PART I

Item 1. Business

Corporate Organization

Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 under the name Carlin Gold Inc. During 2004 we changed our business operations and focus from precious metals exploration to uranium exploration in the United States. On January 24, 2005, we completed a reverse stock split of our common stock on the basis of one share for each two outstanding shares and amended our Articles of Incorporation to change our name to Uranium Energy Corp. Effective February 28, 2006, we completed a forward stock split of our common stock on the basis of 1.5 shares for each outstanding share and amended our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized capital from 75,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001 per share to 750,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001 per share. In June 2007 we changed our fiscal year end from December 31 to July 31 (in each instance our “Fiscal” year now).

On December 31, 2007, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Resources Ltd., under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada. On December 18, 2009, we acquired a 100% interest in the South Texas Mining Venture, L.L.P. (“STMV”), a Texas limited liability partnership, from each of URN Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., and Everest Exploration, Inc. On September 3, 2010, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Paraguay Corp., under the laws of the State of Nevada. On May 24, 2011, we acquired a 100% interest in Piedra Rica Mining S.A., a private company incorporated in Paraguay. On September 9, 2011, we acquired a 100% interest in Concentric Energy Corp., a private company incorporated in the State of Nevada. On March 30, 2012, we acquired a 100% interest in Cue Resources Ltd. (“Cue”), a formerly publicly-traded company incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. On March 4, 2016, we acquired a 100% interest in JDL Resources Inc., a private company incorporated in Cayman Islands. On July 7, 2017, we acquired a 100% interest in CIC Resources (Paraguay) Inc., a private company incorporated in Cayman Islands. On August 9, 2017, we acquired a 100% interest in AUC Holdings (US), Inc. On January 31, 2018, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary under the laws of the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, UEC Resources (SK) Corp.

Our principal offices are located at 500 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 800N, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401, and at 1030 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 2Y3.

General Business

We are pre-dominantly engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the United States and Paraguay. We utilize in-situ recovery (“ISR”) mining where possible which we believe, when compared to conventional open pit or underground mining, requires lower capital and operating expenditures with a shorter lead time to extraction and a reduced impact on the environment. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our mineral rights in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques. We have one uranium mine located in the State of Texas, the Palangana Mine, which utilizes ISR mining and commenced extraction of uranium oxide (“U₃O₈”), or yellowcake, in November 2010. We have one uranium processing facility located in the State of Texas, the Hobson Processing Facility, which processes material from the Palangana Mine into drums of U₃O₈, our only sales product and source of revenue, for shipping to a third-party storage and sales facility. Since commencement of uranium extraction from the Palangana Mine in November 2010 to July 31, 2019,2020, the Hobson Processing Facility has processed 580,100 pounds of U₃O₈. At July 31, 2019,2020, we had no uranium supply or “off-take” agreements in place.

Our fully-licensed and 100%-owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically in the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson Processing Facility acts as the central processing site (the “hub”) for our Palangana Mine and future satellite uranium mining activities, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (the “spokes”). The Hobson Processing Facility has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually and is licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually.

AtAs at July 31, 2019,2020, we hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our mineral rights in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.

Our operating and strategic framework is based on expanding our uranium extraction activities, which includes advancing certain uranium projects with established mineralized materials towards uranium extraction, and establishing additional mineralized materials on our existing uranium projects or through acquisition of additional uranium projects.

During the year ended July 31, 2020 (“Fiscal 2019,2020”), we continued to operate the Palangana Mine at a reduced pace since implementing our strategic plan in September 2013, to align our operations to a weak uranium market in a challenging post-Fukushima environment. This strategy has included the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures and remaining in a state of operational readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices.

During Fiscal 2019,2020, we made significant advancements in various aspects of our operations, including:

Uranium Industry Background

The need for reliable, non-intermittent, pollution free electricity continues to rise as the world’s population grows to new record levels. By 2030 projectionsThe world’s population of 7.8 billion in 2020 is projected to increase over 13% from 2019 levels1% per year to near 8.5 billion people on the planet. This growthby 2030. The related need for more electricity and efforts to reach associated global climate change goals are important drivers for the projected long-term increase in nuclear power’s carbon-free electricity and uranium demand. The world’s current operating fleet of nuclear power plants, in addition to the global growth in new reactors under construction and those planned, is testimony to the confidence in nuclear power to provide safe, economical and carbon free electricity as part of an overall energy supply mix.

