Jaguar Uranium Corp 8-K, filed Oct 19, 2026

Jaguar Uranium Corp. (JAGU)

8-K 2026-10-19 For: 2026-10-13

Added on October 21, 2026

About this 8-K

Jaguar Uranium Corp filed this 8-K on October 19, 2026, reporting on events of October 13, 2026.

Jaguar Uranium Corp. announced a maiden independent mineral resource estimate for its 100%-owned Laguna Salada Uranium-Vanadium Project in Chubut Province, Argentina, effective October 5, 2026. The accompanying S-K 1300 technical report was issued October 16, 2026, and reports no mineral reserves. AI summary

Items reported

Item 7.01: Regulation FD disclosure
Item 8.01: Other events
Item 9.01: Financial statements and exhibits

Search and read filings like this one from Claude or ChatGPT with the SEC filings MCP server →

British Columbia		001-43094		Not applicable
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)		(Commission File Number)		(IRS Employer Identification No.)

Title of each class		Trading Symbol		Name of each exchange on which registered
Class A common shares, no par value		JAGU		NYSE American LLC

Exhibit No.		Description
23.1		Consent of Scott Jobin-Bevans, P.Geo., Ph.D., PMP (Caracle Creek Chile SpA)
23.2		Consent of Simon J.A. Mortimer, FAIG, M.Sc. (Atticus Geoscience Consulting Ltd.)
96.1		S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Estimate on the Laguna Salada Uranium-Vanadium Deposit and Technical Report Summary for the Laguna Salada Uranium-Vanadium Project, dated October 16, 2026, with an effective date of October 5, 2026
99.1		Press Release dated October 13, 2026
104		Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document)

Date: October 19, 2026	Jaguar Uranium Corp.

	By:	/s/ Steven Gold
	Name:	Steven Gold
	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer

Table of Contents	1
List of Tables	5
List of Figures	7
1.0 Executive Summary	12
1.1 Introduction	12
1.1.1 Purpose	12
1.1.2 Previous Technical Reports	12
1.1.3 Effective Date	12
1.1.4 Qualifications of Consultants	12
1.2 Personal Inspection	13
1.3 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant	13
1.4 Property Description and Location	13
1.4.1 Mineral Disposition	13
1.4.2 Holding Costs and Annual Requirements	14
1.4.3 Current Work Permits and Work Status	14
1.4.4 Landholder and Community Consultation	14
1.4.5 Environmental Requirements, Status and Liabilities	14
1.4.6 Royalties and Obligations	14
1.5 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography	14
1.5.1 Climate and Operating Season	15
1.5.2 Local Resources and Infrastructure	15
1.5.3 Physiography	15
1.5.4 Water Availability	15
1.6 History	15
1.6.1 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates	16
1.7 Geological Setting and Mineralization	16
1.7.1 Mineralization	16
1.8 Deposit Types	17
1.9 Exploration	17
1.10 Drilling	17
1.11 Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security	17
1.12 Data Verification	18
1.13 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing	18
1.14 Mineral Resource Estimates	18
1.14.1 Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction and Cut-Off	19
1.14.2 Mineral Resource Statement	19
1.15 Interpretation and Conclusions	20
1.15.1 Risks and Uncertainties	20
1.15.2 Exploration Opportunities	21
1.16 Recommendations	21
2.0 Introduction	22
2.1 Purpose	23
2.2 Previous Technical Reports	23
2.3 Effective Date	23
2.4 Qualifications of Consultants	23
2.5 Personal Inspection	24

/s/ Scott Jobin-Bevans
Scott Jobin-Bevans (P.Geo. #0183, Ph.D., PMP)

Jaguar Uranium Corp.: Laguna Salada Uranium-Vanadium Deposit
S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Estimate and Technical Report Summary	16 October 2026

2.6 Sources of Information	27
2.7 Commonly Used Terms, Initialisms and Units of Measure	27
2.7.1 WGS84 Versus POSGAR 94 / ARGENTINA 3	27
3.0 Property Description	30
3.1 Property Location	30
3.2 Mineral Disposition	30
3.3 Holding Costs and Annual Requirements	33
3.4 Surface Rights and Legal Access	33
3.5 Project Ownership and Initial Transaction	36
3.6 Mineral Land Tenure System - Argentina	36
3.6.1 Cateo (Exclusive Exploration Right)	36
3.6.2 Manifestación de Descubrimiento (Exploration)	36
3.6.3 Mina (Mining Concession)	37
3.6.4 Pertenencia	37
3.7 Government Taxation and Royalties	38
3.7.1 Corporate Income Tax	38
3.7.2 Provincial Mining Royalties	38
3.8 Current Work Permits and Work Status	38
3.9 Landholder and Community Consultation	38
3.10 Environmental Requirements, Status and Liabilities	38
3.11 Royalties and Obligations	39
3.12 Other Significant Factors and Risks	39
4.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography	40
4.1 Accessibility	40
4.1.1 Surface Rights and Access	41
4.2 Climate and Operating Season	41
4.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure	41
4.3.1 Labour	41
4.4 Physiography	42
4.4.1 Water Availability	42
4.4.2 Flora and Fauna	43
5.0 History	44
5.1 Ownership and Land Tenure History	45
5.2 CNEA (1978-Early 1980s)	45
5.3 Mega Uranium Ltd. (2007-2010)	47
5.3.1 Reverse Circulation Drilling	47
5.3.2 Early Trenching and Pitting	48
5.3.3 Guanaco Area	49
5.3.4 Lago Seco Area	52
5.3.5 Buried Lake Area	55
5.4 U3O8 Corporation (2010-2016)	58
5.4.1 La Susana Prospect	58
5.4.2 La Rosada Prospect	62
5.5 IsoEnergy Ltd. (2021-2022)	64
5.5.1 Stratigraphy of the La Rosada, Delfin and Pescado Prospect Areas	65
5.5.2 La Rosada Sampling	69
5.6 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates	71

6.0 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit	72
6.1 Regional Geology	72
6.2 Local Geology and Mineralization	74
6.3 Property Geology	75
6.4 Mineralization	77
6.4.1 Guanaco Area	77
6.4.2 Lago Seco Area	78
6.4.3 Buried Lake Area	79
6.4.4 La Rosada Area	80
6.5 Laguna Salada Deposit - Geology and Mineralization	81
6.5.1 Host Rocks and Stratigraphy	81
6.5.2 Structure	82
6.5.3 Alteration and Mineralization	83
6.6 Deposit Types	84
6.6.1 Surficial Uranium Deposits	84
6.6.2 Mineralization Model for Laguna Salada	85
6.6.3 Volcanic-Hosted Mineralization	87
7.0 Exploration	87
7.1 Drilling	87
7.1.1 Reverse Circulation Drilling	89
7.1.2 Limitations of Drilling	89
7.1.3 Buried Lake Drilling	89
7.1.4 Future Drilling Considerations	89
7.2 Hydrogeology and Geotechnical Data	90
8.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security	90
8.1 Overview	90
8.2 Historical Sampling (2007-2016)	90
8.2.1 Sample Spacing and Data Capture	92
8.2.2 Evolution of Sampling Methods	92
8.2.2.1 Manual Excavation	92
8.2.2.2 Mechanical Excavation	92
8.2.3 Sample Quality	93
8.3 Historical Sampling (La Rosada 2022)	93
8.4 Historical Sample Preparation and Analysis	95
8.4.1 Sample Preparation and Analysis (2007-2008)	96
8.4.2 Sample Preparation and Analysis (2008-2016)	96
8.4.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis (2022)	96
8.5 Historical Sample Security	96
8.5.1 Sample Security (2010-2014)	96
8.5.2 Sample Security (2022)	97
8.6 Historical Quality Assurance/Quality Control	97
8.6.1 QA/QC (Pre-2010)	97
8.6.2 QA/QC (2010-2014)	97
8.6.3 QA/QC (2022)	98
8.6.4 QA/QC Interpretation – La Rosada	101
8.7 Historical Independent Sampling (2010)	104
8.8 Sampling and QA/QC Summary	106
9.0 Data Verification	107
9.1 Internal-External Data Verification	107
9.2 Verification Performed by the QPs	107

