EU · Read the filing

encr-20241231

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

Commission File Number: 001-41489

ENCORE ENERGY CORP.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

British Columbia, Canada Not Applicable

101N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 450, Corpus Christi, TX78401

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

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

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 LLCTSX Venture Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act Yes oNox

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes oNox

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesx No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yesx No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large, accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large, accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o

Smaller reporting company o Emerging growth company o

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. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes☐ No ☒

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $726.8 million.

As of February 25, 2025, there were 186,261,281 shares of the registrant’s no par value common shares, the registrant’s only outstanding class of voting securities, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain information required for Part III of this Annual report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference to the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the 2025 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Items 1. Business and Properties 1

Item 1A. Risk Factors 68

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 90

Item 1C. Cybersecurity 90

Item 2. Properties 90

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 91

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 91

PART II

Item 6. [Reserved]

Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk 116

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 1

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 44

Item 9B. Other Information 46

Item 9C Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 47

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 48

Item 11. Executive Compensation 48

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 48

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 49

Signatures

Table of Contents

`When we use the terms “enCore Energy Corp.,” “we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company,” we are referring to enCore Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. We have included technical terms important to an understanding of our business under “Glossary of Common Terms” at the end of this section. Throughout this document we make statements that are classified as “forward-looking.” Please refer to the “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” section of this document for an explanation of these types of assertions.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) and information incorporated by reference herein, contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and applicable Canadian securities legislation that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements and information can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “plans,” “maintains,” “projects,” and similar terminology or variations (including negative variations) of such words and phrases or statements. Forward-looking statements and information are not historical facts, are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and include, but are not limited to, statements regarding discussions of results from operations (including, without limitation, statements about the Company’s opportunities, strategies, competition, expected activities and expenditures, including its sales strategy providing a base level of projected income, as the Company pursues its business plan, the adequacy of the Company’s available cash resources and other statements about future events or results), performance (both operational and financial), including operational expansion, the Company’s belief it is positioned to meet the increased demand for clean, reliable nuclear energy, the Company’s belief it can double its uranium extraction in 2025 from its extract results in 2024, the expected gross revenue sensitivity on contracted sales and the Company’s 2025 strategic priorities) and business prospects, future business plans and opportunities and statements as to management’s expectations with respect to, among other things, the activities contemplated in this Annual Report.

Forward-looking statements and information may include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to:

● the Company’s future financial and operational performance;

● the anticipated amount and timing of work programs;

● our expectations with respect to future exchange rates;

● the use of available funds;

● expectations regarding holding physical uranium for long-term investment;

● future royalty and tax payments and rates;

● the completion of reclamation activities at former mine or extraction sites.

Such forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s current views with respect to future events, based on information currently available to the Company and are subject to and involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements and information. The forward-looking statements and information in this Annual Report are based on material assumptions, including the following:

Table of Contents

● assumptions regarding the timing and use of our cash resources;

● our operations and key suppliers are essential services;

● our mineral resource estimates, and the assumptions upon which they are based;

Some of the risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results expressed in or implied by the forward-looking statements and information in this Annual Report include, among others, the following:

Table of Contents

● ability to obtain additional financing on acceptable terms when needed;

● risks associated with our expansion-by-acquisition strategy;

● reliance on key personnel, contractors and experts;

● conflicts of interest of our directors and officers;

● risks inherent to mineral exploration and extraction;

● the subjectiveness and uncertainty of estimations of mineral resources;

● future mineral extraction estimates may not be achieved;

● requirements to obtain or retain key permits to advance or achieve extraction;

● involvement of Native American tribes in the permitting process;

● challenges to title of our mineral property interests;

● existing competition and geopolitical changes in the competitive landscape;

● public opinion and perception of nuclear energy;

● volatility in market prices of uranium;

● our ability to raise equity or obtain debt financing;

● accuracy of extraction, capital and operating cost estimates;

● ability of novel mining methods for extraction to yield anticipated results;

● the need for technical innovation and risk of obsolescence;

● risks related to our Alta Mesa joint venture;

● price volatility of our common shares;

● our expectation to not declare or pay dividends;

● reliance on information technology systems, and cybersecurity risks;

● our management’s ability to maintain effective internal controls;

● changes in climate conditions; and

● other risks included under the heading “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report.

Table of Contents

While forward-looking statements and information reflect our good faith beliefs, they are not guarantees of future performance. Any forward-looking statements and information are based on estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this Annual Report, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement or information to reflect information, events, results, circumstances or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by applicable laws. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all of such factors and to assess in advance the impact of each such factors on the Company’s business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements or information.

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. RESIDENTS CONCERNING DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Effective as of January 1, 2025, the Company no longer qualifies as a foreign private issuer as defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Rule 3b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and therefore has become a domestic issuer required to file this Annual Report pursuant to Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and to report its financial results under United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”).

All mineral estimates constituting mining operations that are material to our business or financial condition included in this Annual Report, and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, have been prepared in accordance with subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (collectively, “S-K 1300”) and are supported by initial assessments prepared in accordance with the requirements of S-K 1300. S-K 1300 provides for the disclosure of: (i) “Inferred Mineral Resources,” which investors should understand have the lowest level of geological confidence of all Mineral Resources and thus may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a Mineral Reserve (as defined below); (ii) “Indicated Mineral Resources,” which investors should understand have a lower level of confidence than that of a “Measured Mineral Resource” and thus may be converted only to a “Probable Mineral Reserve,” and (iii) Measured Mineral Resources, which investors should understand have sufficient geological certainty to be converted to a “Proven Mineral Reserve” or to a “Probable Mineral Reserve.” Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured Mineral Resources or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reservesas defined by S-K 1300. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource exists or is economically or legally mineable, or that an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category.

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

For ease of reference, the following factors for converting metric measurements into imperial equivalents are as follows:

Metric Units Multiply By Imperial Units

Hectares 2.471 = acres

Grams 0.032 = ounces (troy)

grams/tonne 0.029 = ounces (troy)/ton

Abbreviations

In this Annual Report, the abbreviations set forth below have the following meanings:

$ U.S. Dollar km2 square kilometer

° degrees kv kilovolt

% percent m meter

C$ Canadian Dollar m2 square meter

ft feet lb pound

g/t metric gram per metric tonne U3O8 tri-Uranium octo-oxide

kg kilogram ppm parts per million

kg/t kilograms per tonne U Uranium

kl/t kiloliters per tonne ac acres

In this Annual Report, the following terms have the meanings set forth herein:

“Alta Mesa” or “Alta Mesa Project”means the Alta Mesa Uranium Central Processing Plant and Wellfield located in Brooks County, Texas, USA.

