	0.0	0.000	0.0
Inferred	5,852.8	0.119	13,887.9
Total Inferred	5,852.8	0.119	13,887.9

Notes:

1.	enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral<br>reserves.
2.	The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole<br>information.
---	---
3.	Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of<br>0.30 ft% U3O8.
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.
---	---
5.	Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less<br>confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.
---	---
6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---

11.4 Material Affects to Mineral Resources

It is the QP’s opinion that the quality of data, geological evaluation and modeling are valid for mineral resource estimation. All mineral resources reported are inferred. Inferred resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the economics in this report will ever be realized.

Due to the speculative nature of inferred mineral resources, the QP has qualified the LOM resources by reducing the typical ISR mine recovery from 80% to 60%. It is also assumed that technical, scientific and financial information from enCore’s Alta Mesa Project is applicable in the assessment of the Project.

To the extent that mineral resources may be impacted by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors, impacts could result in a material loss or gain to the Project’s mineral resources. The QP is not aware of any relevant factors that could materially affect the Project’s mineral resource estimates.

41

12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. The point at which mineral reserves are defined is where mineralization occurs under existing wellfields. No mineral reserves are defined for the Project.

42

13.0 MINING METHODS

enCore will mine uranium using ISR. An alkaline leach system of carbon dioxide and oxygen is used as the extracting solution. Bicarbonate, resulting from the addition of carbon dioxide to the extracting solution, is the complexing agent. Oxygen is added to oxidize the uranium to a soluble +6 valence state.

ISR has been successfully used for over five decades in the United States as well as in other countries such as Kazakhstan and Australia. ISR mining was developed independently in the 1970s in the former Soviet Union and US for extracting uranium from sandstone hosted uranium deposits that were not suitable for open pit or underground mining. Many sandstones host deposits that are amenable to ISR, which is now a well-established mining method. enCore’s Alta Mesa Project is an operating mine that was in production from 2005 to 2013, with resumption of production in 2024, demonstrates that uranium can be mobilized and recovered with an oxygenated carbonate lixiviant.

13.1 Mine Designs and Plans

13.1.1Patterns, Wellfields and Mine Units

Production and injection wells will be installed to facilitate the in-situ mining process. Injection wells are used to inject chemically fortified natural groundwater into the ore body liberating uranium. Production wells are used to recover the uranium rich waters by pumping the production fluid to the surface. Wells are completed in only one mineralized zone at a time and in a manner that focuses fluid flow across the deposit.

The fundamental production unit for design and production planning or scheduling is the pattern. A pattern is comprised of a production well and some number of injection wells.

Typical well patterns that will be used are alternating single line drive, staggered line drive and five-spot. Pattern configuration is determined by the size and shape of the deposit, hydrogeological properties of the uranium bearing formation and mining economics.

Patterns will be grouped into production units referred to as wellfields or modules. Modules form a practical means for design, development and production, where groups of 10-15 production wells and their associated injections wells are designed, constructed and operated, serving as the operating unit for distribution of the alkaline leach system.

To further facilitate planning, wellfields will be grouped into PAAs. PAAs represent a collection of wellfields for which baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria have been established. These data are included in Production Area Authorization Application that will be submitted to the TCEQ for approval prior to injection into a new mine unit.

An economic wellfield must cover the construction costs associated with well installation, connection of wells to piping that conveys the leach system between wellfields and the processing plant, and wellfield and plant operating costs.

13.1.2 Monitoring Wells

To establish baseline data, monitoring requirements and restoration criteria, baseline production zone

43

and non-production zone monitor wells will be installed for each mine unit.

Baseline monitor wells will be completed in the wellfield within the deposit hosting sandstone to establish baseline water restoration criteria of the wellfield production zone. Perimeter monitor wells are installed in a ring around the entire wellfield. This ring is setback approximately 400 feet from the patterns and 400 feet apart. This monitor well ring will be used to ensure mining fluids are contained within the wellfield.

Monitor wells will also be completed in non-production zone hydro-stratigraphic units above (overlying) and, if required below (underlying), the production zone to monitor the potential for vertical lixiviant migration. These monitor wells will be completed in the first overlying aquifer. In the event a second overlying aquifer is identified, the thickness and integrity of the intervening aquitard will be evaluated to determine if the second aquifer will require monitoring.

13.1.3 Wellfield Surface Piping System

Each injection and production well will be connected within a network of polyethylene pipe to an injection or production manifold. Manifolds are fitted with meters, valves, and pressure gauges to measure and regulate flow to and from the wells. The manifolds are connected to larger trunk line pipes that convey fluids to and from the wellfield and RIX.

Since the climate is mild with winter temperatures rarely below freezing for prolonged periods of time, the production and injection pipelines and manifolds are not required to be buried below the ground. In colder climates ISR wellfields also need structures to house the manifolds and associated valves and instrumentation to prevent them from freezing. This expense is not necessary in south Texas where the Project is located. The ability to use surface piping reduces wellfield capital costs and reclamation costs.

13.1.4 Wellfield Production

Uranium will be produced in wellfields by the dissolution of water-soluble uranium minerals from the deposit using a lixiviant at near neutral pH ranges. The lixiviant contains dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen oxidizes the uranium, which is then complexed with the bicarbonate formed by addition of carbon dioxide to the solution. The uranium-rich solution will then be pumped from the production wells to a RIX for uranium concentration with ion exchange resin. A slightly greater volume of water will be recovered from the hydro-stratigraphic unit than is injected, referred to as “bleed”, to create an inward flow gradient towards the wellfields. Thus, overall production flow rates will always be slightly greater than overall injection rates. This bleed solution will be disposed via injection into a Class I DDW.

13.1.5 Production Rates and Expected Mine Life

Flow rate and head grades will be maintained to achieve annual production objectives. New wellfields will be developed and commissioned at a rate to ensure adequate head grades are maintained as operating wellfields are depleted.

Production was estimated based on the following parameters, which are like the neighboring Alta Mesa Project, applied to mineral resources.

44

●	Average recovery well flow rate of 45 gpm
●	Maximum RIX flow rate of 3,000 gpm each
---	---
●	Average feed grade of 60 ppm U3O8
---	---
●	60% mineral recovery in 32 months
---	---

Based solely on existing inferred mineral resources future site production is 8,333 M pounds of U3O8. Production forecast by year is illustrated in Tables 19.1 and 19.2.

13.2 Mining Fleet andMachinery

enCore will need to increase its rolling stock for production and restoration. Rolling stock and equipment that will need to be acquired includes backhoes, pump hoists, cementers, forklifts, pickups, resin transport trailers, tractors to pull trailers, and generators. In addition, several pieces of heavy equipment will need to be on-site for excavation of mud pits, road maintenance, and reclamation activities.

45

14.0 PROCESS AND RECOVERY METHODS

14.1 Processing Facilities

enCore’s operational plan is to mine uranium from satellite properties processing product at one of the company’s CPPs. At the Alta Mesa Project, enCore operates an active mine and CPP and the Project is located about 30 miles northwest of the CPP. enCore plans to develop and advance the Project and process the RIX resin at Alta Mesa.

enCore plans to recover uranium using RIX. RIX are self-contained stand-alone processing facilities with an IX circuit and a resin transfer system. The process flow of the RIX is the same as the IX circuit in the CPP. Once uranium is recovered at the RIX, the loaded resin will be transferred via the resin transfer system to a resin trailer and trucked to the CPP for elution, precipitation, drying, and packaging. Figures 14.1 and 14.2 are the P&ID and general arrangement drawings for a modular 1,000 gpm RIX design that can be expanded by adding 1,000 gpm RIX modules. The RIXs at the Mesteña Grande will be larger to accommodate an increased flowrate. Infrastructure at the Alta Mesa Project will allow for processing of all RIX resin at the Alta Mesa CPP.

A description of the uranium recovery process is provided in the remainder of the section.

14.2 Process Flow

14.2.1 Ion Exchange

Uranium is recovered from the wellfield lixiviant solution using a downflow IX circuit. The IX circuit at the RIX will have a 3,000 gallons per minute operational capacity. Each vessel will contain 500 cubic foot of anionic ion exchange resin that will capture uranium from the pregnant lixiviant. An Injection booster pump will be located downstream of the IX columns. The RIX will also include a resin transfer system to accommodate transfer of resin between the resin trailer and IX columns.

Vessels will be designed to provide optimum contact time between pregnant lixiviant and IX resin. An interior stainless-steel piping manifold system distributes lixiviant evenly across the resin. The dissolved uranium in the pregnant lixiviant will be exchanged onto the ion exchange resin. The resultant barren lixiviant exiting the IX vessels will contain less than 2 ppm of uranium and will be returned to the wellfield where oxygen and carbon dioxide will be added prior to reinjection.

14.2.2 Production Bleed

A bleed is drawn from the injection stream prior to reinjection into the wellfield to maintain control of hydraulic conditions in the production zone. Bleed water is directed into the liquid waste stream and disposed of as discussed is Section 14.4.

46

Figure 14.1: RIX Facility P&ID

47

Figure 14.2: RIX Facility General Arrangement

48

14.3 Water Balance

The water balance is based on a production flow rate of 6,000 gpm with a 1% or 60 gpm bleed to maintain hydraulic control of the mine units. In the RIX fresh water will be used for make-up and washdown at a rate of approximately 12 gpm from a local fresh water supply well. Restoration activities will include 250 gpm feed to an RO, with 175 gpm of clean permeate returned to the wellfield and 75 gpm to RO concentrate sent to a liquid effluent management system that includes several above ground 44,000-gallon storage tanks and water injection into permitted Class I injection wells.

14.4 Liquid Waste Disposal

The Project will use deep disposal wells for disposal of liquid waste generated during production and restoration. The Project plans on two disposal wells that will be permitted under the TCEQ’s Underground Injection Control Class I permit program. Based upon proximity to the Alta Mesa CPP, liquid waste disposal may be achieved at one of the existing WDWs.

14.5 Solid Waste Disposal

Waste classified as non-contaminated (non-hazardous, non-radiological) will be disposed of in the nearest permitted sanitary waste disposal facility. Waste classified as hazardous (non-radiological) will be segregated and disposed of at the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility. Radiologically contaminated solid waste, that cannot be decontaminated, are classified as 11.e.(2) byproduct material. This waste will be packaged and stored on-site temporarily and periodically shipped to a licensed 11.e.(2) byproduct waste facility or a licensed mill tailings facility.