10.0 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing	107
10.1 U3O8 Corporation (2010-2014)	107
10.1.1 Beneficiation Characteristics	108
10.1.2 Leach Response	110
10.1.3 Gypsum and Reagent Consumption	110
10.1.4 Conceptual Processing Route	110
10.2 Metallurgical Interpretation and Further Test Work	111
10.3 Conclusions	111
11.0 Mineral Resource Estimates	112
11.1 Introduction	112
11.2 Surface Control	112
11.3 Pit, Trench and Drill Hole Database	113
11.3.1 Location Control and Downhole Survey Information	114
11.3.2 Assay Data and Sample Summary	115
11.3.3 Screened and Unscreened Data Treatment in the Resource Database	115
11.3.4 QA/QC Procedures and Data Integrity	116
11.3.5 Composite Data	117
11.4 Estimation Methodology	119
11.5 Geological Interpretation and Modelling	119
11.5.1 Lithology Model	120
11.5.2 Mineralization Model	123
11.6 Exploratory Data Analysis and Estimation Domains	127
11.7 Contact Analysis, Compositing and Capping	131
11.7.1 Screened and Unscreened Sample Treatment	131
11.7.2 Contact Analysis	134
11.7.3 Compositing and Grade Capping	136
11.8 Specific Gravity	140
11.9 Block Modelling	142
11.10 Variography	144
11.11 Estimation Strategy	148
11.11.1 Estimation Methodology	149
11.12 Block Model Validation	151
11.12.2 Visual Validation	151
11.12.3 Statistical Validation	154
11.12.4 Swath Plots (Spatial Validation)	155
11.13 Mineral Resource Classification	159
11.14 Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction and Cut-Off	161
11.14.1 NSR Calculation	162
11.14.2 Open-Pit Cut-Off Value	162
11.15 Sensitivity Analysis	164
11.16 Mineral Resource Statement	173
11.17 Mineral Resource Estimate Summary	176
12.0 Mineral Reserve Estimates	177
13.0 Mining Methods	177
14.0 Processing and Recovery Methods	177
15.0 Infrastructure	177
16.0 Market Studies	177

17.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups	177
18.0 Capital and Operating Costs	177
19.0 Economic Analysis	177
20.0 Adjacent Properties	177
21.0 Other Relevant Data and Information	177
22.0 Interpretation and Conclusions	178
22.1 Overview	178
22.2 Property Description	178
22.3 Geology and Target Type	178
22.4 Exploration and Drilling	179
22.5 Sampling, QA/QC and Data Verification	180
22.6 Metallurgical Test Work	181
22.7 Mineral Resource Estimate	181
22.8 Risks and Uncertainties	183
22.9 Exploration Opportunities	183
23.0 Recommendations	184
23.1 Program Implementation, Prioritisation and Budget	185
23.2 Immediate Priority Work	185
23.2.1 Permitting, Land Access and Future Mining Method Review	185
23.2.2 Database Verification and Confirmatory Sampling	186
23.2.3 Geological Model, Grade Variability and Radiometric Calibration	186
23.2.4 Mineral Resource Infill Sampling Program	187
23.2.5 Metallurgical Variability and Vanadium Recovery	187
23.2.6 Hydrogeology and Water Chemistry	188
23.2.7 Preliminary Mining and Geotechnical Information	188
23.2.8 Environmental, Social and Radiological Baseline	188
23.3 Conditional Follow-On Work	188
23.3.1 Further Mineral Resource Conversion and Expansion	189
23.3.2 Additional Property Exploration – La Susana and La Rosada	189
23.3.3 Regional Exploration	189
23.3.4 Pilot Testing, Bulk Sampling and Trial Mining	189
23.3.5 Subsequent Mineral Resource and Economic Evaluation	189
24.0 References	190
25.0 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant	191
26.0 Date and Signature Page	192

Table 1-1.	Responsibility matrix for the preparation of the Report sections by the Authors.	13
Table 1-2.	Mineral Resource Statement for the Laguna Salada U-V Project, using a US$12.08/t NSR cut-off value.	19
Table 1-3.	Recommended Immediate Priority Work Program for the Laguna Salada Project.	21
Table 1-4.	Recommended Staged Work Program and Budget, including the Conditional Follow-on Work Plan.	22
Table 2-1.	Responsibility matrix for the preparation of the Report sections by the Authors.	24
Table 2-2.	Waypoints collected by the Principal Author during the Personal Inspection of the Property (WGS84 Z19S).	24
Table 2-3.	Commonly used units of measure, abbreviations, initialisms and technical terms.	28
Table 2-4.	Conversions for common units.	29