“Alta Mesa Technical Report(s)” means the S-K 1300 technical report summary entitled “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” and “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, National Instrument 43-101, Technical Report” dated February 19, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024 prepared by Stuart Bryan Soliz, PG of SOLA Project Services, LLC.

“BLM” means the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

“Boss” means Boss Energy, Ltd. the partner with the Company in JV Alta Mesa LLC, that is 70% owned by the Company and 30% owned by Boss. The Company is the Manager of JV Alta Mesa LLC. Boss is a public company traded on the ASX in Australia.

“Central Processing Plant” or “CPP” means the central operational facilities Uranium processing occurs following Uranium extraction from the ore body using ISR.

“Dewey Burdock” or “Dewey Burdock Project” means the Dewey Burdock Uranium Project located in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, USA.

“Dewey Burdock Technical Report(s)” means the S-K 1300 technical report entitled “Dewey Burdock Project, South Dakota, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” and “Dewey Burdock Project South Dakota, USA, National Instrument 43-101, Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report” dated January 6, 2025, and effective as of October 8, 2024 prepared by Stuart Bryan Soliz, PG of SOLA Project Services, LLC.

“EPA” means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Table of Contents

“Exploration Stage Issuer” is an issuer that has no material property with Mineral Reserves disclosed.

“Exploration Stage Property” is a property that has no Mineral Reserves disclosed.

“Gas Hills” or “Gas Hills Project”means the Gas Hills Uranium Project, located in Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA.

“Gas Hills Technical Report” means the S-K 1300 technical report entitled “Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment Gas Hills Uranium Project. Fremont and Natrona Counties,” dated February 4, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024, prepared by Chris McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores, P.E. of Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering.

“GT” means grade-thickness, a measure referring to the concentration of a mineral in Ore and the width of the Ore body.

“Inferred Mineral Resource” is a component ofMineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling; where the term limited geological evidence means evidence that is only sufficient to establish that geological and grade or quality continuity is more likely than not. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an Inferred Mineral Resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an Inferred Mineral Resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all Mineral Resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an Inferred Mineral Resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a Mineral Reserve.

“Indicated Mineral Resource”is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an Indicated Mineral Resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a Measured Mineral Resource, an Indicated Mineral Resource may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

“Initial Assessment” is a preliminary technical and economic study of the economic potential of all or parts of mineralization to support the disclosure of Mineral Resources. The Initial Assessment must be prepared by a qualified person and must include appropriate assessments of reasonably assumed technical and economic factors, together with any other relevant operational factors, that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. An Initial Assessment is required for disclosure of Mineral Resources but cannot be used as the basis for disclosure of Mineral Reserves.

“Ion-exchange” or “IX” means a reversible chemical reaction that swaps ions between a solid and a solution. In the case of the Company’s operation, the ion exchange occurs in a bed of strong base anionic polystyrene resin beads contained in a vessel or column.

“ISR” means In Situ Recovery (literally, ‘in place’ recovery) describes rocks or formations that have not been moved from their original position (also known as in situ leach or ISL).

“Measured Mineral Resource”is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a Measured Mineral Resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource, a Measured Mineral Resource may be converted to a Proven Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

“Mesteña Grande” or “Mesteña Grande Project”means the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project located in Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA.

Table of Contents

“Mesteña Grande Technical Report(s)” means the S-K 1300 technical report summary entitled “Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary, Initial Assessment” and “Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA, National Instrument 43-101, Preliminary Economic Assessment,” dated February 19, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024 prepared by Stuart Bryan Soliz, PG of SOLA Project Services.

“Mineral Reserve” is an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.

“Mineral Resource” is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A Mineral Resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, taking into account relevant factors such as cut-off grade, likely mining dimensions, location or continuity, that, with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization drilled or sampled.

“Mineralization” means, in exploration, a reference to a notable concentration of metals and their associated mineral compounds, or a specific mineral, within a body of rock.

“Modifying Factors” are the factors that a qualified person must apply to Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources and then evaluate in order to establish the economic viability of Mineral Reserves. A qualified person must apply and evaluate modifying factors to convert Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources to Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves. These factors include but are not restricted to: mining; processing; metallurgical; infrastructure; economic; marketing; legal; environmental compliance; plans, negotiations, or agreements with local individuals or groups; and governmental factors. The number, type and specific characteristics of the modifying factors applied will necessarily be a function of and depend upon the mineral, mine, property, or project.

“NRC” means US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“Ore” means a natural aggregate of one or more minerals which may be mined and sold at a profit, or from which some part may be profitably separated. A company may only refer to Mineral Reserves (as that term is defined in S-K 1300) as “ore.”

“Probable Mineral Reserve” is the economically mineable part of an Indicated Mineral Resource, and in some circumstances, a Measured Mineral Resource. The confidence in the Modifying Factors applying to a Probable Mineral Reserve is lower than that applying to a Proven Mineral Reserve.

“Proven Mineral Reserve” is the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource. A Proven Mineral Reserve implies a high degree of confidence in the Modifying Factors.

“PFN” is a modern geologic wireline logging method known as Prompt Fission Neutron. PFN is considered a direct measurement of true uranium concentration (% U) and is used to verify the in-situ grades of mineral intercepts previously reported by gamma logging. PFN logging is accomplished by a down-hole probe in much the same manner as standard gamma logs, only, in the case of PFN logging, only the mineralized interval is logged.

“Qualified Person” or “QP”means an individual who:

a.is an engineer or geoscientist with a university degree, or equivalent accreditation, in an area of geoscience, or engineering, relating to mineral exploration or mining;

b.has at least five years of experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral project assessment, or any combination of these, that is relevant to his or her professional degree or area of practice;

c.has experience relevant to the subject matter of the mineral project and the technical report;

d.is in good standing with a professional association;

e.in the case of a professional association in a foreign jurisdiction, has a membership designation that requires attainment of a position of responsibility in their profession that requires the exercise of independent judgment; and requires:

•favorable confidential peer evaluation of the individual’s character, professional judgement, experience, and ethical fitness; or

Table of Contents

•a recommendation for membership by at least two peers and demonstrated prominence or expertise in the field of mineral exploration or mining.