The International Energy Agency (“IEA”) reported “global electricity demand increased 4%grew 0.9 percent in 2018”, and that “11.2 GWe2019”. The World Nuclear Association (“WNA”) reported “Nuclear generation reached a near-record high in 2019, with output reaching 2657 TWh, enough to meet more than 10% of additional nuclear capacitythe world’s electricity demand”. Also in 2019, while nine reactors were retired around the globe, six new reactors were connected to the grid and construction began on five new units. In total, the largest increase since 1989”.IEA noted nuclear power grew 3.5% last year, eclipsing the growth seen in 2018. As of August 2019, World Nuclear Association (“WNA”)September 2020, WNA data showed 444a total of 442 nuclear reactors operable, worldwide with 5453 new reactors under construction, 111106 reactors planned or on order and another 330329 proposed.

In the 2020 Nuclear Technology Review, 2019 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency projects global nuclear capacity could grow to about 511 GWe by 2030. From the current level of 396 GWe, this amounts to about a 30% increase in nuclear generation capacity. The WNA also reports further capacity is being generated by uprating existing plants and by plant lifetime extensions, particularly in the United States. Globally, for the sixth consecutive year, global nuclear generation increased. This past year nine new reactors started operations and at least another 20 more are due to come on-line by the end of 2020.

With 42 reactors connected to the grid in the past six years,IEA reported; “Thirty countries currently use nuclear power has reached its highest level of growthand 28 are considering, planning or actively working to include it in over 25 years.their energy mix”. Most of the growth in nuclear power is coming from countries like China and India,Russia, although there is also notable growth in other countries, including RussiaIndia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as new prospective entries like Saudi Arabia. Some of these countries have embarked on sovereign-backed uranium acquisition programs, building inventory stockpiles for their future requirements. This also includes substantial long-term contracting with western suppliers and taking controlling interests in individual mines. In addition, Russia, China and South Korea are aggressively pursuing programs to sell their reactors around the globe. In many cases the sales agreements contain turnkey provisions, including uranium supply as a component of the reactor package that will require far more uranium than they currently produce. As such, they will need to carve out large supply sources in the coming years.

Global

While global generation from nuclear power has eclipsed pre-Fukushima levels, although Japan restarts have been slower than expected. To date, a total of 2527 reactors have applied for restart and include the nine reactors that have restarted and six more that have been approved for restart.restarted. More restarts are expected as Japan completes additional safety programs and ramps back up towards a policy goal of 20-22 percent of their total electrical generation from nuclear power by 2030.

World base case uranium demand is about 193 million pounds in 2019 and exceeds the 142 million pounds of projected production by about 51 million pounds (UxC 2019 Q3 UMO). This gap includes the 19 million pound per year impact from the indefinite shutdown of the worlds’ largest uranium mine in Canada as well as other producer shutdowns and production cuts. The WNA’s September 2019most recent Fuel Report noted “Rapid growth in uranium demand will lead to a need for additional mined uranium in the period to 2040 in all scenarios”. “Projections for nuclear generating capacity growthThe reference scenario in the report “shows a 26% increase in uranium demand over 2020-30”. World base case uranium demand is forecasted to be about 182 million pounds U₃O₈ in 2020, exceeding the 122 million pounds of projected production by about 60 million pounds (source: UxC 2020 Q3 UMO). About 19 million pounds of that gap is attributable to the shutdowns of several uranium mines in response to the COVID-19 virus. While some producers have announced plans to restart, the COVID shutdowns have nonetheless accelerated inventory drawdowns and the lost production will not be made up. Producers that shut down production in response to the virus have been revised upwardspurchasing uranium quantities for delivery commitments and have placed additional upside pressure on uranium prices. In 2021, the first timegap between production and utility requirements is expected to be about 44 million pounds. The gap includes the 18 million pounds per year impact from the indefinite shutdown of the worlds’ largest uranium mine in eight years, following the introduction of more favorable policies in a number of countries”.Canada as well as other producer shutdowns and production cuts.