Table 3-1.	Summary of the 28 Laguna Salada mining concessions, Chubut Province, Argentina.	31
Table 3-2.	Annual holding costs for the Laguna Salada U-V Project (Manifestaciones de Descubrimiento).	33
Table 3-3.	Laguna Salada mining concessions and associated underlying landowners. Coding in “ID” column is tied to the underlying lands shown in Figure 4-3.	34
Table 3-4.	Laguna Salada mining concessions, file numbers, IIA approval files and expiry dates.	39
Table 4-1.	Access to Laguna Salada Project, Chubut Province, Argentina.	40
Table 5-1.	Summary of historical ownership and exploration milestones.	44
Table 5-2.	Summary of early reconnaissance trenching at Laguna Salada.	49
Table 5-3.	Assay results from channel sampling of the mineralized gravel at the La Susana area.	61
Table 5-4.	High-grade assay results, vertical channel samples through the mineralized layer, La Rosada.	64
Table 5-5.	High-grade assay results, channel sampling, basement-style mineralization, La Rosada.	64
Table 5-6.	Uranium geochemistry summary statistics for La Rosada 2022 sampling.	69
Table 5-7.	Vanadium geochemistry summary statistics for La Rosada 2022 sampling.	69
Table 6-1.	Resource examples from surficial uranium deposits. (Inwood and Goode, 2011).	85
Table 7-1.	Summary of all known drilling completed on the Laguna Salada Project (2008).	88
Table 8-1.	Expected values for uranium and vanadium in Maple standards.	98
Table 8-2.	Uranium and vanadium values for field blanks.	98
Table 8-3.	Uranium and vanadium values for project standards and ASI internal standards.	99
Table 8-4.	Independent sampling data for the Laguna Salada Project by Inwood and Goode (2011).	106
Table 8-5.	Original sampling data for the Laguna Salada Project.	106
Table 10-1.	Summary of key historical beneficiation and metallurgical results.	109
Table 11-1.	Summary of the sampling information relevant to the mineral resource estimation.	114
Table 11-2.	Summary of screened and unscreened data treatment for the estimation dataset.	116
Table 11-3.	Summary statistics for the full composite dataset.	118
Table 11-4.	Composite statistics by domain.	118
Table 11-5.	Summary statistics for U₃O₈ and V₂O₅ composites by mineralized area.	128
Table 11-6.	Correlation matrix for NT-V₂O₅ and NT-U₃O₈ composite variables.	131
Table 11-7.	Estimation-domain approach supported by exploratory data analysis.	131
Table 11-8.	Paired screened and unscreened U₃O₈ regression statistics by mineralized area.	132
Table 11-9.	Final grade-capping approach by estimation domain.	138
Table 11-10.	Summary of average bulk-density measurements by assigned lithological unit.	141
Table 11-11.	Summary of 22 L and 65 L bulk-density measurements by assigned lithological unit.	142
Table 11-12.	Parameters for the Laguna Salada unrotated block model.	144
Table 11-13.	Summary of variography input settings and experimental parameters.	145
Table 11-14.	Summary of variogram model interpretation by estimation domain.	146
Table 11-15.	Summary of QKNA results by estimation domain and pass.	150
Table 11-16	Estimation search strategy by domain and pass.	150
Table 11-17.	Comparison of input composite means and mass-weighted block-model means for U₃O₈ and V₂O₅ by mineralized area (Atticus, 2026).	155
Table 11-18.	Mineral Resource classification criteria, Laguna Salada Project.	161
Table 11-19.	Parameters used for the calculation of NSR and U₃O₈ equivalent grade, Laguna Salada Project.	162
Table 11-20.	Parameters used to calculate the NSR open-pit cut-off value, Laguna Salada Project.	162
Table 11-21.	Parameters used to calculate the U₃O₈-only economic cut-off grade, Laguna Salada Project.	163
Table 11-22.	Pit optimisation and operating assumptions used for the Laguna Salada RPEEE assessment.	163
Table 11-23.	Grade-tonnage sensitivity values for the Laguna Salada domain at varying NSR cut-off values.	165
Table 11-24.	Grade-tonnage sensitivity values for the Pampa de Arroqui domain at varying NSR cut-off values.	167
Table 11-25.	Grade-tonnage sensitivity values for the Buried Lake pit constrained domain at varying NSR cut-off values.	171
Table 11-26.	Mineral Resource Statement for the Laguna Salada U-V Project, using US$12.08/t NSR cut-off.	174
Table 23.1	Recommended Immediate Priority Work Program for the Laguna Salada Project.	184
Table 23.2.	Recommended Staged Work Program and Budget, including the Conditional Follow-on Work Plan.	185

Figure 2-1.	Selection of photos taken by Dr. Jobin-Bevans during his Personal Inspection of the Property. (A) Typical landscape on the Property, along highway R48. (B) Scott Jobin-Bevans (left) and Sebastian Gomez on the Property. (C) Dr. Owen Miller (left) and Sebastian Gomez taking scintillometer readings on the Property. (D) Sebastian Gomez taking a scintillometer reading on the Property. (E) Typical background scintillometer reading (K = 1.36%, U = 4.4 ppm, Th = 5.1ppm) from area of disturbed gravel (grey areas). (F) Typical fence line with open gate put in by a surface rights holder within the area of the Property. (Caracle Creek, 2026).	25
Figure 2-2.	Travel to the Property from Trelew (blue track) for the Personal Inspection; the Property concessions are outlined in red (Caracle Creek, 2026).	26
Figure 3-1.	Location of the Laguna Salada U-V Project in Chubut Province, Argentina (Atticus, 2026).	30
Figure 3-2.	Mining concession map showing the Laguna Salada Property over a digital elevation model (Atticus, 2026).	32
Figure 3-3.	Underlying surface ownership (see Table 4-3) and the 28 concessions that comprise the Laguna Salada Project (Atticus, 2026).	35
Figure 4-1.	Access to the Laguna Salada Project, Chubut Province, Argentina (Atticus, 2026).	40
Figure 4-2.	Regional infrastructure relative to the Laguna Salada Project, Argentina (Atticus, 2026).	42
Figure 4-3.	Province-scale topography (digital elevation model) and location of the Laguna Salada Project, Chubut Province, Argentina (Atticus, 2026).	43
Figure 4-4.	General view and typical physiography of the Laguna Salada Property and area (Caracle Creek, 2026).	43
Figure 5-1.	Map showing the extent of the CNEA radiometric survey that covers part of the Laguna Salada Project (Tenova, 2014).	46
Figure 5-2.	Radiometric anomalies and trenching at Laguna Salada (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	47
Figure 5-3.	Map showing the boreholes drilled in prior exploration of the Laguna Salada Project and the location of trenches from which samples were taken for prior metallurgical test work (Tenova, 2014).	48
Figure 5-4.	Trenching and drilling at Guanaco (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	50
Figure 5-5.	Grade-thickness distribution map of the Guanaco Region, U3O8 (ppm) x m (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	51
Figure 5-6.	Geology and mineralization at the Guanaco area. Note extreme vertical exaggeration (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	52
Figure 5-7.	Map showing the location of trenches and drill hole collars in the Lago Seco area (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	53
Figure 5-8.	Grade-thickness distribution map of the Lago Seco area, U3O8 ppm x m (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	54
Figure 5-9.	Stacked sections showing the distribution of mineralization in the Lago Seco Area. Note the extreme vertical exaggeration (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	55
Figure 5-10.	Map showing the location of trenches and drill hole collars in the Buried Lake area of the Laguna Salada Project. (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	56
Figure 5-11.	Grade-thickness distribution map of the Buried Lake region, U3O8 ppm x metres (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	57
Figure 5-12.	Laguna Salada Property (historical boundary) showing the location of La Susana and La Rosada sampling (Miller, 2024).	59
Figure 5-13.	La Susana area of the Laguna Salada Property (historical boundary) showing surface sample locations and U3O8 ppm concentrations (Miller, 2024).	60
Figure 5-14.	La Susana area of the Laguna Salada Property (historical boundary) showing surface sample locations and V2O5 ppm concentrations (Miller, 2024).	61
Figure 5-15.	La Rosada area of the Laguna Salada Property (historical boundary) showing surface sample locations and U3O8 ppm concentrations (Miller, 2024).	63
Figure 5-16.	La Rosada area of the Laguna Salada Property (historical boundary) showing surface sample locations and V2O5 ppm concentrations (Miller, 2024).	63