“RML” means Radioactive Material License and is a legal authorization issued by a government regulatory agency that allows an individual, business, or institution to possess, use, store, or dispose of radioactive materials.

“Rosita” or “Rosita Project” means the Rosita Uranium Project located in Duval County, Texas, USA.

“SEDAR” means SEDAR+, the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval.

“South Texas Integrated ISR Project” or “STX Integrated” is comprised of the Rosita CPP located in Duval County, Texas on a 200-acre tract of land owned by the Company, and multiple associated Satellite IX facilities at various project sites across South Texas and associated wellfields.

“South Texas Uranium Project Technical Report” means the S-K 1300 technical report entitled “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA,” dated February 15, 2025, and effective December 31, 2024, prepared by Chris McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores, P.E. of Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering.

“TCEQ” means the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

“TRC” means the Texas Railroad Commission.

“Uranium” meansnaturally radioactive, heavy, metallic element of atomic number 92. Uranium in its pure form is a heavy metal. Its two principal isotopes are U-238 and U-235, of which U-235 is the necessary component for the nuclear fuel cycle. However, “uranium” used in this annual report refers to triuranium octoxide, also called “U3O8,” and is produced from uranium deposits. It is the most actively traded uranium-related commodity. Our operations extract and ship “yellowcake” which typically contains 70% to 90% U3O8 by weight.

“USGS” means United States Geological Survey.

“U3O8”a standard chemical formula commonly used to express the natural form of uranium mineralization. U represents uranium and O represents oxygen. U3O8 is contained in “yellowcake” or “uranium concentrate” accounting for 70% to 90% by weight.

“WDEQ” means Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Table of Contents

Part I

Item 1. Business and Properties

Our Company

enCore Energy Corp., America’s Clean Energy CompanyTM, was incorporated on October 30, 2009, under the Laws of British Columbia and is a reporting issuer in all of the provinces and territories of Canada. As of January 1, 2025, the Company ceased to be a “foreign private issuer” and has become a “domestic issuer” and a large accelerated filer within the meanings under the Exchange Act. As a result, the Company must comply with the filing deadlines and disclosure obligations of a domestic issuer and large accelerated fileras set forth in the Exchange Act. This classification impacts the timing of our periodic filings, internal control assessments, and other regulatory requirements. The Company’s common shares are listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market and the TSX Venture Exchange (“TSX-V”) under the trading symbol EU.

As of December 31, 2024, the Company is an “Exploration Stage Issuer” as defined by S-K 1300, and as required by the SEC to be defined as a Development Stage Issuer as it has not established proven or probable Mineral Reserves, through the completion of a pre-feasibility or feasibility study for any of our uranium projects. Even though we commenced extraction of uranium at our Rosita Uranium Project and our Alta Mesa Uranium Project, the Company remains classified as an Exploration Stage Issuer and will continue to remain an Exploration Stage Issuer until such time as Proven or Probable Mineral Reserves have been established at one of our uranium projects.

The Company is focused on extracting domestic uranium within the United States.The Company only utilizes the proven ISR technology to provide necessary fuel for the generation of clean, reliable, and carbon-free nuclear energy. In 2024, the Company commenced uranium extraction at the Rosita CPP in South Texas, becoming one of only three uranium extraction operations in the United States and the first in Texas in 10 years. In June 2024, the Company commenced uranium extraction at the Alta Mesa CPP in South Texas. enCore’s strategy is to build uranium extraction capacity by developing and placing into operation a series of uranium extraction facilities in South Texas, followed by a future pipeline of exploration projects in South Dakota and Wyoming, becoming a leading supplier of domestic uranium to fuel a growing demand for clean energy generation using nuclear power.

In 2024, the Company set forth to execute five main objectives. The Company believes the execution of these objectives has and will continue to position enCore to quickly respond to the ever-changing global factors, achieve strategic expansions, and build on its adaptability while strengthening the Company’s financial health. These objectives are as follow:

Commenced and Expanded Uranium Extraction at the Alta Mesa Project

Utilizing extraction-ready CPP in South Texas, the Company has implemented a strategy that it anticipates will continue to build value and phased growth. In the second quarter of 2024, the Company commenced uranium extraction operations at its Alta Mesa CPP, and as a result, became one of only a handful of companies in the world with more than one operational uranium extraction operation. In 2025, through the expansion of CPP and wellfield capacity, the Company believes it can double the uranium extraction over the 2024 extraction results. The Company is focused on a long-term strategy of being a supplier of choice for a nuclear industry that is experiencing sustainable growth for the first time in over 45 years.

Streamlined Operations and Rationalized Asset Base

Successful execution is critical, especially in an industry where talent and timing are essential to our success. Adapting swiftly to favorable market conditions is a priority for us. In December 2023, we announced the sale of 30% of the Alta Mesa Project to Boss in the form of a Joint Venture for $60 million. Additionally, Boss invested directly in the Company an additional $10 million. The Company intends to continue to rationalize its asset base through the execution of our non-core asset divestment strategy strengthening our financial position and increasing financial resources in a non-dilutive way. We have demonstrated the ability to derive substantial value for our shareholders from our non-core assets by using different approaches to divestment. The Company currently holds several non-core conventional projects available for acquisition.Lastly, the Company continues to optimize operations to improve extraction results and manage costs effectively.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Table of Contents

Since December 2020, we have demonstrated, through four significant transactions, our intent is to drive growth and provide value for our shareholders through select, accretive merger and acquisition (M&A) activity that complement its own organic growth.

Contract and Sales Strategy Formalization

The Company will continue to leverage its strong baseload contracting strategy and industry reputation as a reliable multi-facility domestic supplier to ensure that our operating assets are able to create revenue regardless of market conditions. As the Company increases uranium extraction from its South Texas facilities, we expect to grow our contract portfolio through the addition of new contracts. The Company will continue to focus on adding new multi-year, hybrid, market-based contracts to maximize profits while protecting against price declines. The Company believes this strategy should provide robust returns on uranium extraction while ensuring a base level of income to support continued operations during market declines over the next decade.