While the difference between primary production and reactor demand is currently being filled with secondary market supplies, this is not a sustainable long-term supply source. Recent forecasts expect secondary sources to drop more than 30% annually,40%, from 4964 million pounds U₃O₈in 20192020 to about 3436 million pounds by 2024. While there are different estimates on timing, it is clear that secondary supply (that includes inventory drawdown) will be insufficient to fill a projected supply-demand gap, and new production will be required. As this transition develops,evolves, the market will become more production cost driven as opposed to inventory driven.

The United States has the world’s largest nuclear fleet and produces about 30% of the globe’s nuclear generation. In 2018 electricity production from this fleet reachedThe U.S. led global nuclear generation with approximately 809,400 GWh in 2019, a new record high and at an average capacity factor of 807.1 billion kilowatt-hours, accounting93.4 percent - the highest capacity factor on record (TradeTech June 2020 Nuclear Review). In 2019 electricity production from the fleet accounted for about 20% of the U.S.’scountry’s total electrical generation (Energy Information Administration (“EIA”)) and about 55% of the nation’s clean air energy (Nuclear Energy Institute (“NEI”)). Theenergy. As of September 2020, the operating U.S. reactor fleet stands at 9795 reactors, with two new commercial reactors under construction (Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia). Questions remain regarding the longer-term future of the two partially built Summer units, but these reactors may eventually be completed with a consortium of Korean and U.S. companies expressing interest in taking over the cancelled project. While some U.S. reactors have been shut down prematurely, the overall generating capacity remains strong as a result of plant reactor uprateupgrade programs and license extensions.

Preserving In terms of uranium demand, the existing U.S. nuclear fleet is the world’s largest uranium consumer and has averaged about 47 million pounds of uranium a priority foryear over the past decade.

The U.S. uranium mining industry and, increasingly,was formerly the federal government and individual states. President Trump has recently announced “an initiative to revive and expand the nuclear energy sector and directed a complete reviewworld’s largest producer but is now producing virtually none of U.S. reactor requirements. The United States nuclear energy policy to help find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource”. The NEI notes a recent National Governors Association report key takeaway is “flawed energy markets do not recognize the benefits that nuclear power provides”. This has resultedbecome almost entirely dependent on foreign supply, with more than 40% of requirements being imported from State Owned Organizations (“SOE”) in a “collaborative, state-level leadership from governors, state legislators, public service commissionsRussia and others to preserve their nuclear plants”. Illinois, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Arizona and Ohio have passed measures that will help level the playing field, enabling nuclear energy to continue providing the clean air and the highly reliable base load electricity for their energy supply. The State of Pennsylvania is also working on similar measures to preserve their nuclear plants.

Severalother former Soviet Union countries. However, actions taken by the U.S. federal government over the past couple of years have been constructive developmentsculminated in a foundation for the U.S. uranium mining industry. The Department of Interior included uranium as a “Critical Mineral”, vitalindustry to the nation’s economic and national security. U.S. Secretary of Energy, Perry, halted the Department of Energy’s uranium barter system that was introducing price insensitive supply into the market. In July of 2018 the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) launched a Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act investigation “to determine whether uranium imports threaten to impair national security”. The DOC concluded uranium is being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances (primarily from “foreign state-owned enterprises, which have distorted global prices”) “as to threaten to impair the national security of the U.S.”. While the President did not agree the finding was consistent with Section 232, he did agree that “the United States uranium industry faces significant challenges in producing uranium domestically and that this is an issue of national security”. As a result,recover. Most notably, the President established the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group (“NFWG”) comprised of various government agencies “to develop recommendations for reviving and expanding domestic nuclear fuel production”.

This year, the NFWG recommendations were released in a report entitled “Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage”. The report broadly advocates for increased American leadership in nuclear energy, both at home and abroad, with a focus on U.S. national security objectives that includes lessening dependence on SOE supply. Uranium mining is the starting point in the strategy with a program to purchase 17 to 19 million pounds of U.S. uranium for a strategic Uranium Reserve (“UR”). The administration’s budget outlined a $150 million expenditure for fiscal 2021 as part of a 10-year $1.5 billion UR program. The Department of Energy is currently developing this program and various Congressional avenues are being pursued for appropriations, including recently introduced bipartisan legislation entitled the “American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020”. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House to establish the UR; the “Nuclear Prosperity and Security Act”.