Figure 5-17.	Local geology around the Delfin and Pescado prospects at the La Rosada area (Miller, 2024).	65
Figure 5-18.	Unit 3 - Fossil rich Sediment (Salamanca Formation): Beige colour, fine-grained texture. Shell fossils 8 cm x 7 cm, 3.0% in calcareous matrix supported. 0.4 metres thick (Miller, 2024).	66
Figure 5-19.	Unit 5 - Fossil rich Sediment (Salamanca Formation): White-Beige color, fine-grained texture. Shell fossils 8 cm x 7 cm, turritella 4 cm x 1.5 cm, 3.0% in calcareous matrix supported. 1.0 metres thick (Miller, 2024).	66
Figure 5-20.	Unit 3 - Fossil rich Sediment (Salamanca Formation): Beige color, fine-grained texture. Shell fossils 8 cm x 7 cm, 3.0% in calcareous matrix supported. 0.4 metres thick (Miller, 2024).	67
Figure 5-21.	Unit 3 - Fossil rich Sediment (Salamanca Formation): Beige color, fine-grained texture. Shell fossils 8 cm x 7 cm, 3.0% in calcareous matrix supported. 0.4 metres thick (Miller, 2024).	67
Figure 5-22.	Unit 5 - Fossil rich Sediment (Salamanca Formation): White-Beige color, fine grain texture. Shell fossils 8 cm x 7 cm, turritella 4 cm x 1.5 cm, 3.0% in calcareous matrix supported. 1.0 metres thick (Miller, 2024).	68
Figure 5-23.	Stratigraphic column at La Rosada, Delfin and Pescado prospect areas (Miller, 2024).	68
Figure 5-24.	Surface sample locations and U3O8 concentrations at the La Rosada area (Miller, 2024).	70
Figure 5-25.	Surface sample locations and V2O5 concentrations at La Rosada area (Atticus, 2026).	70
Figure 5-26.	Scintillometer readings in counts per second (cps) at La Rosada (Atticus, 2026).	71
Figure 6-1.	Location of the Laguna Salada Project in Chubut Province, Argentina (Atticus, 2026).	72
Figure 6-2.	Laguna Salada Project concessions and surrounding topographic setting, Chubut Province, Argentina (Atticus, 2026).	73
Figure 6-3.	Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Golfo San Jorge Basin/central Patagonia, Chubut, Argentina. Stratigraphic and lithological columns showing lower Manfil Fm., Salamanca Fm., Montemayor Fm. (Pampa de Arroqui) – the Gran Laguna Salada Formation overlies the Montemayor Formation but is not shown (modified after Ardolino et al., 2003).	74
Figure 6-4.	Stratigraphic column of the San Jorge Basin showing the units present in the Laguna Salada Project area and the lithostratigraphic location of the uranium-vanadium mineralization (modified after Ardolino et al., 2003).	75
Figure 6-5.	Local geology for the La Rosada area (Atticus, 2026).	76
Figure 6-6.	Geology and mineralization at the Guanaco area. Note extreme vertical exaggeration (after Inwood and Goode, 2011) (Miller, 2024).	78
Figure 6-7.	Stacked sections showing the distribution of mineralization in the Lago Seco area. Note extreme vertical exaggeration (after Inwood and Goode, 2011; Miller, 2024).	79
Figure 6-8.	Buried Lake schematic cross section showing the lower mineralized horizon (after Inwood and Goode, 2011; Miller, 2024).	80
Figure 6-9.	Typical profile at La Rosada, with soil developed over unconsolidated sediment containing uranium-vanadium mineralization as carnotite coatings and rinds on sub-rounded gravel clasts (Miller, 2024).	80
Figure 6-10.	Unconsolidated sediment with uranium-vanadium mineralization as carnotite coatings and rinds on sub-rounded gravel clasts (Miller, 2024).	81
Figure 6-11.	Typical east-west sections N 5,089,500 and N 5,089,000 through the Lago Seco and Guanaco sectors, showing the stratigraphic relationship between the Gran Laguna Salada, Pampa de Arroqui and Salamanca formations and the position of the mineralized horizon (Inwood and Goode, 2011).	82
Figure 6-12.	Genetic model for the formation of surficial uranium deposits (Miller, 2024).	84
Figure 6-13.	Geological map of Laguna Salada showing possible metallogenic pathways (after Inwood and Goode, 2011; Miller, 2024).	86
Figure 8-1.	Plan map showing the location of the trenches and pits at Laguna Salada, coloured according to the sampling method used (after Tenova, 2014) (Miller, 2024).	91
Figure 8-2.	Soil profile and Horizon D, unconsolidated sediments (Miller, 2024).	94
Figure 8-3.	Auger drilling (excavation) of the 1.20 m by 0.90 m sampling pit area (Miller, 2024).	95
Figure 8-4.	Vanadium values for blank material showing batch numbers (Miller, 2024).	99
Figure 8-5.	Uranium values for standard STD 2955 (Miller, 2024).	100
Figure 8-6.	Vanadium values for standard STD 2955 (Miller, 2024).	100

/s/ Simon Mortimer
Simon J.A. Mortimer (FAIG #7795, M.Sc.)

Figure 8-7.	Uranium values for ASI internal standard GU-11, certified 34.67 ppm U (Miller, 2024).	101
Figure 8-8.	Uranium distribution highlighting analytical problems around and just above the detection limit of 10 ppm at the Law Rosada area (Miller, 2024).	102
Figure 8-9.	Scintillometer (cps) measurements at the La Rosada area (Miller, 2024).	102
Figure 8-10.	Predicted uranium values in ppm based on scintillometer readings at the La Rosada Area (Miller, 2024).	103
Figure 8-11.	Vanadium concentrations and geology at the La Rosada area (Miller, 2024).	103
Figure 8-12.	Satellite image of the central part of the Laguna Salada Project showing the location of trenches TRR-114 and TRR-15 from which independent samples were taken by Inwood and Goode (2011) (Tenova, 2014).	104
Figure 8-13.	Trenches used for independent sampling by Inwood and Goode (2011) (Tenova, 2014).	105
Figure 11-1.	Plan view of the Laguna Salada Project showing the surface control, sample locations and interpreted mineralization model extents for the Pampa de Arroqui Formation (PA – copper), Laguna Salada Formation (LS – orange), Buried Lake Formation (BL – dark blue), and Salamanca Formation (SAL – pink); see Figure 14-2 (Atticus, 2026).	113
Figure 11-2.	Isometric view of the Laguna Salada lithology model looking towards azimuth 026° with plunge +03°, showing the modelled basement/tuff units, Gran Laguna Salada Formation, Pampa de Arroqui Formation, Salamanca Formation and Buried Lake unconformity-related unit. The view is displayed with 10× vertical exaggeration (Z-scale = 10.0) for visualization (Atticus, 2026).	121
Figure 11-3.	Plan view of the Laguna Salada lithology model showing the locations of interpreted section lines A-A′ and B-B′ across the Lago Seco, Guanaco and Buried Lake areas (Atticus, 2026).	122
Figure 11-4.	Interpreted lithological section A-A′ through the Laguna Salada model, showing the relationship between the Lago Seco and Guanaco areas and the position of the Buried Lake unit near the Pampa de Arroqui Formation to Salamanca Formation contact. The section is displayed with 10× vertical exaggeration (Z-scale = 10.0) for visualization (Atticus, 2026).	123
Figure 11-5.	Interpreted lithological section B-B′ through the Laguna Salada model, showing the stratigraphic relationship between the Lago Seco and Guanaco areas and the interpreted unconformity surfaces at or near the top of the conglomeratic units. The section is displayed with 10× vertical exaggeration (Z-scale = 10.0) for visualization (Atticus, 2026).	123
Figure 11-6.	Overview of the Laguna Salada mineralization modelling workflow, showing the distribution of U₃O₈ grade points across the Laguna Salada, Pampa de Arroqui and Buried Lake mineralized areas and the use of a 25 ppm U threshold to support mineralization-solid modelling. The view is displayed with 10× vertical exaggeration (Z-scale = 10.0) for visualization (Atticus, 2026).	124
Figure 11-7.	Plan view of the Laguna Salada mineralization model showing U₃O₈ grade distribution across the Lago Seco and adjacent Guanaco areas, with interpreted uranium mobilisation direction overlain on the modelled lithological units. (Atticus, 2026).	125
Figure 11-8.	Plan view of the Pampa de Arroqui mineralization model showing U₃O₈ grade distribution across the Guanaco area, with interpreted uranium mobilisation direction overlain on the modelled lithological units (Atticus, 2026).	126
Figure 11-9.	Plan view of the Buried Lake mineralization model showing U₃O₈ grade distribution across the interpreted Buried Lake unit and adjacent Pampa de Arroqui area (Atticus, 2026).	127
Figure 11-10.	U₃O₈ composite histograms for the Laguna Salada, Pampa de Arroqui and Buried Lake mineralized areas. The histograms show uranium grade distributions used to review population behaviour, grade variability and upper-tail characteristics within the area-based estimation domains (Atticus, 2026).	129
Figure 11-11.	V₂O₅ composite histograms for the Laguna Salada, Pampa de Arroqui and Buried Lake mineralized areas. The histograms show vanadium grade distributions used to review grade variability and support separate estimation of V₂O₅ within the area-based estimation domains (Atticus, 2026).	130
Figure 11-12.	Scattergram of screened U₃O₈ versus unscreened U₃O₈ for the Pampa de Arroqui mineralized area. The x-axis represents U₃O₈_T and the y-axis represents U₃O₈_NT (Atticus, 2026).	132
Figure 11-13.	Scattergram of screened U₃O₈ versus unscreened U₃O₈ for the Laguna Salada mineralized area. The x-axis represents U₃O₈_T and the y-axis represents U₃O₈_NT (Atticus, 2026).	133