Established Fiscally Responsible Management and Strong Governance for the Benefit of Shareholders

On October 24, 2024, the Company announced that it completed its inaugural greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and sustainability report to meet the needs of institutional clients and utility customers (the “Sustainability Report”). The Company will continue to strengthen and grow its management and operations teams by offering competitive employment opportunities and benefits package. The Company has established continuous improvement systems in its organization to ensure proper governance of the company, its operations, and its employees. Finally, the Company works to ensure its costs are as low as practicable while maintaining its ability to leverage its assets to provide value to shareholders. The Company assesses supply chain risks to ensure its ability to obtain critical components necessary to sustain its strategy.

About In-Situ Recovery (ISR), Technology

ISR is a minimally invasive, environmentally friendly, and economically competitive way of extracting minerals from the ground. It has proven to be a successful method of extracting uranium, and due to its cost efficiency, is economically viable to extract lower grade uranium deposits that might not justify the cost of conventional open pit or underground mining. In addition to significantly lower capital and operating costs, ISR operates without the open pits, waste dumps, or tailings associated with conventional mining and milling. These factors result in uranium extraction that is more environmentally responsible in a faster, more cost-efficient permitting, development and remediation process. ISR extracts uranium from the ground with minimal surface impact. When reclamation is completed, the surface is returned to its original state and use.

ISR is highly regulated in the United States. While some ISR operations in other jurisdictions use harsh chemicals such as sulfuric acid to remove uranium from the ore body, enCore only uses a lixiviant comprised of just oxygen and sodium bicarbonate (common baking soda) in the native groundwater to extract uranium at a near neutral pH with significantly less environmental impacts.

ISR usually takes place in sandstone deposits within a portion of the aquifer that the government has already exempted from protection as an underground source of drinking water due to its mineral content such as uranium, radium, and other minerals. An ISR wellfield is developed using a series of production patterns comprised of a series of injection and recovery wells. Injection wells introduce the lixiviant described above to the uranium bearing sandstone. As the lixiviant is injected through the uranium-bearing sandstone, the uranium is solubilized by the oxygen in the lixiviant, and the uranium-bearing lixiviant is carried through the sandstone to the recovery well. Recovery wells, equipped with submersible pumps, recover the uranium-bearing lixiviant out of the sandstone and lift it to the surface. The uranium-bearing lixiviant is then pumped into a surface collection system to be transferred to the ion exchange (IX) system. Surrounding the production patterns is a network of monitor wells used to observe groundwater chemistry and hydrology to assure there are no impacts to adjacent underground sources of drinking water. The combination of the production patterns and the monitor well network constitute what is called a wellfield.

After the uranium-bearing lixiviant reaches the IX system, it flows through a bed of IX resin where the uranium is removed from the lixiviant and loaded onto IX resin beads. This process is very similar to how a water softener works. The barren lixiviant is returned to the wellfield, where it is refortified with oxygen and sodium bicarbonate and reinjected into the uranium-bearing sandstone. A small portion, approximately 1% of the total volume, of the barren lixiviant is held back from reinjection. This is called a “process bleed,” and it is intended to create a hydraulic sink in the wellfield to contain lixiviant within production patterns.

Table of Contents

When the IX resin loads to capacity with uranium it is regenerated, using a salt solution rich in sodium bicarbonate, in the exact same manner as done for a water softener.This process is called “elution.”Elution produces a uranium-rich eluant that is transferred from the ion exchange system to the precipitation system. Using a series of additions of hydrogen peroxide, acid, and sodium hydroxide, the uranium is precipitated from the eluant and a uranium, “yellowcake,” slurry is created. It is then filtered and washed in a filter press and transferred to the drying system. Drying systems at the Company’s processing facilities use a low-temperature, zero emission, rotary vacuum drying system, the same equipment used for producing pharmaceuticals. Once dried the yellowcake is packaged into 55-gallon drums that are grouped into shipping lots. Each shipping lot is then transported to a North American conversion facility where it is weighed, sampled, and inventoried. This is the point at which the Company sells its product to its customers.

When the uranium orebody within an ISR wellfield is depleted, the Company is required to clean up the groundwater. The process of extracting uranium from the orebodies using our lixiviant does change the groundwater chemistry within the production patterns. After production is complete, the groundwater quality is restored to a quality consistent with the chemistry prior to the start of injection using reverse osmosis technology to clean it. This process does increase the amount of water that is consumed during wellfield operations, but in an average ISR wellfield, approximately 95% of the groundwater is preserved and retained at the end of the full production and restoration cycle. Once the government approves the groundwater restoration work, the injection, recovery and monitor wells are plugged and abandoned and the surface infrastructure is removed. The site is then surveyed for residual contamination that may need to be removed and the wellfield is returned to its prior use.At this point, the land and groundwater are once again suitable for all the same uses as prior to mining efforts.

The use of ISR technology in the US has a documented strong environmental record. Several wellfields have been restored and released, with the former wellfields now indistinguishable from the adjacent unimpacted land. The US government, in several public documents, has concluded that there have been no impacts to underground sources of drinking water by ISR uranium extraction or restoration.

Corporate Information

enCore was incorporated on October 30, 2009, under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “BCBCA”) under the name “Dauntless Capital Corp.” The Company’s name was changed to “Tigris Uranium Corp.” on September 2, 2010, and changed to “Wolfpack Gold Corp.” on May 15, 2013. On August 15, 2014, the Company’s name was changed to “enCore Energy Corp.”

Table of Contents

The following organizational chart illustrates enCore’s principal subsidiaries as at the date of this Annual Report.

Notes:

*POI = Place of incorporation or legal organization

*PPB= Principal place of business

*Green = Expected to be dissolved

*Purple = Joint Venture with Boss

The principal offices of the Company are located at Suite 450, 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. The Company’s registered and records office is located at Suite 1200, 750 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2T8.

Competition

The uranium industry is highly competitive, and our competition includes larger, more established companies with longer operating histories that not only explore for and produce uranium but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Due to their greater financial and technical resources, we may not be able to acquire additional uranium projects in a competitive bidding process involving such companies. Additionally, these larger companies have greater resources to continue with their operations during periods of depressed market conditions.