Also consistent with the U.S. Administration’s NFWG report is duerecommendations, in early October of 2020, the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) finalized an agreement with the Russian State Atomic Energy Corp., (“Rosatom”), extending the previously renegotiated Russian Suspension Agreement (“RSA”) through 2040.  The previous RSA limited Russian low enriched uranium imports to 20% of U.S. requirements and was set to expire at the President by October 10, 2019. We view this action as having potential to accelerate already improving supply-demand fundamentals with near-term positive impacts forend of 2020. However, the DOC asserted in a preliminary determination that the conditions of Russian dumping would likely continue in absence of restrictions.  This determination, and pressure from the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Administration, provided impetus for a negotiated settlement. The amended RSA considers the components of nuclear fuel in low enriched uranium mining industry.with various limits depending on the specific component.  The amount of enrichment services varies but are set to average about 17% of U.S. requirements through 2040 and are capped at 15% after 2027.  The DOC noted that the natural uranium and conversion components “will be equivalent to approximately 7% of U.S. enrichment demand, and no higher than 5% starting in 2026”. This amounts to a reduction in Russian natural uranium imports of up to 75% from prior limits.  For context, with U.S. consumption at about 47 million pounds U3O8 annually, the extended RSA reduces the annual natural uranium component limit from about 9.4 million pounds of Russian U3O8 to about 2.4 million pounds.

The U.S. is the world’s largest consumer ofglobal uranium with annual requirements of about 50 million pounds of U₃O₈. The EIA reported domestic mined production totaled 0.7 million pounds in 2018, down 37% from 2017. This continues to highlight the extreme U.S. over-dependency on foreign sources of uranium supply. In 2019 U.S. production is expected to drop to levels not seen since the dawn of the industry, over 70 years ago, to less than 1% of U.S. reactor requirements. This level of production is inconsistent with the President’s national security objectives and we believe increases the prospects that the NFWG will make recommendations to the President in-line with his mandates to revitalize and expand U.S. nuclear fuel production.

The uranium market has suffered a long downturn after peaking in 2007 at $138 per pound U₃O₈ that was followed by a rebound and then a subsequent drop of about 75% from early 2011 into the 2016 low at $17.75 per pound. However, the tide appears to have turned with the spot market is up over 40%75% as at September 2020 since the 2016 low (through August of 2019).low. Global fundamentals are in process of rebalancing the uranium market and driving an improvement in the price of uranium. As outlined above, increased levels of production cuts from major producers, plus significant purchasing by producers to fill long-term supply contracts as well as fund buying, are all contributing to the upward movement in uranium prices.

Ultimately, the forces of supply and demand will dictate the uranium market’s future direction. While the global market has clearly improved since the 2016 low, we still expect several major drivers to further bolster prices. Higher priced contracts that have supported high production costs are continuing to roll out of producer and utility supply portfolios. These higher priced contracts are not replaceable with current market prices below production costs for the vast majority of western producers. This will likely continue the trend of production cuts and deferrals until prices rise sufficiently to sustain long-term mining operations. In addition, some projects are in their final stages of production as their resources become depleted. Over the next year, two projects that currently represent about 6.5 million pounds of annual production will be permanently shut down. SOE supply is also likely to be reduced in the U.S. market with government’s intent to close the national security risk that overdependence presents. On the demand side of thatthe equation, further upside market pressure also appears likely to evolve as utilities return to a longer-term contracting cycle to replace expiring contracts. For the U.S. producer, contracts to supply the UR will be at levels that are more reflective of production costs to sustain operations and should provide a needed boost to their balance sheets.

As these and other market forces unfold, the more recent inventory driven market is likely to wane,and SOE supply should become less important drivers, paving the way for a more production cost driven market. Lead times for new production typically range from seven to 10 years or longer. The market appears to be within the time frameframes required for investment to bring new supply online to meet those lead times. However, prices are not yet at levels that incentivize future production.production, increasing the probability of the potential for less supply than the market is currently pricing in. All things considered, we believe the supply and demand fundamentals should continue to exert upward price pressure on uranium.uranium prices.