Figure 11-14.	Scattergram of screened U₃O₈ versus unscreened U₃O₈ for the Buried Lake mineralized area. The x-axis represents U₃O₈_T and the y-axis represents U₃O₈_NT (Atticus, 2026).	134
Figure 11-15.	Contact plot for screened U₃O₈ samples across the Buried Lake to Pampa de Arroqui domain boundary. Negative distances are on the Buried Lake side of the contact and positive distances are on the Pampa de Arroqui side; bars show sample count, and the line shows average grade by distance bin (Atticus, 2026).	135
Figure 11-16.	Contact plot for unscreened U₃O₈ samples across the Buried Lake to Pampa de Arroqui domain boundary. Negative distances are on the Buried Lake side of the contact and positive distances are on the Pampa de Arroqui side; bars show sample count, and the line shows average grade by distance bin (Atticus, 2026).	136
Figure 11-17.	View of U₃O₈ composites in the Pampa de Arroqui estimation domain, showing composite support generated on a one-composite-per-sample-location basis for the two-dimensional estimation workflow. The view is displayed with 10× vertical exaggeration (Z-scale = 10.0) for visualization (Atticus, 2026).	137
Figure 11-18.	Buried Lake U₃O₈ probability plot showing the upper-tail distribution and selected upper bound applied to the Buried Lake estimation domain (Atticus, 2026).	138
Figure 11-19.	Laguna Salada U₃O₈ probability plot showing the upper-tail distribution and selected upper bound applied to the Laguna Salada estimation domain (Atticus, 2026).	139
Figure 11-20.	Pampa de Arroqui U₃O₈ probability plot showing the upper-tail distribution and selected upper bound applied to the Pampa de Arroqui estimation domain (Atticus, 2026).	139
Figure 11-21.	Box and whisker plot of average bulk-density measurements by assigned lithological unit (Atticus, 2026).	140
Figure 11-22.	Box and whisker comparison of 22 L and 65 L bulk-density measurements by assigned lithological unit (Atticus, 2026).	141
Figure 11-23.	Location of the Laguna Salada resource block model within the Project concessions (Atticus, 2026).	143
Figure 11-24.	Horizontal major-axis correlogram for calculated U₃O₈ values in the Buried Lake estimation domain, used to support the two-dimensional omnidirectional variography workflow (Atticus, 2026).	146
Figure 11-25.	Horizontal major-axis variogram for calculated U₃O₈ values in the Laguna Salada estimation domain, showing the fitted model used to support grade-continuity interpretation (Atticus, 2026).	147
Figure 11-26.	Horizontal major-axis variogram for calculated U₃O₈ values in the Pampa de Arroqui estimation domain, showing the fitted model used to support grade-continuity interpretation (Atticus, 2026).	147
Figure 11-27.	Horizontal major-axis variogram for calculated V₂O₅ values in the Buried Lake estimation domain, showing the fitted model used to support vanadium grade-continuity interpretation (Atticus, 2026).	147
Figure 11-28.	Horizontal major-axis variogram for calculated V₂O₅ values in the Laguna Salada estimation domain, showing the fitted model used to support vanadium grade-continuity interpretation (Atticus, 2026).	148
Figure 11-29.	Horizontal major-axis variogram for calculated V₂O₅ values in the Pampa de Arroqui estimation domain, showing the fitted model used to support vanadium grade-continuity interpretation (Atticus, 2026).	148
Figure 11-30.	Plan view of the Buried Lake block model showing estimated U₃O₈ block grades with informing U₃O₈ composite grades overlain (Atticus, 2026).	152
Figure 11-31.	Plan view of the Laguna Salada block model showing estimated U₃O₈ block grades with informing U₃O₈ composite grades overlain (Atticus, 2026).	153
Figure 11-32.	Plan view of the Pampa de Arroqui block model showing estimated U₃O₈ block grades with informing U₃O₈ composite grades overlain (Atticus, 2026).	154
Figure 11-33.	Global U₃O₈ swath plot validation in the X direction, comparing OK and NN estimates with block volume by swath (Atticus, 2026).	156