Geopolitical uncertainty

Geopolitical uncertainty driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led many governments and utility providers to re-examine supply chains and procurement strategies reliant on nuclear fuel supplies coming out of, or through, Russia.

Table of Contents

Sanctions, restrictions, and an inability to obtain insurance on cargo have contributed to transportation and other supply chain disruptions between producers and suppliers. As a result of this and coupled with multiple years of declining uranium production globally, uranium market fundamentals are shifting from an inventory driven market to one more driven by production. The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act (H.R. 1042) which was signed into law in May 2024, prohibits the importation of unirradiated, low-enriched uranium projected in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity, with temporary waivers until January 1, 2028 in certain circumstances, after which the ban will be in effect until December 31, 2040.

Employees and Human Capital

As of December 31, 2024, 131 people were employed on a full-time basis and approximately 65 individuals provided services on a contractual basis, principally through our drilling rig contractors, all of whom were located in the U.S. Our Company is committed to attracting and retaining talented and experienced individuals to manage and support our operations. We engage in a variety of learning and development opportunities with our employees, including ongoing training, continuing education courses, workshops and seminars and membership in professional organizations relating to employees’ areas of expertise. We strive to fill employment openings through internal promotions or transfers of qualified employees, as appropriate.

Available Information

The Company’s website address is www.encoreuranium.com and the Company’s filings with the SEC, including our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports, are available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are filed or furnished electronically with the SEC. Additional information about the Company can be found on our website, however, such information is neither incorporated by reference nor included as part of this or any other report or information filed with or furnished to the SEC.

The SEC maintains an internet site (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Canadian securities authorities also maintain an internet site (www.sedarplus.ca) that contains reports, circulars, annual information statements and other information regarding the Company.

Table of Contents

Our Mineral Properties

enCore controls key mineral properties within the United States, in Texas, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico. enCore owns three of the current 11 licensed and constructed ISR CPPs in the United States[1], with all existing facilities located in the business-friendly, energy-centric state of Texas. Our plants’ operations are designed and permitted to process uranium from a mix of satellite plants and primary sources within south Texas.

Property Location Map

Summary of Properties

South Texas Integrated ISR Project (Rosita CPP)

The South Texas Integrated ISR Project is an Exploration Stage Property which 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 Rosita CPP is a licensed ISR production facility with a capacity of 800,000 pounds of U3O8 per year. The Rosita CPP is located in Duval County about 14 miles southeast of the town of Freer and 60 miles west-northwest of the city of Corpus Christi on a 200-acre tract owned by the Company.

Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Texas

The Alta Mesa Uranium Project is an Exploration Stage Property and is a fully licensed and constructed ISR project and central processing facility, located on over 4,597 acres of private land in the state of Texas. Total operating capacity is 1.5 million lbs U3O8 per year of IX processing capacity, and further, the CPP has 2.0 million lbs per year of IX elution, uranium precipitation, drying and packaging capacity.

Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Texas

The Mesteña Grande Uranium Project is an Exploration Stage Property that is located in Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas and is on land located adjacent to, and to the south, north, and west of the Alta Mesa Uranium Project. The property contains significant inferred mineral resources over approximately 195,717 acres of private land. It covers an approximate area of 35 miles in a north-south direction by 30 miles in an east-west direction.

Table of Contents

Dewey Burdock Project, South Dakota

The Dewey Burdock Project is an Exploration Stage Property located in southwest South Dakota and is part of the northwestern extension of the Edgemont Uranium Mining District. The Dewey Burdock Project includes federal claims, private mineral rights and private surface rights controlling the entire area within the licensed project permit boundary as well as surrounding areas. The Company currently controls approximately 16,962 acres of net mineral rights and 12,613 acres of surface rights.

Gas Hills Project, Wyoming

The Gas Hills Project is an Exploration Stage Property located in Wyoming. The Company owns a 100% interest in the Gas Hills Exploration Project located in the historic Gas Hills Uranium District 45 miles east of Riverton, Wyoming. The Project consists of approximately 1,280 surface acres and 12,960 net mineral acres of unpatented lode 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 production.

Other Non-Material Properties

The Company holds a number of other Exploration Stage Properties that the Company has determined are not material to its business, including the following properties which total in the aggregate approximately 360,000 acres of mineral claims, mineral leases, and fee minerals:

•Nose Rock, New Mexico. The Nose Rock project is located in McKinley County New Mexico on the northern edge of the Grants Uranium District.

•Metamin Properties, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming. Through its subsidiary Metamin Enterprises US Inc. (“MEUS”), the Company holds various prospective uranium mining properties located in the States of Arizona, Utah and Wyoming.

•West Largo, New Mexico. The West Largo project consist of approximately 3,840 acres (i.e. six square miles) in McKinley County, New Mexico.

•Ambrosia Lake-Treeline, New Mexico. The Ambrosia Lake – Treeline Property consists of deeded mineral rights totaling 24,555 acres and a mining lease along with certain unpatented mining claims covering approximately 1,700 acres.

•Checkerboard Mineral Rights, New Mexico. The land position covers approximately 300,000 acres of deeded ‘checkerboard’ mineral rights, also known as the Frisco and Santa Fe railroad grants.

•Kingsville Dome, Texas. The Kingsville Dome property is located in Kleberg County and is situated on several tracts of land leased from third parties. The property is situated approximately eight miles southeast of the city of Kingsville. The project is comprised of numerous mineral leases from private landowners, covering an area of approximately 2,434 gross and 2,227 net acres of mineral rights. The Kingsville Dome CPP is a licensed ISR production facility located on 15 acres of Company-owned property.

•Vasquez Project, Texas. The Vasquez project is located in Duval County. The Vasquez property consists of a mineral lease on 1,023 gross and net acres.

•Dewey Terrace Project, Wyoming. This project consists of approximately 1,874 acres of surface rights and approximately 7,514 acres of net mineral rights. The Dewey Terrace Project is located adjacent to the Dewey Burdock Project.

•Juniper Ridge Project, Wyoming. The Juniper Ridge project in Carbon County consists of approximately 640 surface acres and 3,240 net mineral acres of unpatented lode mining claims and a State of Wyoming mineral lease and is located within a brownfield site which has experienced extensive exploration, development, and mine production.