14.6 Energy, Water and Process Material Requirements

14.6.1 Energy Requirements

Power requirements for an RIX are limited to the needs of the injection, sump, and transfer pumps, electrically actuated valves and monitoring equipment. The wellfields need power for the downhole pumps as well as the monitoring equipment. Power will be provided from one of the main lines supplied to the property and power lines interior to the property will be installed and maintained by enCore.

14.6.2 WaterRequirements

Bleed from the production stream will be stored in an RIX located water tank and used for resin transfer, tank back wash and wash down. Excess bleed will be sent to the WDW. An RO unit will be installed at the RIX after production is completed for groundwater restoration. The brine from the RO during groundwater restoration will be sent to the WDW.

49

15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE

The basic infrastructure (power, water and transportation) necessary to support the project is located within reasonable proximity of the site as described below and illustrated in Figure 15.1.

15.1 Utilities

15.1.1 Electrical Power

TXU Energy is the Project’s power provider.

Site electrical is provided via two established power lines run into the plant. AEP Texas is the owner of the main power lines that provide the plant power. Power lines inside the property are owned and installed by enCore.

15.1.2 Domestic and Utility Water Wells

Water wells will be used for domestic and utilities water supply water.

15.1.3 Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary sewer waste will be managed with above ground septic tanks.

15.2 Transportation

15.2.1 Roads

The Project is accessible year-round from two primary locations: 1) a ranch gate located approximately 5 miles east of Hebbronville, Texas along State Highway 285 (paved); and 2) a ranch gate located approximately 19 miles south of Hebbronville along Farm to Market Road 1017 (paved), as well as from the adjacent the Alta Mesa Project. The Alta Mesa Project location is approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US Highway 281 (paved) and North Farm to Market Road 755 (paved), 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas.

Roads within the Project area are unimproved or have an improved caliche base.

15.3 Buildings

15.3.1 RIX Facilities

The RIX will be an open-air facility located on a fully contained concrete foundation. The IX columns, tankage, pumps, and the resin transfer circuit will all be open-air. The MCC and control rooms will be enclosed. Chemical storage will also be located within foundation containment.

The RIX will have a portable building for operations. This facility will include office, lunchroom and laboratory space as well as detached portable restrooms.

50

Figure 15.1: Project Infrastructure

51

16.0 MARKET STUDIES

16.1 Uranium Market

The uranium market is experiencing a global renaissance as people around the world work to develop clean and reliable sources of energy. This market rise is supported by growing support for nuclear power and government efforts through legislative subsidies to reduce carbon emission, advancements nuclear technologies, and to ensure domestic fuel supplies.

The United States, which is the world’s largest consumer of uranium is also a minimal producer. Production in the United States has dropped from varying levels of 2.0 to 5.0 million pounds U3O8 produced, between 2000 to 2017, to less than 0.5 million pounds produced in 2023 (ref., USEAI, 2023). To meet US demand, which is more than 48.0 million pounds of U3O8 annually, the US is importing supply from around the world.

Therefore, companies such as enCore are positioning themselves to participate in this improving market producing and supplying uranium from its diverse asset portfolio.

16.2 Uranium PriceProjection

enCore’s uranium price forecast is based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4 and the report has been read by the qualified person. Based on TradeTech’s study and analysis of the uranium market, TradeTech forecasts SPOT LOW, SPOT HIGH, and TERM prices in Real US$/lb U3O8. enCore has assumed that spot pricing will be an average of the annual spot high and spot low prices. enCore has also assumed portfolio pricing will be a mix of average spot and term sales prices. Using this approach, enCore’s is using a uranium sales price that ranges from $83.50 to $88.00, with an average LOM sales price of $85.48, for the economic analysis.

16.3 Contracts

enCore’s contracting and sales strategy is defined by a blend of pricing collars and exposure to the spot market. enCore has six sales agreements with five U.S. nuclear utilities that includes three large multi-reactor operators and one legacy contract with a trading firm. Contracts are structured with pricing that reflects market conditions at the time of execution with floors and ceilings that are adjusted annually for inflation. Inflation adjusted floor and ceiling prices provide base levels of revenue assuring an operating margin while providing significant upside exposure to spot market pricing. At current prices, enCore plans to contract less than 50% of planned production rates but contracting will likely increase if spot prices begin to spike. enCore’s current contracts represent less than 30% of planned production through 2032 and the company is reviewing other contracting opportunities.

52

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

17.1 Environmental Studies

enCore will conduct an environmental baseline data collection program the results of which will be included in an RML application. The company will conduct environmental sampling programs to characterize pre-mining conditions related to wetlands, air quality, vegetation, soils, wildlife, archeology, meteorology, and background radionuclide concentrations in the environment. The application will also address geology, surface hydrology, sub-surface hydrology, and geochemistry.

In addition to the baseline environmental data, TCEQ staff will prepare an Environmental Assessment of the Project. The EA will address environmental issues associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility, as well as ground water restoration. The applications submitted by enCore for the Class I and Class III IUC permits will be used as the basis for approval of the Alta Mesa UIC permits and aquifer exemption.

Typically, at other ISR operations agencies responsible for evaluating and issuing licenses and permits have determined that moderate to significant environmental impacts are unlikely. At this time there are no known environmental issues that could materially impact enCore’s ability to extract the mineral resource.

The license and mine permit applications will be developed to document baseline conditions, describe the proposed operations and evaluate the potential for impacts to the environment. The applications are submitted to and approved by the TCEQ. Based on data supplied by enCore in their applications the TCEQ will evaluate subjects including existing and anticipated land use, transportation, geology, soils, seismic risk, water resources, climate/meteorology, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, air quality, noise, and historic and cultural resources. Additionally, socioeconomic characteristics in the vicinity of the Property will be evaluated.

Discussion of the generic results of the potential impacts of the Project as determined by TCEQ and NRC are included below.

17.1.1 Potential Wellfield Impacts

The injection of treated groundwater as part of uranium recovery or as part of restoration of the production zone is unlikely to cause changes in the groundwater quality since enCore is required to restore the water quality to levels consistent with baseline or other TCEQ approved limits and to reduce mobility of any residual radionuclides. Further, industry standard operating procedures, which are accepted by TCEQ and other regulating agencies for ISR operations, include a regional pump test prior to licensing, followed by more detailed pump tests after licensing and before production, for each individual mine area (mine unit).

During wellfield operations, potential environmental impacts include consumptive use, horizontal fluid excursions, vertical fluid excursions, and changes to groundwater quality in production zones. As the federal regulator under the Atomic Energy Act, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) has conducted a thorough analysis in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Uranium

53

Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (NUREG-1910), the NRC concluded that that impacts of wellfield operations on the environment will be small. Wellfield operations will have environmental effects that are either not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the area’s groundwater resources.

TCEQ staff will determine the potential environmental impact of consumptive groundwater use during wellfield operation. The TCEQ will only grant approval of the permit after considering important site-specific conditions such as the proximity of water users’ wells to wellfields, the total volume of water in the production hydro-stratigraphic units, the natural recharge rate of the production hydro-stratigraphic units, the transmissivities and storage coefficients of the production hydro-stratigraphic units, and the degree of isolation of the production hydro-stratigraphic units from overlying and underlying hydro-stratigraphic units.

TCEQ staff will also evaluate the potential environmental impact from horizontal excursions. At similar facilities the impacts from horizontal excursions are considered small because i) EPA will exempt a portion of the uranium-bearing aquifer from protection as a source of underground drinking water, according to the State equivalent criteria under 40 CFR 146.4, ii) the company is required to submit wellfield operational plans for TCEQ approval, iii) inward hydraulic gradients will be maintained to ensure groundwater flow is toward the production zone, and iv) the company’s TCEQ mandated groundwater monitoring plan will ensure that excursions, if they occur, are detected and corrected.

Potential impacts from vertical excursions at similar facilities were concluded by TCEQ staff to be small. The reasons given for the conclusion included:

●	uranium-bearing production zones in Goliad and Oakville Formation are hydrologically isolated from adjacent aquifers by<br>thick, low permeability layers,
●	there is a prevailing upward hydraulic gradient across the major hydro-stratigraphic units; and,
---	---
●	enCore is required to implement a mechanical integrity testing program to mitigate the impacts of potential vertical<br>excursions resulting from borehole failure.
---	---

Lastly, potential impacts of wellfield operations on groundwater quality in production zones have been concluded by TCEQ staff to be small because the company must initiate groundwater restoration in the production zone to return groundwater to Commission-approved background levels, EPA MCL’s or to TCEQ approved alternative water quality levels at the end of ISR operations.

17.1.2 Potential Soil Impacts

The NRC and TCEQ have concluded that potential impacts to soil during all phases of construction, operation, groundwater restoration, and decommissioning of similar ISR facilities are small. During construction, earthmoving activities (topsoil clearing and land grading) associated with the construction of the RIXs, access roads, wellfields, and pipelines will be minimal. Topsoil removed during these activities will be stored and reused later to restore disturbed areas. The limited areal extent of the construction area, the soil stockpiling procedures, the implementation of best management practices, the short duration of the construction phase, and mitigative measures such as reestablishment of native vegetation will minimize the potential impact on soils due to construction activities.

During decommissioning, disruption or displacement of soils will occur during facility dismantling and surface reclamation; however, disturbed lands will be restored to their pre-ISR land use. Stored

54

topsoil will be spread on reclaimed areas, and the surface will be graded to its original topography.