Figure 11-34.	Buried Lake U₃O₈ swath plot validation in the X direction, comparing OK, NN and capped/declustered composite trends with block volume by swath (Atticus, 2026).	157
Figure 11-35.	Laguna Salada U₃O₈ swath plot validation in the X direction, comparing OK, NN and capped/declustered composite trends with block volume by swath (Atticus, 2026).	158
Figure 11-36.	Pampa de Arroqui U₃O₈ swath plot validation in the X direction, comparing OK, NN and capped/declustered composite trends with block volume by swath (Atticus, 2026).	159
Figure 11-37.	Plan view of the Laguna Salada Mineral Resource classification model showing Indicated and Inferred classification across the Laguna Salada, Pampa de Arroqui and Buried Lake estimation domains (Atticus, 2026).	160
Figure 11-38.	Laguna Salada grade-tonnage sensitivity curves showing tonnes and average U₃O₈ grade by NSR cut-off in the upper panel, with the selected US$12.08/t reporting cut-off highlighted, and by equivalent U₃O₈ price in the lower panel, with the selected US$84/lb reference price highlighted (Atticus, 2026).	166
Figure 11-39.	Relative metal component value by NSR cut-off for the Laguna Salada domain, showing the relative contribution of U₃O₈ and V₂O₅ to modelled value (Atticus, 2026).	167
Figure 11-40.	Pampa de Arroqui grade-tonnage sensitivity curves showing tonnes and average U₃O₈ grade by NSR cut-off in the upper panel, with the selected US$12.08/t reporting cut-off highlighted, and by equivalent U₃O₈ price in the lower panel, with the selected US$84/lb reference price highlighted (Atticus, 2026).	169
Figure 11-41.	Relative metal component value by NSR cut-off for the Pampa de Arroqui domain, showing the relative contribution of U₃O₈ and V₂O₅ to modelled value (Atticus, 2026).	170
Figure 11-42.	Buried Lake pit constrained grade-tonnage sensitivity curves showing tonnes and average U₃O₈ grade by NSR cut-off in the upper panel, with the selected US$12.08/t reporting cut-off highlighted, and by equivalent U₃O₈ price in the lower panel, with the selected US$84/lb reference price highlighted (Atticus, 2026).	172
Figure 11-43.	Relative metal component value by NSR cut-off for the Buried Lake pit constrained domain, showing the relative contribution of U₃O₈ and V₂O₅ to modelled value (Atticus, 2026).	173
Figure 11-44.	Detailed cross-section through the Guanaco–Buried Lake area showing the relationship between the upper, not pit constrained Pampa de Arroqui mineralized horizon and the lower, pit constrained Buried Lake mineralized horizon near the Pampa de Arroqui–Salamanca Formation contact. The section is displayed with 10× vertical exaggeration (Z-scale = 10.0) for visualization (Atticus, 2026).	175

Author	Complete Section Responsibility	Sub-Section Responsibility
Scott Jobin-Bevans P.Geo., Caracle Creek	2.0 to 7.0; 9.0; 10.0; 12.0 to 25.0	1.1 to 1.13, 1.15, 1.16
Simon Mortimer FAIG, Atticus	8.0; 9.0; 11.0; 21.0 to 23.0; 25.0	1.1.4, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16; 2.4; 3.12; 7.1.4

						Grades								Metallic Content
						U₃O₈		V₂O₅		U₃O₈Eq¹		NSR		U₃O₈		U₃O₈		V₂O₅		V₂O₅		U₃O₈ Eq¹
Zone	Category	Tonnage		SG		(ppm)		(ppm)		(ppm)		(US$/t)		(t)		(M lbs)		(t)		(M lbs)		(t)
Near Surface Resources (upper horizon): NSR Cut-Off Value US$12.08/t
Laguna Salada	Indicated		10,600,000		1.60		91		681		121		17		969		2.1		7,250		16.0		1,290
	Inferred		13,000,000		1.61		75		701		106		15		960		2.1		8,900		19.6		1,400
Pampa de Arroqui	Indicated		8,460,000		1.76		74		634		102		14		625		1.4		5,370		11.8		862
	Inferred		1,300,000		1.76		80		514		103		15		110		0.2		680		1.5		140
Pit Constrained Resources (lower horizon): US$12.08/t NSR
Pampa de Arroqui	Indicated		1,450,000		1.75		132		694		163		23		192		0.4		1,000		2.2		237
	Inferred		5,200,000		1.74		149		640		177		25		780		1.7		3,400		7.5		930
Buried Lake	Indicated		576,000		1.77		205		745		238		34		118		0.3		429		0.9		137
	Inferred		14,000,000		1.78		192		867		230		33		2,800		6.2		13,000		28.7		3,300
Total Mineral Resources:
All Zones	Total Indicated:		21,100,000		1.68		90		665		119		17		1,900		4.2		14,100		31.1		2,530
	Total Inferred:		34,000,000		1.71		137		755		170		24		4,600		10.1		26,000		57.3		5,700

Work Component	Recommended Scope	Indicative Budget (US$)
Pampa de Arroqui and Laguna Salada infill pitting/trenching	Approximately 250 new pits/trenches, mainly targeting approximately 200 m coverage with selected approximately 100 m infill	$	400,000
Buried Lake infill drilling	Approximately 1,500 m sonic/vibrosonic drilling, approximately 100 to 150 holes, including drilling-method verification and downhole logging	$	500,000
Assaying, QA/QC, confirmatory sampling and density	U₃O₈ and V₂O₅ assays, standards, blanks, duplicates, check assays, paired samples and targeted density measurements	$	175,000
Geological modelling and Mineral Resource update	Database integration, geological interpretation, radiometric calibration, model update and updated MRE	$	175,000
Metallurgical variability and vanadium recovery	Representative sampling and bench-scale beneficiation/leach testing	$	200,000
Permitting, environmental, hydrogeological and geotechnical support	Required supporting field and baseline activities	$	150,000
Field supervision, equipment and logistics	Field personnel, vehicles, equipment, mobilisation and general Project support	$	150,000
Sub-total:		$	1,750,000
Contingency (10%):		$	175,000
Total (US$):		$	1,925,000

Program	Timing	Indicative Budget (US$)
Immediate Priority Work Program, including targeted infill sampling and drilling	Immediate	$	1,925,000
Further Mineral Resource conversion and near-resource expansion	Conditional follow-on	$	650,000
La Susana, La Rosada and regional exploration	Conditional follow-on	$	300,000
Advanced metallurgical testing, pilot work and bulk sampling/trial mining	Conditional follow-on	$	450,000
Subsequent Mineral Resource, RPEEE and economic evaluation	Conditional follow-on	$	200,000
Conditional Follow-On Work Sub-total:		$	1,600,000
Contingency on Conditional Follow-On Work (10%):		$	160,000
Conditional Follow-On Work Total:		$	1,760,000
Total Recommended 2-Stage Program (US$):		$	3,685,000

Waypoint	*UTMX (mE)	*UTMY (mN)	Elev (mASL)	Description
1	637440	5156898	173	turn off to R48, west of Las Plumas
2	644818	5110006	238	north Property boundary
Stop #1	652336	5086666	339	on Property
Stop #2	650807	5088888	337	area of historical sampling
Stop #3	650656	5088785	340	numerous areas of exposed grey “soil”
Stop #4	650321	5089070	342	historical sampling area TRRR_1031
Stop #5	651088	5088243	345	historical sampling area TRRR_1029
3	651190	5088381	345	old access trail heading west
4	657832	5081975	345	southeast Property boundary
5	671620	5056318	379	intersection of R48 and R29