•Centennial Project, Colorado. The Centennial Project in Weld County is comprised of approximately 523.21 acres of surface rights and 237.09 acres of net mineral rights. Approximately 5,760 acres of minerals rights were conveyed back to Anadarko by Special Warranty Deed on January 2025, this conveyance significantly reduced the

Table of Contents

project size. The Company intends to allow current leases to expire, and maintain existing mineral rights currently owned by the Company in fee.

•Aladdin Project, Wyoming. The Aladdin Project is comprised of private leases that cover approximately 5,166 acres of surface rights and 4,712 acres of net mineral rights. The Aladdin Project is 80 miles northwest of the Dewey Burdock Project.

•Other Properties: The Company holds the Shirley Basin Project in Wyoming the JB Project in Colorado and Utah, and the Ticaboo project in Utah.

Summary of Mineral Resources

The following table shows the Company’s estimate of Mineral Resources as defined in S-K 1300 as of December 31, 2024.

ISR Properties

Region: Texas

Region: South Dakota

Region: Wyoming

Notes:

1.The Mineral Resource estimates in this table comply with the requirements of S-K 1300.

2.Mineral Resources were estimated using the following prices: (a) the South Texas Integrated ISR Project used a variable U3O8 sales price ranging from $78.37/lb up to $92.04/lb with an overall average U3O8 sales price of $87.05/lb (b) Alta Mesa Project used a uranium sales price that ranges from $82.00 to $89.00, with an average life of mine sales price of $83.43, (c) the Dewey Burdock Project used using a uranium sales price ranging from $82.00 to $89.00, with an average sales price of $86.34 .and (d) Gas Hills Project used a U3O8 sales price of $87.00/lb.

3.Mineral Resources were estimated using various %eU3O8 or G.T. cut-off grades. The following are the averages for Measured and Indicated Resources: (a) the South Texas Integrated ISR Project used 0.2 to 0.3 GT cutoff with avg GT values ranging between 0.40 and 2.15, (b) the Alta Mesa Project used 0.145 %U3O8, (c) the Mesteña Grande Project had no Measured or Indicated resources, (d) the Dewey Burdock Project used 0.12 % U3O8 (0.66 avg. GT) and (e) the Gas Hills Project used 0.10 % U3O8 (0.502 avg. GT).

4.The South Texas Integrated ISR Project includes Mineral Resources from the Upper Spring Creek Brevard, Upper Spring Creek – Brown and Rosita South – Cadena project areas.

Material Properties

South Texas Integrated ISR Project (Rosita CPP)

The South Texas Integrated ISR Project and associated well fields (collectively, the “STX Integrated”) is comprised of the Rosita CPP located in Duval County on a 200-acre tract owned by the Company, and multiple associated Satellite IX facilities at various project sites across south Texas. The STX Integrated project is located within the South Texas uranium province, about 22 miles west of the town of Alice. The Rosita CPP was constructed in 1990 and was originally designed and constructed to operate as an up-flow extraction facility. The Rosita property holdings consist of mineral leases from private landowners covering approximately 3,475 gross and net acres of mineral rights.

The STX Integrated, including the Rosita CPP, was the starting point for enCore’s Texas production strategy. In the fourth quarter of 2023, the Company announced it had commenced uranium extraction operations at Rosita from the Rosita Extension wellfield (“Rosita Extension”), PAA-5. The Rosita CPP has an 800,000-pound U3O8 per year production capacity. At the Rosita CPP, 76,909 pounds U3O8 were extracted and packaged in the year ended December 31, 2024.

Table of Contents

The following technical and scientific description of the STX Integrated is based in part on the report titled “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA” dated February 4, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024, and prepared by Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. each, a Qualified Person employed by WWC Engineering and is independent of the Company (the “South Texas Technical Report Summary”). The South Texas Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The STX Integrated does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

Property Description

The Rosita CPP is located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 13.7 miles east of Freer and approximately 60 miles west of Corpus Christi 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 extraction in 1990 and extracted 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.

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. It is centered at the approximate location of latitude 28.887336 and longitude -98.059851 (decimal degrees). Butler Ranch is comprised of four different non-connected property leases over approximately 10 miles in the western part of the county.

Upper Spring Creek- Brevard is located 6 miles northeast of the Ray Point Mining District in the Gulf Coast Uranium Province and South Texas Uranium Province or “GCUP”/”STUP” and is situated in Bee and Live Oak counties, Texas

Table of Contents

approximately halfway between San Antonio and Corpus Christi. 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.

Upper Spring Creek – Brown Area 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). 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 Geibel property at this project location.

Rosita South-Cadena is located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 11.5 miles east of Freer and approximately 64 miles west of Corpus Christi at latitude.

Ownership

This STX Integrated is owned and operated by the Company. The Company has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners at the STX Integrated. The net mineral ownership, royalty burden, and estimated annual costs are provided below for each of the projects:

Butler Ranch 675 509 6% to 12% sliding scale based on Sales Price 9,344

Accessibility

The Rosita CPP and Rosita South - Cadena are served by Texas State Highway 44. Texas State Highway 44 is a State maintained, two-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Two different County Roads “CR”, (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.

Butler Ranch is served by Texas Highway 181. 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.

Upper Spring Creek - Brevard is served by Texas State Highway 72. 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.

Upper Spring Creek - Brown is served by U.S. Interstate Highway 37 (I-37). 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

Table of Contents

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.

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.

Rosita CPP - Projects

The Company currently owns and operates the Rosita CPP within the Rosita 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.

Butler Ranch

The Company 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 is an existing water supply well at the STX Integrated, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for re-injection.

Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

The Company 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 re-injection.

Upper Spring Creek – Brown

The Company owns both surface and mineral rights at the Brown and Geffert properties. The Company leases minerals located beneath the Geibel 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 the Project, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for re-injection.

Rosita South - Cadena

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

Table of Contents

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.

Geology, Mineralization and Deposit

The Project is located along the South Texas coastal plain, within the STUP. 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.

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 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.

History

The STX Integrated is located in the South Texas Uranium Province. 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.

Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey. 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, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations. 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.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, exploration of uranium in South Texas had evolved towards deeper drilling targets within the known host sandstone formations. 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.