The following proposed measures will be used to minimize the potential impacts to soil resources:

●	Salvage and stockpile topsoil from disturbed areas.
●	Reestablish temporary or permanent native vegetation as soon as possible after disturbance utilizing the latest<br>technologies in reseeding and sprigging, such as hydroseeding.
---	---
●	Decrease runoff from disturbed areas by using structures to temporarily divert and/or dissipate surface runoff from<br>undisturbed areas.
---	---
●	Retain sediment within the disturbed areas by using silt fencing, retention ponds, and hay bales.
---	---
●	Drainage design will minimize potential for erosion by creating slopes less than 4 to 1 and/or provide riprap or other soil<br>stabilization controls.
---	---
●	Construct roads using techniques that will minimize erosion, such as surfacing with a gravel road base, constructing stream<br>crossings at right angles with adequate embankment protection and culvert installation.
---	---
●	Use a spill prevention and cleanup plan to minimize soil contamination from vehicle accidents and/or wellfield spills or<br>leaks.
---	---

17.1.3 Potential Impacts from Shipping Resin, Yellowcake and 11.e.(2) Materials

17.1.3.1 Ion Exchange Resin Shipment

Loaded resin will be transported by tanker trucks from RIXs to the Alta Mesa CPP. The radiological risk of these shipments is lower than shipping finished yellowcake because,

●	loaded resin has lower uranium concentrations than yellowcake concentrates,
●	uranium is chemically bound to resin beads; therefore, it is less likely to spread and easier to remediate in the event of<br>a spill, and
---	---
●	loaded resin shipments are transported over shorter distances between the satellite and CPP versus over-the-road yellowcake shipments which are transported from site to a conversion facility.
---	---

The NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 71 and the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for shipping ion exchange resins, which are enforced by TCEQ, also provide confidence that safety is maintained and the potential for environmental impacts regarding resin shipments remains small. (ref. US NRC, 2009 and 2014).

17.1.3.2 Yellowcake Shipment

After yellowcake is produced at the Alta Mesa processing facility, it will be transported to a US approved conversion plant for sampling and conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF6). NRC and others have previously analyzed the hazards associated with transporting yellowcake and have determined potential impacts are small. Previously reported accidents involving yellowcake indicate that in all cases spills were contained and cleaned up quickly (by the shipper with state involvement) without significant health or safety impacts to workers or the public. Safety controls and compliance with existing transportation regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 add confidence that yellowcake can be shipped safely with a low potential for adversely affecting the environment. Transport drums, for example, must meet specifications of 49 CFR Part 173, which is incorporated in NRC regulations at

55

10 CFR Part 71. To further minimize transportation-related yellowcake releases, delivery trucks are recommended to meet safety certifications and drivers must hold appropriate licenses.

17.1.3.3 11. e.(2) Shipment

Operational 11.e.(2) byproduct materials (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) will be shipped from the Project by truck for disposal at a licensed disposal site. All shipments will be completed in accordance with applicable NRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 71 and U.S. Department of Transportation requirements in 49 CFR Parts 171–189. Risks associated with transporting yellowcake were determined by NRC to bound the risks expected from byproduct material shipments, owing to the more concentrated nature of shipped yellowcake, the longer distance yellowcake is shipped relative to byproduct material, and the relative number of shipments of each material type. Therefore, potential environmental impacts from transporting byproduct material are considered small (ref., USNRC, 2009 and 2014).

17.2 Socioeconomic Studies and Issues

The Texas Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA) commissioned a study in May 2011 by the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas that examined the economic and fiscal impacts of uranium production in Texas. It found that the Texas uranium mining industry not only contributes $311 million annually in economic impact to local economies but also helps those economies grow by attracting additional business and industry.

All phases of the Project will require materials and supplies needed for construction, operation, and closure which will be purchased from local, state, and regional suppliers and vendors. The most common growth because of the project has been seen in sectors such as food services, wholesale trade, mining support services, architectural and engineering, real estate and healthcare.

Effects to infrastructure and services such as roads/traffic, school enrollment, utilities (supply and capacity), commodity prices, tax burden, and emergency medical services are sensitive to the ultimate location or relocation of additional workers. enCore expects that most of the workers employed during the operational phase will come from various communities in the immediate area such as Falfurrias, Hebbronville, and Bruni resulting in no additional impacts to the above-mentioned infrastructure and services.

In summary, since the maximum increase in population due to anticipated employment needs for the project is insignificant, effects to infrastructure and services are not anticipated in Jim Hogg, Brooks or neighboring counties. The construction and operation of the Project should therefore have minimal negative impacts to the community.

17.3 Permitting Requirements and Status

The Project is not permitted or licensed to operate with the exception of the permits necessary for exploration.

The most significant permits and licenses that will be required to operate the Project are (1) the TCEQ Source and Byproduct Materials License, (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) that are issued at various times through LOM, deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (V wells) issued by TCEQ, and an USEPA aquifer exemption.

56

The timing to prepare the applications and for agency review and approval is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. The length of time is not entirely in enCore’s control. The TCEQ’s ability to process enCore’s applications is dependent on the workload of the agency. With the renewed interest in uranium recovery, the application process timeline could be longer due to additional requests for ISR permits and licenses.

The costs to obtain these licenses and permits is estimated to be $2.87 M. These costs include environmental baseline sampling of the air, water (surface and subsurface), soils, and vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed activities. The background radionuclide concentrations in the environment will also be determined. For the UIC Class III permits monitor wells will be installed and sampled to establish baseline water quality prior to mining.

17.4 Community Affairs

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

The Project is located primarily Jim Hogg County, Texas. The County is generally rural and according to the 2020 United States Census, there were 4,538 people living in the county. The population density was 4.3 people per square mile.

It is anticipated that the Project will be well received by the community. The Alta Mesa Project located in adjacent Brooks County is permitted for ISR mining and recovery of uranium and has been in operation (active and standby) since 2002. Since both projects are located on the same large ranch that controls both surface and mineral rights and is in rural south Texas, it is anticipated that there will be positive reactions from the local community. In the past 20 years of operations the Alta Mesa project has been well received by the surrounding community and there have been no public objections to the project.

17.5 Project Closure

Decommissioning, reclamation, and restoration will be comprised of the following:

●	Groundwater restoration within affected wellfields,
●	Plugging and abandonment of injection, production, and monitor wells,
---	---
●	Radiological decontamination and/or demolition of buildings, process vessels, and other structures, in the affected areas,<br>
---	---
●	Decontamination and/or demolition of the RIXs and auxiliary structures,
---	---
●	Soil reclamation of restored wellfields and processing areas; and,
---	---
●	Plugging and abandonment of WDWs.
---	---

When site decommissioning is complete, the land and underlying water will have been returned to those conditions described in baseline environmental programs within applicable permits and licenses, mitigating any long-term impact of the mining activity. Final decommissioning will take place after all mining and groundwater restoration is complete.

57

Groundwater restoration is accomplished as wellfields are mined out. Cased wells will be plugged as soon as groundwater restoration is complete and approved by the TCEQ.

Before release of an area to unrestricted use, enCore will provide information to TCEQ verifying that radionuclide concentrations meet applicable regulatory standards. Specifically, any byproduct contaminated soils will be removed to levels required in 30 TAC §336.356(a).

Equipment will not be released unless it meets the surface contamination criteria of 30 TAC §336.364. Solid byproduct material which does not meets the release criteria of 30 TAC §336.364 will be disposed of off-site at a licensed uranium mill tailings facility. Currently, enCore utilizes the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah for disposal of byproduct material.

Both the surface reclamation plan and groundwater restoration plan are intended to return areas affected by mining activities to a condition which supports the pre-mining land uses of cattle grazing, and wildlife habitat

17.5.1 Byproduct Disposal

The 11.e.(2) or non-11.e.(2) byproduct disposal methods are discussed in Section 20. Deep disposal wells, landfills, and licensed 11.e.(2) facilities will be used depending on waste classification and type.

17.5.2 Well Abandonment and Groundwater Restoration

Groundwater restoration will begin as soon as practicable after uranium recovery is completed in each wellfield. If a depleted wellfield is near an area that is being recovered, a portion of the depleted area’s restoration may be delayed to limiting interference with the on-going mining operations.

Groundwater restoration will require the circulation of native groundwater and extraction of mobilized ions through reverse osmosis treatment and subsequent reinjection of the RO permeate. The intent of groundwater restoration is to return the groundwater quality parameters consistent with that established during the pre-operational sampling for each wellfield.

Restoration estimates assume up to six pore volumes of groundwater will be extracted and treated by reverse osmosis. Following completion of successful restoration activities, stability monitoring, and regulatory approval, the injection and recovery wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with TCEQ regulations. Monitor wells will also be abandoned following verification of successful groundwater restoration.

17.5.3 Demolition and Removal of Infrastructure

Simultaneous with well abandonment operations, the trunk and feeder pipelines will be removed, tested for radiological contamination, segregated as either solid 11.e.(2) or non-11.e.(2), then chipped and transported to appropriate disposal facilities. The facilities’ processing equipment and ancillary structures will be demolished, tested for radiological properties, segregated and either scrapped or disposed of in appropriate disposal facilities based on their radiological properties.

17.5.4Reclamation

All disturbances will be reclaimed including, wellfields, plant sites and roads. The site will be re-graded

58

to approximate pre-development contours, and the stockpiled topsoil placed over disturbed areas. The disturbed areas will then be seeded.

17.6 Financial Assurance

The Project will have financial security in the form of a bond for the estimated total facility closure costs which include groundwater restoration, facility decommissioning and reclamation. The financial surety will be based on the estimated previous year’s costs plus the cost for reclamation for a current year planned activities. The cost estimates assume closure by a third-party contactor including overhead and contractor profit, with a 25% contingency. These cost estimates are reviewed and approved by TCEQ annually. The financial security instrument is in the name of the TCEQ.

17.7 Adequacy of Mitigation Plans

It is the QP’s opinion that enCore’s plans to address any issues related to environmental compliance, permitting and local individuals or groups are adequate. enCore is proactive with an ongoing community affairs program maintaining routine contacts with landowners, local communities, businesses, and the public. The company has good relationships with regulatory agencies and is a proactive steward of the Project.

59

18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Capital and operating costs are on a 100% cost basis. All costs are based on 2024 USD and the estimated production throughput. Cost projections contain estimates associated with development, mining and processing solely of inferred mineral resources.

18.1 Capital Costs

Estimated capital costs are $106,131 with major component costs listed in Table 18.1. Labor costs for wellfield construction are included in wellfield development costs. Table 18.2 is the capital cost forecast by year.

Table 18.1: Major Capital Components

MajorComponents	Number	Cost US$000s (No Sales Tax)
RIX & Resin	2	$9,716
Elution	1	$1,284
DDW	1	$2,669
Wellfields	7	$92,462
		$106,131

18.2 Capital Cost Basis

enCore is operating and developing multiple projects in the United States and specifically Texas using the same or like technical solutions. Therefore, detailed engineering and costs estimates from other projects, or similar environments, were used and serve as the cost basis for capital cost estimates.