Titanium (TiO2) Industry Updates

During Fiscal 2019,2020, the market fundamentals for titanium dioxide remained favorable.positive.  There is no economiceconomical substitute or environmentally safe alternative to titanium dioxide.  Titanium dioxide is used in many "quality of life" products for which demand historically has been linked to global gross domestic product (“GDP), ongoing urbanization trends and discretionary spending.  95%90% of all the mined titanium feedstocks are used to manufacture pure titanium dioxides – a pigment that enhances brightness and opacity in paints, inks, paper, plastics, food products and cosmetics.  The remaining 5%10% of supply is used in the production of titanium metal.metal and steel fabrication.

Demand for titanium feedstocks, such as ilmenite, is closely tied to titanium dioxide pigment demand.  The global titanium pigment demand continued to be robust throughfundamentals are underpinned by urbanization and rising living standards and as such the long-term demand fundamentals remain robust.  Through the first half of calendar 2018, with2020, most producers reported ilmenite prices increasing,price increases, although at a slower pace than recordedit is expected to become subdued during 2017.

Recent results reported by western pigment producers continuethe second half of 2020 due to confirm favorable market conditions, which should support ongoing high pigment plant utilization rates and feedstock offtakes through the coming quarters. In China, as in 2017, feedstock suppliers have been reporting some seasonal weakness in the ilmenite market over the summer months. This, coupled with the decline in pigment plant operating rates associated with the enforcement of stricter environmental regulations, has resulted in somewhat lower levels of ilmeniteCOVID-19 pandemic downstream demand and the softening of ilmenite prices in this region.impact. 

The longer-term supply side of titanium feedstock remains under pressure due to  recent mine closures and demand fundamentals may have significant potential, in our view, to keep upward pressure on high-quality feedstock prices. Major feedstock supplier deposits are reachinggrade decline from existing operations as they reach maturity and, as a result, a prominent analyst of the industry is forecastingwe believe that a supply deficit is inevitable in the absence of new supply.  More specifically,Furthermore, and apart from the supply constraints, the nature of feedstock supply is also changing. China, the world's largest feedstock market, is increasingly more reliant on higher quality feedstocks.  Chinese domestic ilmenite is mainly unsuitable for processing under the stricter environmental regulations and, as such, the long-term global shift towards chloride pigment production will continue to drive overall high-quality feedstock demand and price.

In our view, what appear to be longer-term supply and demand fundamentals and, more specifically, the long-term global shift towards higher grade feedstocks, may have potential to keep upward pressure on high-quality feedstock prices.

In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Mining

We utilize or plan on utilizing in-situ recovery or ISR uranium mining for our South Texas projects, including theour Palangana Mine, as well as our Reno Creek Project in Wyoming, and will continue to utilize ISR mining whenever such alternative is available to conventional mining.  When compared to conventional mining, ISR mining requires lower capital expenditures and has a reduced impact on the environment, as well as a shorter lead time to uranium recovery.

ISR mining involves circulating oxidized water through an underground uranium deposit, dissolving the uranium and then pumping the uranium-rich solution to the surface for processing. Oxidizing solution enters the formation through a series of injection wells and is drawn to a series of communicating extraction wells. To create a localized hydrologic cone of depression in each wellfield, more groundwater will be produced than injected. Under this gradient, the natural groundwater movement from the surrounding area is toward the wellfield, providing control of the injection fluid. Over-extraction is adjusted as necessary to maintain a cone of depression which ensures that the injection fluid does not move outside the permitted area.

The uranium-rich solution is pumped from an ore zone to the surface and circulated through a series of ion exchange columns located at the mine site.  The solution flows through resin beds inside an ion exchange column where the uranium bonds to small resin beads.  As the solution exits the ion exchange column, it is mostly void of uranium and is re-circulated back to the wellfield and through the ore zone.  Once the resin beads are fully-loaded with uranium, they are transported by truck to the Hobson Processing Facility and transferred to a tank for flushing with a brine solution, or elution, which strips the uranium from the resin beads. The stripped resin beads are then transported back to the mine and reused in the ion exchange columns.  The uranium solution, now free from the resin, is precipitated out and concentrated into a slurry mixture and fed to a filter press to remove unwanted solids and contaminants.  The slurry is then dried in a zero-emissions rotary vacuum dryer, packed in metal drums and shipped out as uranium concentrates, or yellowcake, to ConverDyn for storage and sales.