Permitting and Licensing

ISR projects in Texas require a number of permitting steps before recovery of uranium can commence. The first requirement is an exploration permit regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. All of the sites have active exploration permits that allow drilling of exploration holes allowing enCore to collect data to determine if an 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 the permitting of Underground Injection Control “UIC” activities. The state agency that regulates the uranium recovery process is the TCEQ. An area permit is required to progress to the next stage. This stipulates the area in which 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

Table of Contents

the aquifer. Baseline wells must also be installed and analyses run to establish baseline testing. Bonding must be put into place prior to operations.

Current Permits for the STX Integrated are as follows:

Upper Spring Creek - Brown

Permit Type Permit Number Approved date Current Status

Aquifer Exemption EPA exemption ID: 6-114 – Boots/Brown Jan. 1, 1982 Approved

PAAs Application to be submitted April 2025

WDW WDW467 Submitted 9/9/2022 – under technical review

RML License RO3653 Submitted 10/11/2022 – under technical review

Upper Spring Creek – Brevard

Permit Type Permit Number Approved date Current Status

Aquifer Exemption EPA exemption ID: 6-84 – Brevard Jan. 1, 1982 Approved

Area Permit* Submitted August 5th 2010 Requested termination Mar 28, 2018

Rosita South – Cadena

Permit Type Permit Number Approved date Current Status

Aquifer Exemption EPA ID: 6-75 – Rosita Extension Jul. 1, 1998 Approved

Table of Contents

PAAs N/A PAA to be submitted once drilling identifies an orebody

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Signal Equities, LLC, had written procedures for the collection of drill data including lithological logging, natural gamma logging, 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 the initial exploration of the Brevard and Brown properties, Signal Equities, LLC previously 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 Equities corporate office in New Braunfels, TX, with a full copy backup at a secure off-site contract data storage facility. enCore has since acquired and retains all data collected by Signal Equities.

For the South Texas Technical Report Summary, the QP reviewed PFN logs, gamma logs and drilling records for each drill hole 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.

Data Verification

Butler Ranch

Data supporting the South Texas Technical Report Summary comes almost exclusively in the form of drilling data gained from historical drilling activities by previous operators and done since the acquisition of the STX Integrated. The tabulations of mineral intercepts compiled by the Company 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 in the STX Integrated adjacent to historical exploration holes with results which validate the historical data. The tabulations of mineral intercepts compiled by the Company 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.

Upper Spring Creek – Brevard

The Company provided the QP with access to the complete electronic dataset for Brevard for the purpose of preparing the South Texas Technical Report Summary. 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.

Signal Equities, LLC’s calibration records for the PFN tools were reviewed to confirm the tools were properly calibrated. 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.

The QP also reviewed the previous operator’s U3O8 grade calculations to ensure the appropriate factors were used. The borehole correction factor is directly related to the drill hole diameter and should be the same for drill holes 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 drill hole that was used in the mineral resource estimate to

Table of Contents

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

The QP compared core assay data with PFN assay data for ten core holes at the Brevard property. Results were compared by summing all intervals in a core hole 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 core holes 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 core holes, 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). 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.

The QP reviewed the PFN logs of every drill hole 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 Grade-Thickness sum or “GT” sum.

Upper Spring Creek – Brown

The Company maintains digital copies of data at their office in Corpus Christi, TX. All PFN log data for the STX Integrated area was provided digitally by the Company. 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 the STX Integrated area were reviewed by the QP. In the opinion of the QP, the mineralized intervals previously defined by enCore for the South Texas Technical Report Summary 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 the South Texas Technical Report Summary were valid. Much of the data for Brown came from Signal’s 2010 drilling program. Therefore, calibration of the down hole 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 drill holes 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 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 drill hole 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.

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 U238 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 U3O8content 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. The results of the PFN data and the core assays are inconsistent and

Table of Contents

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.

Rosita South – Cadena

No data is available for the calibration of any geophysical logging tools used on the STX Integrated. 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 Grade-Thickness “GT” values in the mineral estimate were comparable and the grades used to calculate the GTs were conservative in some cases. Therefore, it was the QP’s opinion that the data used in the STX Integrated is valid and suitable for estimating Mineral Resources.

Mineral Extraction Activities

The following table shows the extraction history from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, from the STX Integrated:

South Texas Integrated ISR Project (dried and packaged)

Mineral Resources

The STX Integrated 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 STX Integrated deposits could be mined through ISR. The Mineral Resource estimates presented in the South Texas Technical Report Summary use cutoffs that are appropriate for ISR mining and may not be applicable to other mining methods.

Some of the shallower STX Integrated Mineral Resources and exploration targets may not be fully saturated. Deeper STX Integrated 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.

Mineral reportable as Mineral 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.

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. Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the project areas.

Table of Contents

Summary of Uranium Mineral Resources at the South Texas Integrated ISR Project as of December 31, 2024

(Based on a metal price of $87.05/lb. U3O8)

Project Area GT Cutoff Average GT U3O8 (lbs)

Upper Spring Creek – Brevard Area

Total Measured and Indicated 838,000

Upper Spring Creek – Brown Area

Total Measured and Indicated 1,339,000

Rosita South – Cadena

Total Measured and Indicated 630,000

Upper Spring Creek – Brown

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in S-K 1300.

2. All resources occur below the static water table.

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

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.

Mining, Processing and Recovery Methods

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.

Mining Method

enCore will mine uranium using the in-situ recovery (ISR) method. ISR has historically been utilized at the STX Integrated 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 area is recoverable using the proposed ISR techniques.

Mine Design and Plans

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,

Table of Contents

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. The figure below depicts the production forecast model for the wellfields.

Table of Contents

Processing and Recovery

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

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.

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.

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

Table of Contents

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Table of Contents

Economic Analysis

The South Texas Technical Report Summary contains an Initial Assessment which indicates a pre-tax Net Present Value of $104.3 million at an 8% discount rate compared to an after- tax Net Present Value of $81.8 million at an 8% discount rate.

The South Texas Technical Report Summary 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, Capital Expenses, and Operating Expenses, cost distributions 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 STX Integrated project construction was completed prior to this analysis. Excluding sunk costs which occurred prior to the operations proposed in the analysis, the STX Integrated 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 mine plan and economic analysis are based on the following assumptions:

•NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 compliant estimate of Mineral Resources and a recovery factor of80%,

•A variable U3O8 sales price ranging from $78.37/lb up to $92.04/lb with an overall average U3O8 sales price of$87.05/lb,

•A mine life 9 years (6 years production followed by 3 years of restoration/surfacereclamation),

•A pre-income tax cost including royalties, state and local taxes, operating costs, and capital costs of $43.12/lb, and costs fortheProjectarebasedonactualcostsfromenCore’scurrentlyoperatingsouthTexasISRprojects,economicanalysesfor similar ISR uranium projects, and WWC’s in house experience with mining and construction costs. All costs are in U.S. dollars(USD).