60

Table 18.2: Capital Cost Forecast by Year

Cash Flow Lina items Units Total or $per Pound Less: plant Development Coss | USSOOOs | $13,669 | $1 67| 501 $01 $o| 3 7.4771 $4858| 301 $1,334 |

$o| so| $o| $o| $o| $o| | Less: Wellie Id Development Costs | USJOOOs | $92,M2 | $11 33| s»l $113301 $16,9951 $16,995 | $16,995 | $16,9951 $8,498| $4.6541 wl Ca pita lCos ts| USSOOOs | $106,131 | $13X101 501 $ol 501 $7.4771 $16.1881 $16.9951 $18,329 | $16.9951 $16.9951 $8.4981 $4.6541 101 501

61

18.3 Operating Costs

Estimated operating costs are $205.1 M or $25.49 per pound of U3O8. Major operating costs care listed in Table 18.3.

Table 18.3: Major Operating Categories

Cash Flow Line Items	Units	Total or<br><br><br>Average	$ per<br><br><br>Pound
Less: Surface & Mineral Royalties	US$000s	$30,015	$3.60
Less: Property Tax	US$000s	$2,500	$0.30
Less: Plant & Wellfield Operating Costs	US$000s	$156,994	$18.84
Less: Product Transaction Costs	US$000s	$4,872	$0.58
Less: Administrative Support Costs	US$000s	$26,048	$3.13
Less: D&D and Restoration Costs	US$000s	$17,149	$2.06

18.4 Operating Cost Basis

enCore is operating the Alta Mesa Project and actual and budgeted operating costs from the project serve as the cost basis for operating cost estimates.

Estimated operating costs by year for plant and wellfield operations, product transaction, administrative support, decontamination and decommissioning, and restoration are presented in Table 18.4.

Wellfield operating costs include electricity, replacement wells and associated equipment, rental equipment, rolling stock, equipment fuel and maintenance, and wellfield chemicals.

Plant operating expenses include plant chemicals, electricity, equipment fuel and maintenance, waste management operations, rentals and supplies, RO operations and product handling.

Product transaction costs include costs for product shipping and conversion fees.

D&D and restoration costs include costs for restoration of the wellfields, decontamination and decommissioning of facilities, and reclamation of the site.

Administrative support costs include corporate overhead and technical support costs as well as taxes, insurance, salaries, rent, legal fees, land and mineral acquisitions, permit and license application costs, regulatory fees, insurance, office supplies and financial assurance.

Operating costs are estimated to be $25.49 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development and production sequence and quantity, in conjunction with past production knowledge.

Labor costs associated with wellfield and plant operations, restoration and administration are included in operating costs.

18.5 Cost Accuracy

Project cost accuracy for certain factors is more accurate than required for an IA, because of the

62

availability of engineering data and cost estimates from other enCore projects currently in development and operations in south Texas.

To assess the accuracy of the capital and operating cost estimates, the QP has considered the risks associated with the specific engineering estimation methods used to arrive at the estimates. As part of this analysis, the QP has taken into consideration the completeness of relevant factors in determining the estimation accuracy compared to prior similar environments. Relevant factors considered include site infrastructure, mine design and planning, processing plant, environmental compliance and permitting, capital costs, operating costs and economic analysis.

With respect to site infrastructure, there is access to site and power, and site infrastructure locations for RIX’s, power lines, and required access roads is assumed. The source of utilities is defined and are suitable for cost estimating.

The preferred mining method is defined but mine layouts are assumed. Development and production plans are broadly defined. Since the Project will be a satellite operation to Alta Mesa Project, the required equipment fleet has been considered. The fleet will eventually be shared between projects; however, it is anticipated some additional equipment will be required.

For processing, detailed bench lab tests have not been conducted; however, a detailed process flow sheet is defined based on technical information from other enCore projects, and equipment sizes, general arrangement and plant throughput are detailed.

Identification and detailed analysis of environmental compliance and permitting requirements is complete. Detailed baseline studies with impact assessments, as well as detailed disposal, reclamation and mitigation plans have not been done.

Regarding other relevant factors, appropriate assessment of other reasonably assumed technical and economic factors are considered to demonstrate reasonable prospect for economic extraction.

An economic analysis is included. Taxes are described in detail. Revenues are estimated based on assumed production. The discounted cash flow analysis is also based on assumed production and revenues are estimated solely from inferred mineral resources.

It is the QP’s opinion that the accuracy of capital and operating cost estimates does comply with § 229.1302 of Regulation S–K for an IA.

63

Table 18.4: Operating Cost Forecast by Year

CashFlowLine Hem* Unite 2040 Less: Surface & Mineral Royalies US$OOOs 130.015 $3.60 $0 SO so SO $2,614 $3,920 $3,991 $4,026 $3,133 $4,125 $3207 SO $0 $0 $0 so Taxable Revenue USSOOOs SO 82 289 SO so SO so 180.886 S121.330 St 23.509 8124.599 $121992 $61,875 848.098 so 50 SO SO so Less: Properly Tax USSOOOs 12.500 so SO SO SO 3 3’:: 3450 5450 5450 $450 $225 $175 SO $0 $0 $0 so Net Gress Sales USSOOOs 1679.789 10 SO so so 180.586 5120.880 5123.059 5124.149 5121.542 561.650 547.923 SO 50 so so so 1 e or Item a We net < rarsing < 4 • ItSOOtr $334904 114 04 S; SP s; s; $‘1743 $28240 $>82*0 $v82ro V»;H $14 *21 $*: 9(4 Sr SC s; s; SO 1 ear Herm ‘teraerarnt^*** â– M$M0* 14071 to It St Sr st s; Vas terr terr Sf 77 Mil S4> 5341 Sr 5; s; s: SO 1 e« arrnrorrbae ripfrrtCo* â– Moats Sir t4f $1- ‘ Si lot r lose $95/ Sv .130 $4260 $42*0 14270 $42M $pi3O 514; $4!’ St st st SO lew IMO ’M He-ar f’eor ••>•*> ‘Moa;- It?-ss 1 ’ 14 Si Si St st S3 SO $0 so $< St Si $4 4- $4 4- S<4’ $2205 S’ .’‘4 Net Operating Cash Flaw USSOOOs $474,727 $0 -1957 -1957 -1957 $59,032 $07403 189,662 $90,752 580,145 544,952 $35,178 •54,367 -54,410 •$4,410 -12205 -$1,714

64

19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

19.1 Economic analysis

The economic assessment is preliminary in nature as all the Project’s mineral resources are inferred and inferred mineral resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the economics in this report will ever be realized and there is the risk to the project of economic failure

The Project economic analysis illustrates a cash flow forecast on an annual basis using inferred mineral resources and an assumed annual production schedule for the LOM NPV. A summary of taxes, royalties, and other interests, as applicable to production and revenue are also discussed. The analysis assumes no escalation, no debt, no debt interest, no capital repayment and no state income tax since Texas does not impose a corporate income tax.

enCore is using a uranium sales price ranging from $83.50 to $88.00, with an average sales price of $85.48. Price basis is discussed in Section 19.

The economic analysis assumes that 60% of the inferred mineral resources are recoverable. The pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax in the form of ad valorem, plant and wellfield operations, product transaction, administrative and technical support, D&D, and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, to estimate federal income tax.

Less federal tax, the Projects cash flow is estimated at $366.6 M or $41.48 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $205.8 M (Table 19.1). The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $276.5 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $53.18. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $154.4 M (Table 19.2).

65

Table 19.1: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Exclusion of Federal Income Tax

cash Flow Line items Total or 2034 2040 Uranium Producion as UA ‘ lbs 000s 3.333 0 0 0 0 1.000 $M0 1.500 1500 IMO 750 583 0 0 0 0 0 Uranium Price for UyOg1 LSI lb 50540 8425 I 83.75 I 8325 1 8200 1 8350 1 8350 1 8500 I 85.75 I 86.75 1 3800 . 38.00 : 8825 8900 8900 I 8800 ! 8625 Uranium Gross Revenue USSOOOs 1712,304 SO SO so so 583.500 St 25250 $127,500 $128,625 1130.125 $66,000 851,304 SO $0 SO SO SO Less: Surface 8 Mineral Royalies USSOOOs 530015 SO $0 $0 $0 $2614 53.920 53.991 $4,026 $8,133 $4,125 $3207 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO Taxable Revenue USSOOOs 5682269 so so 10 so 580,886 $121,330 $123,509 $124,599 1121,992 $61,875 $43,098 $0 SO so SO SO Less: Property Tax USSOOOs 12,500 $0.30 $0 10 $0 $0 $300 $450 $450 $450 $450 $225 $175 $0 $0 $0 $0 So Net Gross Sales USSOOOs 1679,789 so so $0 so 580,586 1120,380 $123,059 8124,149 $121,542 $61,650 $47,923 $0 $0 so $0 $0 lewltmtalVelMr <X-tabp<k^> INtSiOC- IMtOta UStiOts F $154194 14.872 126048 UM $0 $0 st $0 so w so $< $< $1U4b Kt 26 $56260 $26360 $28360 $43 S10M4 $341 $0 V *4W $’ S’ S’ S’- $t $8 $’• St S’. so so so Lesa: 080 and Re store ion Coala USSOOOs $17,149 52 06 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 $4,410 $4,410 $4,410 $2205 $1,714 Net Operating Cash Flow USSOOOs $474,727 $0 -5957 -$957 -5957 559,032 587,483 189,362 190,752 $38,145 $44,952 535.178 -14,867 •54,410 •54,410 •12205 -$1,714 Lesa: Rani Development Costs USSOOOs $13,669 $1.64 $0 $0 $0 $7,477 $4,858 SO 51,334 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO SO Lesa: WelHeld Developmentcosts USSOOOs 194,413 511.33 so $0 $0 $0 $11,330 $16,995 $16,995 $16,995 $16,995 $1,491 $6,605 SO SO SO so $0 Nat Before-Tax Cash Flow USSOOOs $366,645 Total cost per pound: NPV 541.43 $0 -8957 8% $205,751 $957 $3,434 842,843 $70,488 $71,333 173,757 $71,150 $36,454 $21573 -$4,667 -84.410 -54,410 $2205 -$1,714