Units of Measure/Abbreviations/Initialisms
above mean sea level	AMSL	AA	Atomic Absorption
billion years ago	Ga	CRM	Certified Reference Material
centimetre	cm	DDH	Diamond Drill Hole
degrees Celsius	°C	EM	Electromagnetic
dollar (Canadian)	C$	EOH	End of Hole
foot	ft	EPSG	European Petroleum Survey Group
gram	g	FA	Fire Assay
grams per tonne	g/t	ICP	Inductively Coupled Plasma
greater than	>	Int.	Interval
hectares	ha	Lat.	Latitude
hour	hr	Long.	Longitude
inch	in	LDL	Lower Detection Limit
kilo (thousand)	K	LLD	Lower Limit of Detection
kilogram	kg	MAG	Magnetic Survey or Magnetometer
kilometre	km	NAD 83	North American Datum 83
less than	<	NAD 27	North American Datum 27
litre	L	NI 43-101	National Instrument 43-101
metre	m	NSR	Net Smelter Return Royalty
millimetre	mm	P.Geo.	Professional Geoscientist or Professional Geologist
million	M	PSAD56	Provisional South American Datum de 1956
million years ago	Ma	QA/QC	Quality Assurance / Quality Control
nanotesla	nT	QP	Qualified Person
not analyzed	na	qtz	Quartz
ounce	oz	RC	Reverse Circulation
parts per million	ppm	SEM	Scanning Electron Microscope
parts per billion	ppb	SG	Specific Gravity
pound(s)	lb	SI	International System of Units
specific gravity	SG	UTM	Universal Transverse Mercator
square kilometre	km2	WGS 84	World Geodetic System 1984
tonne (1,000 kg) (metric tonne)	t	m2	square metre
Minerals*
carnotite	Cnt	Qz	quartz
coffinite	Cof	Urn	uraninite (pitchblende)
pyrite	Py	Ura	uranophane
Elements
iron	Fe	U	uranium
molybdenum	Mo	V	vanadium
silica	Si

Metric Unit		Imperial Measure
1 hectare		2.47 acres
1 metre		3.28 feet
1 kilometre		0.62 miles
1 gram		0.032 ounces (troy)
1 tonne		1.102 tons (short)
1 gram/tonne		0.029 ounces (troy)/ton (short)
1 tonne		2,204.62 pounds
Imperial Unit		Metric Measure
1 acre		0.4047 hectares
1 foot		0.3048 metres
1 mile		1.609 kilometres
1 ounce (troy)		31.1 grams
1 ton (short)		0.907 tonnes
1 ounce (troy)/ton (short)		34.28 grams/tonne
1 pound		0.00045 tonnes

No.	Concession Name	Concession	Year	Area (ha)	Type of Right	Cadastral Registry (dd-mm-yy)	Concession Grant	MD Requested Within Cateo
1	GAP 1	16362	2013	10,000.01	Cateo	14-05-13	No - in process	-
2	GAP 2	16363	2013	9,994.93	Cateo	14-05-13	No - in process	-
3	GAP 3	16955	2022	9,994.11	Cateo	02-05-22	No - in process	-
4	GAP 4	16956	2022	9,951.69	Cateo	02-05-22	No - in process	-
5	GAP 5	16957	2022	9,877.20	Cateo	02-05-22	No - in process	-
6	HOPE 1	15280	2007	6,000.00	Cateo	07-09-07	Yes	Yes
7	HOPE 2	15281	2007	5,989.57	Cateo	07-09-07	Yes	Yes
8	HOPE 3	15282	2007	2,400.15	Cateo	07-09-07	Yes	Yes
9	HOPE 4	15283	2007	9,372.40	Cateo	29-11-22	No - in process	Yes
10	HORQUETA 1	16119	2011	10,000.00	Cateo	21-12-11	No - in process	-
11	HORQUETA 2	16120	2011	10,000.00	Cateo	21-12-11	No - in process	-
12	HORQUETA 3	16150	2012	10,000.00	Cateo	29-02-12	No - in process	-
13	HORQUETA 4	16151	2012	10,000.00	Cateo	29-02-12	No - in process	-
14	HORQUETA 5	16152	2012	9,899.01	Cateo	29-02-12	No - in process	-
15	LAGO SECO	15222	2007	3,442.52	Cateo	30-05-07	No - in process	-
16	LAGO SECO 2	15229	2007	9,998.06	Cateo	-	Yes	-
17	LAGO SECO OESTE	15576	2009	9,991.11	Cateo	-	No - in process	Yes
18	LAGO SECO SUR	15623	2009	5,165.67	Cateo	08-06-09	Yes	-
19	LA ROSADA	16160	2012	9,997.93	Cateo	05-03-12	No - in process	-
20	NORTE	15800	2010	9,891.62	Cateo	24-09-10	No - in process	-
	Sub-total (Cateo):			171,965.98
1	GUANACO I	15496	2008	4,009.41	MD	23-09-08	No	-
2	GUANACO II	15497	2008	6,959.16	MD	23-09-08	Yes	-
3	GUANACO III	15498	2008	5,559.63	MD	23-09-08	Yes	-
4	GUANACO IV	15657	2009	3,194.56	MD	26-10-09	Yes	Yes
5	GUANACO V	15873	2010	3,967.14	MD	07-01-11	No	Yes
6	GUANACO VI	15874	2010	3,949.56	MD	07-01-11	Yes	Yes
7	GUANACO VII	15875	2010	3,679.01	MD	01-12-10	Yes	Yes
8	SUSANA	16553	2015	7,000.00	MD	20-04-15	No	-
	Sub-total (MD):			38,318.47
			Total:	210,284.45

Property	Canon / Mining Fee (ARS$)		Canon / Mining Fee (US$)
Guanaco II		6,209,031.50	$	4,139.35
Guanaco III		6,209,031.50	$	4,139.35
Guanaco IV		5,676,828.80	$	3,784.55
Guanaco VI		6,209,031.50	$	4,139.35
Guanaco VII		6,209,031.50	$	4,139.35
Subtotal:		30,512,954.80	$	20,341.97
Administrative claims estimated		2,163,600.00	$	1,442.40
		Total (US$):	$	21,784.37