This analysis above is based on Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources which 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 the Initial Assessment will be recovered. The Initial Assessment is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the Project will be realized.

Capital Costs Estimate

Table of Contents

Operating Costs Estimate

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. 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.

Sensitivity Analysis

The STX Integrated is sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. A five percent change in the commodity price results in a $10.3 million change to the pre-tax Net Present Value “NPV” and $8.1 million to the post tax NPV at a discount rate of 8%. The analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound. The STX Integrated is also slightly sensitive to changes in OPEX costs. A 5% variation in Operating Expenses results in a $2.1 million variation in pre-tax NPV and $1.7 million to the post-tax NPV. A 5% variation in Capital Expenses results in a $2.6 million variation in 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.

Exploration Target

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

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

Table of Contents

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.

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.

An exploration target was estimated for several of the properties within the Butler Ranch Project area. The table below 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.

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.

Four distinct trends were identified with the historical maps.

Rosita Butler Ranch – Exploration Target Estimate of U3O8 lbs

Planned Work

The Company’s planned work will focus on commencing uranium extraction from Upper Spring Creek – Brown. The necessary initial steps include the completion of the regulatory approvals of the amendment to the Radioactive Materials License RO3653, Class I UIC non-hazardous liquid byproduct disposal well, and the Production Area Authorization. Additional planned work includes the installation of the wellfield patterns, wellfield infrastructure, and the satellite IX facility for the site. The intent of this work is to start uranium extraction in 2025. Additionally, the Company intends to conduct additional exploratory drilling on the Geffert property to identify additional Mineral Resources and increase confidence of the reported inferred Mineral Resources. In 2026, the Company will file applications to amend the RML RO3653 to incorporate Upper Spring Creek–Brevard and file applications for Class III and Class I Underground Injection Control permits for Upper Spring Creek–Brevard.

Alta Mesa Project (Alta Mesa CPP), Brooks County, TX

The Alta Mesa Project is a fully licensed and constructed CPP, located on over 203,000 acres of private land. Total operating capacity is currently approximately 1.5 million lbs. U3O8 per year. Alta Mesa historically produced approximately 4.6 million lbs. of U3O8 between 2005 and 2013, when full production was curtailed because of low uranium prices at the time by the previous owner.

The following technical and scientific description of the Alta Mesa Project is based in part on the report titled “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” and “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, National Instrument 43-101, Technical Report” dated February 19, 2025 and effective

Table of Contents

December 31, 2024 prepared by Stuart Bryan Soliz, PG of SOLA Project Services. (the “Alta Mesa Technical Report Summary”). The Alta Mesa Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The Alta Mesa Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

Property Description and Location

The Alta Mesa Project is an Exploration Stage ISR uranium mining project located in south Texas. The Alta Mesa 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 Alta Mesa 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.

The Alta Mesa Project is comprised of the Alta Mesa Mining Lease and the Alta Mesa CPP. The Alta Mesa 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.

Ownership

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.

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 “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 3.1% 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. The table below illustrates royalty details.

Amended Uranium Solutions Mining Lease Royalties

Royalty Holders Number of Acres Lessor Royalty Primary Term

Table of Contents

Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement

The Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement (see table below), 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.

Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreements Royalties

Royalty Holders Number of Acres Lessor Royalty Primary Term

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. While the current staff level has been reduced, sufficient local personnel were available for mine operations. 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.

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 U.S. 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 are prohibited by the lease.

Table of Contents

State and Local Taxes and Royalties

Ad valorem tax rates per $100 of taxable value applicable to tangible property and royalty for 2022 were as follows:

•Brooks County 0.773160

•Brooks County Rd and Bridge 0.072987

•Brooks County Independent School District 1.411298

•Brooks County FM FC 0.042863

•Brush Country Groundwater 0.015263

Accessibility

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.

Infrastructure

The Alta Mesa 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 Alta Mesa 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 West 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.

Geology, Mineralization and Deposit

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.

Table of Contents

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 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.

History

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.

Table of Contents

In February 2024, the Company entered a joint venture with Boss to develop and advance the Project. enCore retains ownership of 70% of the project and Boss holds 30%. Prior to 2023, all drilling was considered historical. Initial drilling at the Alta Mesa portion of the project was done by Chevron between 1981 and 1984 when they drilled approximately 360 holes. These holes included exploration, some coring and well completions. Minor drilling and monitor well installation were also completed by Total Metals and Cogema. Most of the drilling was completed by MULLC between 1999 and 2013. From these drill programs, drill data is available for a total of 10,744 drill holes in the Alta Mesa portion of the project of which 5,620 drill holes were considered barren. Of the remaining 5,124 drill holes approximately 3,000 are within the existing wellfields. However, many of the drill holes within the wellfield have mineralized intercepts in sands that were not mined either above or below the mining units. Wellfields PAA-1 through PAA-3 were mined within the Goliad middle C sand. Wellfield PAA-5 was mined within the B sand and wellfields PAA-4 and PAA-6 are within the lower C sand. In addition, data is available for 460 drill holes in the Mesteña Grande portion of the Project.

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 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 million pounds. Average annual production was 0.57 million 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.

Permitting and Licensing

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. Similar permits would be required for the Mesteña Grande project area depending upon the nature of operations and their integration with the Alta Mesa facility.

PAA-1 has been mined, and the groundwater restoration has been approved by the TCEQ. PAA-2 through PAA-6 is 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 the table below

Permitting Status

Permit/License Status

Sewage System OSSF Active

PAA-1 Active

PAA-2 Active

PAA-3 Active

PAA-4 Active

PAA-5 Active

Table of Contents

EU US Equity

EU · 10-K · period ended 2024-12-31

Item 1. Business and Properties

EU US Equity☆

EU · 10-K · period ended 2024-12-31

Item 1. Business and Properties

EU US Equity