66

Table 19.2: Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Inclusion of Federal Income Tax

Cash Fbw Line Hema Total or 2014 2040 Uranium Producion as UjOg 1 lbs 000s 8,333 :i :i 3 1.000 1100 1.500 1.590 1.500 750 583 n n n Uranium Price forUyOg USS.Ib 585.48 $8425 $83.75 $8325 $8290 $8350 S8350 58560 $85.75 $86.75 $8890 $83.00 $8825 $8990 58900 $88.00 $86 25 Uranium Gross Revenue USSOOOs $712 304 $0 SO $0 SO 583,500 $125250 $127,500 $128,625 1130,125 $66,000 551,304 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO Less: Surface & Mineral Royalies USSOOOs $30,015 5360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,614 $3,920 $3,991 $4,026 $8,133 $4,125 $3207 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Taxable Revenue US$000x 1082289 $0 $0 $0 so 580,086 $121,330 $123,509 $124,599 $121,912 $61975 $41,098 $0 $0 so $0 $0 Lesa: Property Tax USSOOOs $2M0 5030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300 $450 $450 $450 5450 $225 $175 so $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Grass Sales USSOOOs $679,789 $0 $0 $0 SO 580,586 1120,180 $123,059 $124,149 $121,542 $61,650 $47923 $0 SO SO $0 $0 lew Hani a We IM; Aural- 9 Coste uscoc* $156,194 5’884 st $0 $0 $c $11141 KIMI Sxt26C $24161 $28166 $14,150 510914 $. SC sc sc $0 Lew Hccvd ’ar xufon Co st USS.OCs 54.372 UM sc $0 Id Sc «H S8.’< $1.’ $f St’-’ $431 SC-41 SV SC- sc sc so Lew ac-woe.foe 9vp$c<i Coste USSCOCe 826.048 5- • sc SM? 9967 $957 $2,136 S426C S426C S426C $4160 $2,130 $’.4x< $457 SC sc sc $0 Lew 040 -â–d Re Writer Caste USSCOCe $13,149 Si94 V. so $0 K SC SC SC SC so So $C $4 4’ $4.4 C S4 4 : $220$ $’.7’4 Net Operating Cash Flew U65000s $474,727 50 â– 5957 -9957 -9957 559.032 $67,463 $89,662 $90,752 111.145 $44,952 $35,171 14,867 -S4.410 -54,410 $2205 -$1,714 Lesa: Depredated Fixed Assets US$OOOs $0 5000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO SO so $0 $0 Lesa Depredated Rant Development Coste USSOOOs $13,669 $164 $0 $0 $0 St .953 $1,953 51,953 51.953 $1,953 $1,953 $1,953 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 Lesa: Depredated Wellield Development Coste USSOOOs $94,413 $1133 $0 SO So SO SO SO S1.927 $7,158 St 0.893 $15,488 516.842 512373 59.369 57.327 $6,017 $4215 Taxable Income USSOOOs $366,646 SO -$957 -5957 -UM® 557,079 $85,530 $05,782 $11,642 $75,300 $27,511 511,336 $17240 -$14279 -$12237 $8222 $5,921 Less: Federal Tax USSOOOs $90,138 $1032 $0 $0 $0 $0 511,987 $17261 $18,01.1 $17,145 $15,813 $5,777 $3,441 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Income USSOOOs 1276,508 $0 -$957 •5957 -$957 545,093 $67,569 $67,768 164,497 $51,417 $21,734 512,943 •$17240 $14279 -$12237 -$8222 -$5921 Plus: Non-Cash Deductions US$00Ds $108,082 3’2 1? $0 $0 $0 $0 $1953 31,953 53,880 $9,111 $12,845 $17,440 518,795 312973 $9969 37,827 $6,017 $*215 Less: Plant Development Costs USSOOOs $13,669 5164 $0 SO $0 $7,477 $4,858 so 51,334 $0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 Less; Wellfield Development Costs USSOOOS 194,413 31133 $0 $0 $0 $0 511.330 $16,995 $16,995 $16,995 S16.995 $8,498 $6,605 SO SO $0 $0 $0 After Tax Cash Flow USSOOOs 1276,507 Total cut per pound: Discount Rate NPV $53.18 $0 $957 8% $154,431 -5957 $1,434 530,857 $52,526 $53,319 156,612 $56,337 S30.677 $25,132 $4,867 -$4,610 -54,410 -$2205 -$1,714

67

19.2 Taxes, Royalties and Other Interests

19.2.1 Federal Income Tax

Total federal income tax for LOM is estimated at $90.1 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $10.82. Federal income tax estimates do account for depreciation of plant and wellfield capital costs.

19.2.2 State Income Tax

The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax.

19.2.3 Production Taxes

Production taxes in Texas include property tax in the form of ad valorem tax.

Alta Mesa personal property (i.e., uranium facilities, buildings, machinery and equipment) are subject to property tax by the following taxing jurisdictions: Brooks County, Brooks County Roads & Bridges, Brooks County Independent School District, Brooks County Farm to Market & Flood Control Fund and Brush Country Groundwater Conservation District.

In 2024, Alta Mesa personal property was valued at $1,352 M and subject to the following tax rates resulted in 2024 property tax of $0.03 (Table 19.3).

Table 19.3: Alta Mesa 2024 Property TaxInformation

TaxingJurisdiction	Tax Rate	Market Value	Estimated Tax
Brooks County	0.792191		$10,708
Brooks County Rd &<br>Bridges	0.069828		$943.88
Brooks County ISD	1.323800	$1,351,720	$17,894
Brooks CO FM &<br>FC	0.038828		$524.85
Brush County Groundwater Conservation District	0.010791		$145.86
	2.24		$30,216

(https://esearch.brookscad.org/Property/View/162755?year=2024&ownerId=138685)

Ad valorem tax is estimated to increase by 15% per year over LOM. The total production tax burden for LOM is estimated at $0.62 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $0.30.

19.2.4 Royalties

Royalties are assessed on gross proceeds. The project is subject to a cumulative 3.0% surface and mineral royalty at an average LOM sales price of $85.48 per lb. U3O8 for $30.0 M or $3.60 per pound.

68

19.3 Sensitivity Analysis

19.3.1 NPV v. Uranium Price

This analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound of U3O8 and the cash flow results. The Project is most sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. A $5.0 change in the price of uranium can have an impact to the NPV of more than $23.0 M at a discount rate of 8%. See Figure 19.1.

Figure 19.1: NPV v. UraniumPrice

19.3.2 NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost

The Project NPV is also sensitive to changes in either capital or operating costs as shown on Figure 19.2 (NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost). A 5% change in the operating cost can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $3.0 M based on a discount rate of 8% and a uranium price of $85.48 per pound of U3O8. Using the same discount rate and sales price, a 5% change in the capital cost can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $7.0 M.

69

Figure 19.2: NPV v. Variable Capital and Operating Cost

70

20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The Project is located northwest of the company’s Alta Mesa Project. Areas of extensive ISR mining did occur in Jim Hogg County in 1970s through the 1990s but with the sustained low price of uranium toward the end of that period those facilities were closed with successful restoration, reclamation and decommissioning.

71

21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

21.1 Other Relevant Items

When assessing the Project’s scientific, technical and economic potential it is important to consider the size and continuity of the Project’s land position, and its proximity to the Alta Mesa Project.

No other ISR uranium property in the United States has a land position with these characteristics as well as the amount of geologic evidence to imply geological and grade continuity over such a large area.

72

22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the quality and quantity of geologic data, stringent adherence to geologic evaluation procedures and thorough geological interpretative work, deposit modeling, resource estimation methods, quality and quantity of historic and recent detailed cost inputs, and a detailed economic analysis, the QP responsible for this report considers that the current mineral resource estimates are relevant and reliable to evaluate the Project’s economic potential.

Less federal tax, the Projects cash flow is estimated at $366.6 M or $41.48 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $205.8 M. The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $276.5 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $53.18. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $154.4 M.

Estimated capital costs are $108.1 M and includes $13.7 M for processing facilities and $94.4 M for sustained wellfield development.

Operating costs are estimated to be $25.49 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development and production sequence and quantity, in conjunction with historic site production results.

22.1 Risk Assessment

As with any mining property, there are project risks. Project risks have been identified and can be de-risked with proper planning. The following sections discuss these risks.

22.2 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves

All of the Project’s mineral resources are inferred. Inferred resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the economics in this report will ever be realized and there is the risk to the project of economic failure.

Due to the speculative nature of inferred mineral resources, the QP has qualified the LOM resources by reducing the typical ISR mine recovery from 80% to 60%.

Considering the Project’s quantity of inferred mineral resources, like geologic setting and proximity to the Alta Mesa Project, the Project does merit further assessment, and additional drilling will be conducted to increase certainty that the economics of this report will be realized.

22.3 Uranium Recovery and Processing

Alta Mesa’s production history and enCore’s 2024 production demonstrates that uranium recovery is economically achievable, grade, flow rate and mine recovery can be determined with a high level of certainty.

A potential risk to meeting the production and thus financial results will be associated with the success of wellfield operation and the efficiency of recovering uranium. A potential risk in the wellfield recovery process depends on whether geochemical conditions that affect solution mining uranium recovery rates from the mineralized zones are comparable to previously mined area. If they prove to

73

be different, then potential efficiency or financial risks might arise.

Capacity of wastewater disposal systems is another process risk. Limited capacity of deep disposal wells can affect the ability to achieve production and timely groundwater restoration. enCore has two Class I wells in operation at the Alta Mesa Project that may be used for the Project; however, if disposal capacities were to decrease, then operational and financial risks might arise. To reduce the risk of limited liquid waste disposal, additional WDW may be installed.

22.3.1 Permitting and Licensing Delays

The Project is not permitted or licensed to operate.

The most significant permits and licenses that will be required to operate the Project are (1) the TCEQ Source and Byproduct Materials License, (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) that are issued at various times through LOM, deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (V wells) issued by TCEQ, and an USEPA aquifer exemption

To Permit and license the Project it is anticipated to take three years. Typically, the regulatory review and approval process is timely; however, if this process were to slow then approval to operate the Project might be delayed impacting project startup and production objectives.