ID	Property / Land	Land Owner	Within / Intersecting Concessions
L-01	CERRO BELLIDO	ISABEL IBAÑEZ	HORQUETA 2
L-02	CERRO HOSPITAL	SUC. JUAN M LIÑEIRO	HORQUETA 4, HORQUETA 5
L-03	DON ARSENIO	MARTA GUTIERREZ	HORQUETA 3, HORQUETA 4
L-04	DON JOSE	TELMA ALEJANDRA SARBON	HORQUETA 2, HORQUETA 4, HORQUETA 5
L-05	DON LEONARDO	UNKNOWN	LAGO SECO SUR
L-06	DON PLACIDO	JUAN C ALBERTELLA	GAP 1, GAP 2, HORQUETA 1, HORQUETA 2
L-07	DON VICENTE	UNKNOWN	GAP 2, GAP 3, HOPE 2
L-08	EL HORNITO	BADILLO Y MEDALLO	GUANACO I, GUANACO II, GUANACO V, NORTE
L-09	EL TRAHUIL	ALBERTELLA	HORQUETA 5, LA ROSADA
L-10	EMBALSE FLORENTINO AMEGHINO	PROVINCIAL STATE	HORQUETA 3, HORQUETA 4, HORQUETA 5, LA ROSADA
L-11	LA AURORA	UNKNOWN	HOPE 4, L. SECO SUR
L-12	LA CAÑA	UNKNOWN	GUANACO VII, HOPE 3, L. SECO SUR, LAGO SECO 2
L-13	LA CHIQUITA	UNKNOWN	GAP 5, SUSANA
L-14	LA ESTRELLITA	UNKNOWN	GAP 5
L-15	LA FORTUNA	UNKNOWN	GAP 1, GAP 2, GAP 3
L-16	LA HERMINIA	UNKNOWN	GAP 3, GAP 4, HOPE 3
L-17	LA MADRESELVA	MARTIN ENDARA	GUANACO II, GUANACO VI, HOPE 1, HOPE 2, NORTE
L-18	LA MIMOSA	SUC. ATILIO CABARCO	GAP 1, HORQUETA 2, HORQUETA 3, HORQUETA 4
L-19	LA PALMERA	UNKNOWN	LAGO SECO SUR
L-20	LA POSADA	GARCIA	HORQUETA 5
L-21	LA ROSADA	GARCIA	LA ROSADA
L-22	LA SALADA	HECTOR CASTILLO	HORQUETA 1, NORTE
L-23	LA SUSANA	JUAN C ALBERTELLA	GAP 4, GAP 5, GUANACO II, GUANACO III, GUANACO IV, GUANACO VI, HOPE 2, HOPE 3, HOPE 4, LAGO SECO 2, SUSANA
L-24	LAS HORQUETAS	HECTOR RODRIGUEZ	GAP 1, GAP 2, GAP 3, HOPE 2, HORQUETA 1, HORQUETA 2, HORQUETA 3
L-25	LAS SUSANAS	JUAN C ALBERTELLA	GUANACO VII, HOPE 1, HOPE 2, HOPE 3, LAGO SECO, LAGO SECO 2
L-26	LOS ALAMOS	UNKNOWN	GAP 3, HOPE 2
L-27	LOS AMIGOS	UNKNOWN	HORQUETA 5, LA ROSADA
L-28	LOS OLMOS	UNKNOWN	NORTE
L-29	PIEDRA BLANCA	UNKNOWN	GAP 1, GAP 3
L-30	SANTA SILVIA	NUEVA GALSE DEL SUR	NORTE
L-31	UNKNOWN	PROVINCIAL STATE	GUANACO II, GUANACO III, GUANACO VII, L. SECO OESTE, LAGO SECO

Concession Name	Concession No.	Year	Approval (dd-mm-yy)	Expiry (dd-mm-yy)
HORQUETA I	16.119/11	2026	22-09-26	22-09-28
HORQUETA II	16.120/11	2026	22-09-26	22-09-28
HORQUETA III	16.150/12	2026	22-09-26	22-09-28
HORQUETA IV	16.151/12	2026	22-09-26	22-09-28
HORQUETA V	16.152/12	2026	22-09-26	22-09-28
LA ROSADA	16.160/12	2026	22-09-26	22-09-28
GUANACO I	15496/08	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28
GUANACO II	15497/08	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28
GUANACO III	15498/08	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28
GUANACO IV	15675/09	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28
GUANACO V	15873/10	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28
GUANACO VI	15874/10	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28
GUANACO VII	15875/10	2026	26-02-26	26-02-28

Route	Road class	Distance	Time
Trelew to Las Plumas	Ruta 25 Highway	185 km	2.5 hours
Las Plumas to Laguna Salada	Provincial Route 48, all-weather gravel road	60 km	2 hours

Year / Period	Company / Organization	Work Completed / Milestone	Main Results
1978	CNEA	Regional airborne radiometric survey over approximately 100,000 km² in Chubut and Santa Cruz provinces	Radiometric anomalies identified over Lago Seco and Madreselva, now Guanaco
Early 1980s	CNEA	Follow-up ground radiometric surveys and trenching	Caliche-style uranium mineralization recognized; mineralized layer reported as 0.5 m to 2 m thick with grades up to 1,000 ppm U₃O₈
Early 1980s	CNEA	Exploration ceased	Exploration concessions lapsed
2007	Mega Uranium	Applied for two exploration licenses and commenced fieldwork in May 2007	Ground follow-up of CNEA anomalies and evaluation of shallow uranium mineralization
2007 to 2009	Mega Uranium	Additional concession applications	Laguna Salada land position expanded
2008	Mega Uranium	57 RC holes drilled for 1,561 m	15 deeper holes tested stratigraphic targets beneath gravel; 42 shallow holes tested caliche-style mineralization
2007 to 2010	Mega Uranium	Ground radiometry, mapping, pitting, trenching and sampling at Guanaco, Lago Seco and Buried Lake	Near-surface uranium-vanadium mineralization defined in shallow unconsolidated gravels and at the gravel-substrate unconformity
2010	U3O8 Corp.	Acquisition of Mega Uranium subsidiaries	Project ownership transferred into the U3O8 Corp. group and land position continued to expand
2010 to 2015	U3O8 Corp.	Additional mining concessions, infill trenching, sampling, metallurgical test work and project studies	Further expansion and evaluation of Laguna Salada targets
2011	U3O8 Corp. / Coffey Mining	Initial mineral resource estimate for Guanaco and Lago Seco	Mineral resource estimate completed for the principal Laguna Salada resource areas

2014	U3O8 Corp. / Tenova	Preliminary Economic Assessment	Preliminary project development and economic assessment completed
2016	U3O8 Corp.	End of main Mega Uranium / U3O8 Corp. exploration period	Historical exploration record established for Guanaco, Lago Seco, Buried Lake, La Susana, La Rosada and regional targets
2021	IsoEnergy Ltd.	Acquisition of Laguna Salada Project	Project acquired by IsoEnergy Ltd.
2022	IsoEnergy Ltd.	Mapping, shallow pitting, scintillometer surveying and geochemical sampling focused on northern La Rosada	Uranium-vanadium mineralization evaluated in unconsolidated sediments and basement volcanic rocks at Delfin and Pescado

Sample Number	Width (m)	Uranium U₃O₈ (ppm)	Vanadium V₂O₅ (ppm)
8720	1.0	296	369
8721	0.8	13	156
8722	0.5	10	146
8789	0.7	213	360
20467	0.3	18	123

Sample Number	From (m)	To (m)	Width (m)	Uranium U₃O₈ (ppm)	Vanadium V₂O₅ (ppm)
21129	0.0	0.7	0.7	1,253	623
21274	0.3	0.8	0.5	184	532
21277	0.5	1.1	0.6	766	386
21278	0.5	1.0	0.5	1,289	552
21279	0.3	1.2	0.9	2,483	860
21280	0.6	1.0	0.4	11,780	5,168
21281	0.3	0.6	0.3	122	177
21283	0.0	0.5	0.5	1,222	482
21284	0.4	1.2	0.8	485	245
21285	0.3	0.9	0.6	1,174	421
21286	0.4	1.2	0.8	259	171
21287	0.2	1.0	0.8	426	223
21288	0.2	1.7	1.5	2,455	793
21291	0.2	1.3	1.1	101	293
Weighted Average:			0.7	1,500	780

Sample Number	Sample Length (m)	Uranium U₃O₈ (ppm)	Vanadium V₂O₅ (ppm)
8769	0.3	598	277
21135	0.7	133	102
8778	0.2	173	96
8787	0.3	157	162
21131	0.6	913	377
21134	0.9	861	439
21138	0.2	1,562	734
8772	0.1	7,933	2,644
8780	0.4	1,730	623
21127	0.6	97	289
21139	0.4	199	278
21272	0.3	48	364
21275	0.4	195	262
21290	0.6	99	253
23012	0.6	200	444
23014	0.7	116	218
23029	0.6	129	337
23035	0.6	217	191