22.4 Social and/or Political

Texas is an industry business-friendly state with low taxes, minimal regulations, large workforce, and considerable infrastructure, making it one of the more favorable mineral development jurisdictions in the United States. The Project does not draw negative attention from environmental NGO’s, and individuals in the public. Local communities are supportive of enCore’s activities and the company’s contribution to the local job market, money invested into local goods and services and financial benefits to the local tax base. Texas also has a balanced regulatory philosophy that strives to protect public health and natural resources that are consistent with sustainable economic development.

74

23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The key risk to the Project is with respect to the quantity of mineral resources that can be converted to mineral reserves. As discussed in Section 24, the Project has a substantial inferred mineral resources inventory. To de-risk the project by increasing the quantity of mineral resources than can be converted to mineral reserves it is recommended that enCore actively works to mitigate risk to ensure a profitable and successful project by:

●	Continue drilling campaign with larger programs to develop previously identified mineralization and to identify new<br>mineralization.
●	Drill 400-hole programs using following cost per hole of $12,300, for total program<br>cost of $4.92 M (Table 23.1). It is anticipated that a minimum of 3 programs will be needed to adequately assess the Project to make a go-no-go decision to advance the<br>Project to mine development. Anticipated investment to reach this stage gate is approximately $14.76 M.
---	---

Table 23.1: Drill Costs

Item	Quantity	Unit Cost		Total
Drilling	1,000	$	8.00	$	8,000
Muds &<br>Polymers	1,000	$	0.67	$	670
Cement Service	1	$	600.00	$	600
Cement	1	$	200.00	$	600
Drill Bits & Underream<br>Blades	1	$	300.00	$	300
Dirt Work &<br>Reclamation	1	$	300.00	$	470
Washout	1,000	$	1.65	$	1,650
				$	12,300
●	Drill at least one core hole in any new PAAs to confirm deposit mineralogy, the state of uranium secular equilibrium, and<br>uranium content. Coring is estimated to cost $30 K per hole. Analyses, leach testing, and mineralogical work is estimated to be $25 k per hole.
---	---

75

24.0 REFERENCES

BRS Engineering, 2023. Technical Report Summary for the Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA, National Instrument 43 101, Technical Report, January 19, 2023.

CIM Council, 2003. Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Best Practice Guidelines, adopted November 23, 2003.

Finch, W.I., 1996. Uranium Provinces of North America - Their Definition, Distribution and Models. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2141, 24 p.

Neuman, S.P. and Witherspoon, P.A., 1972. Field Determination of the Hydraulic Properties of Leaky Multiple Aquifer Systems, Water Resources Research, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 1284-1298, October 1972.

TradeTech, 2023. Uranium Market Study Issue 4.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2023. Domestic Uranium Production Report (2009-23), Table 9.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, NUREG-1910, Volumes 1 and 2, May 2009.

Beahm, Douglas L, BRS Engineering Inc., “Alta Mesa Uranium Project Technical Report, Mineral Resources and Exploration Target, National Instrument 43-101, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA”, June 1, 2014, prepared on behalf of Mesteña Uranium LLC.

Beahm, Douglas L, BRS Engineering Inc., “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Mineral resources and Exploration Target, Technical Report National 43-101” and with an effective date of the report of July 19, 2016, prepared by BRS Inc., on behalf of Energy Fuels Inc.

Beahm, Douglas L, BRS Engineering Inc., “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg counties, Texas, USA” which has an effective date of December 31, 2021, prepared by BRS Inc. and Energy Fuels Inc. as a non-independent report on behalf of Energy Fuels Inc.

Collins, J. and H. Talbot, U2007 Conference, Corpus Christi, Presented by Mesteña Uranium LLC

Hosman, R.L., and Weiss, J.S.,1991, Geohydrologic units of the Mississippi Embayment and Texas Coastal uplands aquifer systems, South Central United State-regional aquifer system analysis- Gulf Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1416-B, 1996.

Brogdon, L.D., C.A. Jones, and J.V Quick, “Uranium favorability by lithofacies analysis, Oakville and Goliad Formations, South Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 1977.

Smith, G. E., W. E. Galloway, and C. D. Henry, Regional hydrodynamics and hydrochemistry of the uranium-bearing Oakville Aquifer (Miocene) of South Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 124, 1982.

Galloway, W. E., Epigenetic zonation and fluid flow history of uranium-bearing fluvial aquifer systems, south Texas uranium province: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 119, 1982.

Galloway, W. E., Catahoula Formation of the Texas coastal plain: depositional systems, composition, structural development, ground-water flow history, and uranium deposition: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 87, 1977.

76

Galloway, W. E., R. J. Finley, and C. D. Henry, South Texas uranium province geologic perspective: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Guidebook No. 18, 1979.

McBride, E. F., W. L. Lindemann, and P. S. Freeman, Lithology and petrology of the Gueydan (Catahoula) Formation in south Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 63, 1968.

Eargle, D. H., Stratigraphy of Jackson Group (Eocene), South-Central, Texas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 43, 1959.

Fisher, W. L., C. V. Proctor, W. E. Galloway, and J. S. Nagle, Depositional systems in the Jackson Group of Texas-Their relationship to oil, gas, and uranium: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 20, 1970.

Kreitler, C. W., T. J. Jackson, P. W. Dickerson, and J. G. Blount, Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of the Falls City uranium mine tailings remedial action project, Karnes County, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, prepared for the Texas Department of Health under agreement No IAC(92-93)-0389, September, 1992.

De Voto, R. H. “Uranium Geology and Exploration” Colorado School of Mines, 1978.

Finch, W. I., Uranium provinces of North America—their definition, distribution, and models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2141, 1996.

Finch, W. I. and Davis, J. F., “Sandstone Type Uranium Deposits – An Introduction” in Geological Environments of Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits Technical Document, Vienna: IAEA, 1985.

Granger, H. C., Warren, C. G., “Zoning in the Altered Tongue Associated with Roll-Type Uranium Deposits” in Formation ofUranium Ore Deposits, Sedimentary Basins and Sandston-Type Deposits, IAEA, 1974.

IAEA, “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification” 2009 Edition, Vienna: IAEA, 2009.

Nicot, J. P., et al, “Geological and Geographical Attributes of the South Texas Uranium Province”, Prepared for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Bureau of Economic Geology, April, 2010.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division, NUREG-1910 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report Manuscript Completed and Published: May 2009.

McKay, A. D. et al, “Resource Estimates for In Situ Leach Uranium Projects and Reporting Under the JORC Code”, Bulletin November/December 2007.

Mesteña Uranium, LLC, Radioactive Material License (RML)Application, 2000.

Stoeser, D.B., Shock, Nancy, Green, G.N., Dumonceaux, G. M., and Heran, W.D., in press, A Digital Geologic Map Database for the State of Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series.

US Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 229, 230, 239 and 249, Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants.

TradeTech, Uranium Market Study.

Unpublished Reports:

Goranson, P., Mesteña Uranium LLC, Internal Memorandum Re: Review of Reserve Estimates, July 2007.

77

Personal Communication Goranson, P., enCore Energy Corp. , Alta Mesa Wellfield Economics, January 2023.

Web Sites:

Texas Monthly Magazine: https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-biggest-ranches/

Texas State Historical Association- Handbook of Texas: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mineral-rights-and-royalties

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Nuclear Materials: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/extraction-methods/isl-recovery-facilities.html

78

25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT

The QP has relied upon information provided by enCore regarding, legal, environmental and tax matters relevant to the technical report, as noted in Table 25.1.

Table 25.1: Reliance on Other Experts

Source	Category	Document	Section
Paul Goranson (enCore Chief Executive Officer)	Legal	Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease, June 16, 2016.	4.3.1 Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease including royalties
		Amended and Restated Uranium Testing and Lease Option Agreement, June 16, 2016.	4.3.2 discussion of Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement including royalties
		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, 2004.	4.4 discussion of surface rights

79

26.0 DATE, SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION

This S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary titled “Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA” dated February 19, 2025, with an effective date of December 31, 2024, was prepared and signed by SOLA Project Services, LLC. SOLA is an independent, third-party consulting company and certify that by education, professional registration, and relevant work experience, SOLA’s professionals fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of S-K 1300 reporting.

(“Signed and Sealed”) SOLA Project Services, LLC.

February 19, 2025

/s/ Stuart Bryan Soliz
Stuart Bryan Soliz	Principal
Wyoming Board of Professional Geologists License Number PG-3775
---
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, & Exploration Registered Member Number 4068645

4912 Stoneridge Way

Casper, Wyoming 82601

United States of America

80

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

NEWS RELEASE

NASDAQ:EU

TSXV:EU

www.encoreuranium.com

enCore Energy Announces Filing of S-K 1300 Technical Report Summaries for Key Projects in Texas and Wyoming

Feb. 27, 2025 – Dallas, Texas – enCore Energy Corp. (NASDAQ:EU|TSXV:EU) (the “Company” or “enCore”), America’s Clean Energy Company^™^, announces the filing of Technical Report Summaries (“TRS”) prepared in accordance with U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Regulation S-K 1300 of the Securities Exchange Act (“S-K 1300”) for four of its key uranium projects: the Alta Mesa Uranium Project (“Alta Mesa Project”), the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project (“Mesteña Grande Project”), the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects (“South Texas Project”) and the Gas Hills Uranium Project (“Gas Hills Project”). These reports provide updated mineral resource estimates and preliminary economic assessments (“PEA”) in accordance with SEC disclosure requirements.

As of January 1, 2025, enCore is reporting all mineral resources in accordance with Item 1302 of S-K 1300 in addition to Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”). S-K 1300 was adopted by the SEC to modernize mineral property disclosure requirements for mining registrants and to align United States (“U.S.”) disclosure requirements for mineral properties more closely with current industry and global regulatory standards. The transition to also reporting under S-K 1300 aligns enCore’s disclosures with U.S. regulatory standards, ensuring consistency and transparency for investors.

About the Alta Mesa Project and Mesteña GrandeProject

The Alta Mesa Project, and the Mesteña Grande Project are located in South Texas, USA. The TRS filings prepared under S-K 1300 disclose a mineral resource and preliminary economic assessment* for the Company’s uranium projects located in South Texas. The reports provide the following:

●	The Alta Mesa Project’s estimated capital costs are $25.9 M and includes $2.5 M to complete refurbishment of the<br>Alta Mesa Central Processing Plant (“CPP”) and $23.4 M for wellfield development.
o	Operating costs are estimated to be $27.44 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development, production sequence, production
---	---

1

<br>quantity, and past production experience. Operating costs include plant and wellfield operations, product transactions, administrative support, decontamination and decommissioning<br>(“D&D”), and restoration.
o	Taxes, royalties, and other interests are applicable to production and revenue. Total federal income tax is estimated<br>at $18.8 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $9.13. The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax, but the Alta Mesa Project is<br>subject to property taxes in the form of ad valorem in the amount of $0.62 M or $0.30 per pound of U3O8. The Alta Mesa Project is subject<br>to a cumulative 3.0% surface and mineral royalty at an average life of mine (“LOM”) sales price of $83.43 per lb. U3O8 for<br>$5.4 M or $2.61 per pound.
---	---
o	The economic analysis assumes that 80% of the mineral resources are recoverable. The<br>pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax, plant and wellfield operations, product transactions,<br>administrative support, D&D and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus amortized development costs, depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, existing and forecasted<br>operating losses to estimate federal income tax.
---	---
o	Less federal tax, the Alta Mesa Project’s cash flow is estimated at $83.3 M or $42.89 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Alta Mesa Project’s NPV is $66.4 M. The Alta<br>Mesa Project’s after-tax cash flow is estimated at $64.9 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of<br>$52.03. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Alta Mesa Project’s NPV is $51.6 M.
---	---
●	The Mesteña Grande Project’s estimated capital costs are $108.1 M and includes $13.7 M for processing<br>facilities and $94.4 M for wellfield development.
---	---
o	Operating costs are estimated to be $25.49 per pound of U3O8. The basis for operating costs is planned development, production sequence, production quantity, and past production experience. Operating costs include plant and wellfield operations, product<br>transactions, administrative support, D&D, and restoration.
---	---
o	Taxes, royalties, and other interests are applicable to production and revenue. Total federal income tax is estimated<br>at $90.1 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $10.82. The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax, but the Mesteña Grande<br>Project is subject to property taxes in the form of ad valorem in the amount of $2.5 M or $0.30 per pound of U3O8. This project is<br>subject to a cumulative 3.6% surface and mineral royalty at an average LOM sales price of $85.48 per lb. U3O8 for $30.0 M or $3.60 per<br>pound.
---	---

2

o	The economic analysis assumes that 60% of the mineral resources are recoverable. The<br>pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax, plant and wellfield operations, product transactions,<br>administrative support, D&D and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, to estimate federal income tax.
o	Less federal tax, the Mesteña Grande Project’s cash flow is estimated at $366.6 M or $41.48 per pound U3O8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Mesteña Grande Project’s NPV is $205.8 M. The Mesteña Grande Project’s after-tax cash flow is estimated at $276.5 M for a cost per pound U3O8 of $53.18. Using an 8.0%<br>discount rate, the Mesteña Grande Project’s NPV is $154.4 M.
---	---
●	Both the Alta Mesa Project and the Mesteña Grande Project are located entirely within private land holdings of<br>the Jones Ranch in South Texas. The Jones Ranch is an approximately 380,000-acre ranch that was founded in 1897, and enCore controls over 200,000 of the 380,000 acres with mineral leases and options for<br>uranium exploration and development.
---	---
●	The Alta Mesa Project is an established In-Situ Recovery (“ISR”)<br>uranium project with a CPP and wellfields undergoing extraction operations in PAA7. The Alta Mesa CPP and mine office are located at the Alta Mesa property approximately 22 miles south of the town of Falfurrias. The Alta Mesa CPP and wellfield<br>operations are located on a 4,598-acre mining lease adjacent to the 198,000+ acres Mesteña Grande exploration option. The Alta Mesa wellfields and CPP are located entirely in Brooks County, Texas.<br>
---	---
●	The Mesteña Grande Project is an exploration-stage ISR uranium project comprised of multiple prospective areas<br>within the region and primarily located northwest of the Alta Mesa operations within the 198,000+ acre exploration option. enCore plans to develop and advance the Mesteña Grande Project and process uranium at the Alta Mesa CPP. The<br>Mesteña Grande exploration projects are in both Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas.
---	---
●	Uranium mineralization at both the Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande projects occur as roll-front deposits hosted in<br>permeable sandstones of the Miocene Catahoula, the Miocene Oakville, and the Pliocene Goliad Formations. Significant additional potential exists both regionally and within the wellfield boundary within the Goliad Formation at depths between 400 and<br>600 feet, within the Oakville Formation at depths between 800 and 1300 feet, and within the Catahoula Formation to the west at depths between 450 and 600 feet. Only 5% of the Mesteña Grande Project areas have been explored, with previous<br>exploration efforts having identified 52 linear miles
---	---

3

<br>of stacked reduction/oxidation (“REDOX”) fronts, with only 5 miles of the REDOX fronts closely drilled out to date.

*The above preliminary economic assessments are preliminary in nature, and include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculativegeologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessments will be realized.

Alta Mesa Project Mineral Resource Summary

Alta MesaProject Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

Category	Tons (x 1,000)	Avg Grade (%) U3O8	Total Lbs. (x 1000) U3O8
Measured	263.7	0.136	691.4
Indicated	630.0	0.150	1,894.5
Total Measured and Indicated	894.0	0.145	2,585.9
Inferred	2,223.4	0.112	5,200.5
Total Inferred	2,223.4	0.112	5,200.5

Notes:

1.	enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral<br>reserves.
2.	The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole<br>information.
---	---
3.	Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off<br>of 0.30 ft% U3O8.
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.
---	---
5.	Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but<br>less confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.
---	---
6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---

Mesteña Grande Project Mineral Resource Summary

Mesteña Grande Project Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

Category	Tons (x 1,000)	Avg Grade (%) U3O8	Total Lbs. (x 1000) U3O8
Measured	0.0	0.000	0.0
Indicated	0.0	0.000	0.0
Total Measured and Indicated	0.0	0.000	0.0
Inferred	5,852.8	0.119	13,887.9
Total Inferred	5,852.8	0.119	13,887.9

Notes:

1.	enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral<br>reserves.
2.	The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole<br>information.
---	---
3.	Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off<br>of 0.30 ft% U3O8.
---	---
4.	Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.
---	---
5.	Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but<br>less confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.
---	---
6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---

Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande Technical Report Summaries

The TRS entitled “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA” dated February 19, 2025, with an effective date of December 31, 2024, was prepared and signed by SOLA Project Services, LLC, 4912 Stoneridge Way, Casper, Wyoming 82601, with Stuart Bryan Soliz, being the Qualified Person for the purposes of NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

4

The TRS entitled “Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA” dated February 19, 2025, with an effective date of December 31, 2024, was prepared and signed by SOLA Project Services, LLC., 4912 Stoneridge Way, Casper, Wyoming 82601, with Stuart Bryan Soliz, being the Qualified Person for the purposes of NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

The TRS filing for each of the Alta Mesa Project and the Mesteña Grande Project was prepared pursuant to S-K 1300 and filed with the SEC as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K. In addition, a separate TRS for each project was prepared in accordance with the form requirements under Canadian NI 43-101 and was filed with Canadian securities regulators on SEDAR+.

About the South Texas Integrated Properties Project

This filing discloses a mineral resource and PEA for the Company’s key pipeline ISR uranium projects located in South Texas. The report provides the following:

●	Combined Measured and Indicated Resources for the South Texas Project are 3,527,000 lbs. U3O8, with Inferred Resources of 308,000 lbs. U3O8.
●	The PEA indicates a pre-tax net present value (“NPV”) of<br>$104.3 million at an 8% discount rate. When income taxes are included in the calculation, the after tax NPV is $81.8 million at an 8% discount rate. The mine plan and economic analysis are based on the following assumptions:<br>
---	---
o	A recovery factor of 80% on the measured and indicated mineral resource (inferred mineral resource was excluded).<br>
---	---
o	A variable<br>U3O8 sales price ranging from $78.37/lb. up to $92.04/lb. with an overall average<br>U3O8 sales price of $87.05/lb.
---	---
o	A mine life of nine years (six years production followed by three years of restoration/surface reclamation); and<br>
---	---
o	A pre-income tax cost including royalties, state and local taxes, operating<br>costs, and capital costs of $43.12/lb.
---	---
●	The South Texas Project consists of five project areas:
---	---
o	The Rosita CPP, including the Cadena ISR Project (“Rosita South - Cadena ISR Project” or<br>“Cadena”), Butler Ranch Uranium ISR Project (“Butler Ranch”), Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area ISR Uranium Project (“USC – Brevard” or “Brevard”), Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area ISR Uranium Project<br>(“USC – Brown” or “Brown”). The South Texas Project’s properties are located in Karnes, Bee, Live Oak and Duval Counties, Texas, USA.
---	---
o	The Rosita CPP will serve as the central location and uranium processing facility for the South Texas Project, with<br>the other project areas serving as
---	---

5

<br>wellfields with remote ion exchange facilities. The Rosita CPP will process all uranium bearing resin from each of the other South Texas Project areas. The South Texas Project extracts uranium<br>using ISR technology (see below).
o	enCore currently controls over 5,724 acres in total within region. Mineral rights for the South Texas Project are all<br>private (fee) mineral leases and/or owned by URI, Inc. (“URI”), a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore. Fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. The uranium mineral resource estimates for the South<br>Texas Project are based on data from 4,523 drill holes that included survey coordinates, collar elevations, depths and grade/grade thickness of uranium intercepts.
---	---

6

South Texas Properties Mineral Resource Summary

*The in-place resources were estimated separately for each project area. Tables list the Project resources by the project area.The effective date of the resource estimate is December 31, 2024.

South Texas Uranium Project Measured and Indicated Resource Summary*

Project Area	GT Cutoff	Average GT		Uranium (lbs. U3O8)
Upper Spring Creek – Brevard Area
Measured	0.3		0.59		800,000
Indicated	0.3		0.40		38,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-		-		838,000
Upper Spring Creek – Brown Area
Measured	0.3		1.17		1,339,000
Indicated	0.2		2.15		720,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-		-		2,059,000
Rosita South - Cadena
Measured	0.3		0.80		615,000
Indicated	0.3		0.42		15,000
Total Measured and Indicated	-		-		630,000
Project Totals
Measured					2,754,000
Indicated					773,000
Total Measured and Indicated					3,527,000

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.
---	---
6.	There are no measured or indicated resources at Rosita CPP or Butler Ranch.
---	---

South Texas Uranium Project Inferred Resource Summary*

Project Area	GT Cutoff	Average GT	U3O8 (lbs.)
Upper Spring Creek – Brown Area
Total Inferred	0.2	1.35		308,000

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	There are no inferred resources at Rosita CPP, Butler Ranch, Brevard or Cadena.
---	---

South Texas Properties Technical Report Summary

The TRS, entitled “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects Texas, USA” with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (referred to herein as the “South Texas TRS”), was prepared under S-K 1300 and filed with the SEC as a Current Report on Form 8-K. In addition, the South Texas TRS was prepared in accordance with the form requirements under NI 43-101 and was filed with Canadian securities regulators on SEDAR+. The South Texas

7

TRS was prepared by WWC Engineering, 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, WY 82801, with Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores, P.E., being the Qualified Persons for the purposes of NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

About the Gas Hills Project

The Gas Hills Project is located in Fremont and Natrona Counties, in Wyoming, USA. The Gas Hills TRS discloses a mineral resource and PEA for the Company’s key pipeline ISR uranium project. The report provides the following:

●	Measured and Indicated ISR Resources for the Gas Hills Project are 7,705,000 lbs. U3O8 for the current project areas, with Inferred ISR Resource for the Gas Hills Project of 428,000 lbs. U3O8.
●	The PEA indicates a pre-tax NPV of $166.9 million at an 8% discount rate<br>with an internal rate of return (“IRR”) of 54.8% compared to an after-tax NPV of $141.8 million at an 8% discount rate with an IRR of 50.2%. The mine plan and economic analysis are based on the<br>following assumptions:
---	---
o	A recovery factor of 80% of the measured and indicated mineral resource (no inferred mineral resource is included);<br>
---	---
o	A U3O8<br>sales price of $87.00/lb.;
---	---
o	A mine life of 11 years;
---	---
o	A pre-income tax cost including royalties, state and local taxes, operating<br>costs, and capital costs of $40.61/lb.; and
---	---
o	Initial capital costs $55.2 million.
---	---
●	The Company’s 100% owned Gas Hills Project is one of enCore’s development priorities following the focus on<br>production in South Texas, and Dewey-Burdock (refer to the separate TRS news release for Dewey-Burdock here:<br>https://encoreuranium.com/news/encore-energy-files-dewey-burdock-s-k-1300-<br>technical-resource-summary<br>/).
---	---
o	The Gas Hills Project consists of approximately 1,280 surface acres and 12,960 net mineral acres of unpatented lode<br>mining claims, a state of Wyoming mineral lease, and private mineral leases, within a brownfield site which has experienced extensive development including mine and mill site cumulative production in excess of 100 million pounds of uranium,<br>mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground mining and ISR.
---	---

8

Gas Hills Project Mineral Resource Summary

Note - The mineral resource estimation method utilized in this report is the Grade Thickness (GT) contour method. This method is considered appropriate for this typeof deposit.

Gas Hills Project Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, Combined (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured	2,051,000	994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated	8,713,000	6,031,000	0.07%	6.13	0.443
Total M&I	10,764,000	7,025,000	0.08%	6.05	0.463
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Measured	2,051,000	994,000	0.10%	5.35	0.552
Indicated	5,654,000	2,835,000	0.10%	4.92	0.491
Total M&I	7,705,000	3,829,000	0.10%	4.99	0.502
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Indicated	3,059,000	3,196,000	0.05%	8.6	0.412
Total M&I	3,059,000	3,196,000	0.05%	8.6	0.412

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.
---	---
6.	Totals may not sum due to rounding.
---	---

Gas Hills Project Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

December 31, 2024, Combined (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred	490,000	514,000	0.05%	6.16	0.293
December 31, 2024, ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred	428,000	409,000	0.05%	5.94	0.31
December 31, 2024, Non-ISR Only (GT cutoff 0.10)
	Pounds	Tons	Avg. Grade	Avg. Thickness	Avg. GT
Inferred	62,000	105,000	0.03%	7.01	0.208

Notes:

1.	Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300 and as used in NI<br>43-101.
2.	All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.
---	---
3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.<br>
---	---
4.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
---	---
5.	Totals may not sum due to rounding.
---	---

9

Gas Hills Technical Report Summary

The TRS, entitled “Technical Report on the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties Wyoming, USA” with an effective date of December 31, 2024 (referred to herein as the “Gas Hills TRS”), was prepared under S-K 1300 and filed with the SEC on Form 8-K. In addition, the Gas Hills TRS was prepared in accordance with the form requirements under NI 43-101 and was filed with Canadian securities regulators on SEDAR. The Gas Hills TRS was prepared by WWC Engineering, 1849 Terra Avenue, Sheridan, WY 82801, with Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores, P.E., being the Qualified Persons for the purposes of NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

Technical Disclosure and Qualified Person

All technical information in this news release was approved by John M. Seeley, Ph.D., P.G., C.P.G., enCore’s Manager of Geology and Exploration, and a Qualified Person of the Company and a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101 and S-K 1300.

###

About In-Situ Recovery Technology

In-Situ Recovery offers a minimally intrusive, eco-friendly, and economically competitive approach to mineral extraction. It’s been proven to be a successful technique for obtaining uranium that replaces conventional open pit or underground workings with wellfield technology. ISR does not involve open pits, waste dumps, or tailings, making it more environmentally considerate. This method also streamlines the permitting, development, and remediation processes. With ISR, uranium is extracted without disturbing the surface, and once the process is complete, the land is restored to its original state and purpose.

About enCore Energy Corp.

enCore Energy Corp., America’s Clean Energy Company^™^, is committed to providing clean, reliable, and affordable fuel for nuclear energy as the only United States uranium producer with multiple extraction facilities in operation. The enCore team is led by industry experts with extensive knowledge and experience in all aspects of In-Situ Recovery uranium operations and the nuclear fuel cycle. enCore solely utilizes ISR for uranium extraction, a well-known and proven technology co-developed by the leaders at enCore Energy.

Following upon enCore’s demonstrated success in South Texas, future projects in enCore’s pipeline include the Dewey-Burdock project in South Dakota and the Gas Hills Project in Wyoming. The Company holds other non-core assets including significant New Mexico resources and conventional projects in Arizona, Utah and Wyoming along with proprietary databases. enCore is committed to working with local communities and indigenous governments to create positive impact from corporate developments.

Learn more at www.encoreuranium.com.

10

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements:

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) acceptsresponsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within themeaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Canadian securities laws that are based on management’s current expectations, assumptions and beliefs. Forward-looking statements can often be identified by such words as“will”, “expects”, “plans”, “believes”, “intends”, “estimates”, “projects”, “continue”, “potential”, and similar expressions or variations (including negativevariations) of such words and phrases, or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, or “will” be taken.

Forward-looking statements and information that are not statements of historical fact include, but are not limited to, any information relating to statementsregarding future or potential extraction, and any other statements regarding future expectations, beliefs, goals or prospects, statements regarding the potential for future extraction at each of the projects, the success of current and future ISRoperations, including projects in our pipeline, our future extraction plans and associated economics, including the assumptions underlying the economic analyses, initial economic assessment of the projects, continued demonstration of robusteconomics of the projects, after-tax NPVs, project IRRs, that the projects will be a reliable supplier of fuel, that the Rosita CPP will process all the mineral mined on each of the other South Texas Projectareas, the expected timing of a commercial operation, estimated mineral resources and financials, expected major plant aspects that the projects will be successfully operable ISR operations and our commitment to working with local communities andindigenous governments to create positive impact from corporate developments should be considered forward-looking statements. All such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results and forward-looking statements are subject toimportant risk factors and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s ability to control or predict, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward looking statement, including thosedescribed in greater detail in our filings with the SEC and on SEDAR+, particularly those described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks,including, without limitation, risks associated with assumptions regarding project economics; discount rates; expenditures and the current cost environment; timing and schedule of the projects, general economic conditions; adverse industry events;future legislative and regulatory developments; the ability of enCore to implement its business strategies; and other risks. A number of important factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those indicated or implied bysuch forward-looking statements, including without limitation exploration and development risks, changes in commodity prices, access to skilled personnel, the results of exploration and development activities; extraction risks; uninsured risks;regulatory risks; defects in title; the availability of materials and equipment, timeliness of government approvals and unanticipated environmental impacts on operations; litigation risks; risks posed by the economic and political environments inwhich the Company operates and intends to operate; increased competition; assumptions regarding market trends and the expected demand and desires for the Company’s products and proposed

11

products; reliance on industry equipment manufacturers, suppliers and others; the failure to adequately protect intellectual property; the failure to adequately manage future growth; adversemarket conditions, the failure to satisfy ongoing regulatory requirements and factors relating to forward looking statements listed above which include risks as disclosed in the Company’s filings on SEDAR+ and with the SEC, including itsmanagement discussion and analysis and annual information form. Should one or more of these risks materialize, or should assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those describedherein as intended, planned, anticipated, believed, estimated or expected. The Company assumes no obligation to update the information in this communication, except as required by law. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties iscontained in filings by the Company with the various securities commissions which are available online at www.sec.gov andwww.sedarplus.ca. Forward-looking statements are provided for the purpose of providing information about the current expectations, beliefs and plans of management. Such statements may notbe appropriate for other purposes and readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, that speak only as of the date hereof, as there can be no assurance that the plans, intentions or expectations upon which they arebased will occur. Such information, although considered reasonable by management at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect and actual results may differ materially from those anticipated. Forward-looking statements contained in this newsrelease are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Investor Contact:

William M. Sheriff

Executive Chairman

enCore Energy

972-333-2214

info@encoreuranium.com

Media Contact:

Ann Obeney

VP, Corporate Communications

enCore Energy

361-239-2045

aobeney@encoreuranium.com

12