Each project is divided into a mining unit, known as a Production Area Authorization (“PAA”), which lies inside an approved Mine Permit Boundary. Each PAA will be developed, extracted and restored as one unit and will have its own set of monitor wells. It is common to have multiple PAAs in extraction at any one time with additional units in various states of exploration, pre-extraction and/or restoration.

After mining is complete in a PAA, aquifer restoration will begin as soon as practicable and will continue until the groundwater is restored to pre-mining conditions. Once restoration is complete, a stability period of no less than one year is scheduled with quarterly baseline and monitor well sampling. Wellfield reclamation will follow after aquifer restoration is complete and the stability period has passed.

Hobson Processing Facility

TheOur Hobson Processing Facility is located in Karnes County, Texas, about 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi.  It was originally licensed and constructed in 1978, serving as the hub for several satellite mining projects until 1996, and completely refurbished in 2008. On December 18, 2009, we acquired the Hobson Processing Facility as part of our acquisition of STMV.

With a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually, and licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually, our fully-licensed and 100%-owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our “hub-and-spoke” strategy in the State of Texas, specifically in the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining.

Palangana Mine

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements generally having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at theour Palangana Mine, a 6,987-acre property located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 100 miles south of the Hobson Processing Facility. These agreements are subject to certain royalty and overriding royalty interests indexed to the salesales price of uranium.

On December 18, 2009, we acquired the Palangana Mine as part of our acquisition of STMV. In November 2010, the Palangana Mine commenced uranium extraction utilizing ISR mining and in January 2011 the Hobson Processing Facility began processing resins received from the Palangana Mine.

Material Relationships Including Long-Term Delivery Contracts

At July 31, 2019,2020, we had no uranium supply or “off-take” agreements in place.

Given that there are up to approximately 60 different companies as potential buyers in the uranium market, we are not substantially dependent upon any single customer to purchase the uranium extracted by us. 

Seasonality

The timing of our uranium concentrate sales is dependent upon factors such as extraction results from our mining activities, cash requirements, contractual requirements and perception of the uranium market. As a result, our sales are neither tied to nor dependent upon any particular season. In addition, our ability to extract and process uranium does not change on a seasonal basis. Over the past ten years uranium prices have tended to decline during the calendar third quarter before rebounding during the fourth quarter, but there does not appear to be a strong correlation.

Mineral Rights

In Texas our mineral rights are held exclusively through private leases from the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. In general, these leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only including surface access rights for an initial term of five years and renewal for a second five-year term. We have amended the majority of the leases to extend the time period for an additional five years past the original five-year renewal periods. Our Burke Hollow and some of our Goliad leases have a fixed royalty amount based on net proceeds from sales of uranium, and our other projects have production royalties calculated on a sliding-scale basis tied to the gross sales price of uranium. Remediation of thea property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds.

In Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming our mineral rights are held either exclusively or through a combination of federal mining claims and state and private mineral leases. Remediation of thea property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds. Our federal mining claims consist of both unpatented lode and placer mining claims registered with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and the appropriate counties. These claims provide for all mineral rights including surface access rights for an indefinite period. Annual maintenance requirements include BLM claim fees of $155 ($165 for payments beginning this year)$165 per claim due yearly on September 1. Our state mineral leases are registered with their respective states. These leases provide for all mineral rights, including surface access rights, subject to a production royalty of 4% in Wyoming and 5% to 6% in Arizona, ranging from a five-year term in Arizona to a ten-year term in Wyoming. Annual maintenance requirements include lease fees of $1 and $3 per acre and minimum exploration expenditure requirements of $10 and $20 per acre in Arizona. Our private mineral leases are negotiated directly with the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. These leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only, including surface access rights, subject to production royalties, ranging from an initial term of five to seven years and renewal for a second five-year to seven-year term, and some of which have an initial term of 20 years.

Under the mining laws of Saskatchewan, Canada, title to mineral rights for our Diabase Project is held through The Crown Minerals Act of the Province of Saskatchewan. In addition, The Mineral Resources Act, 1985 and The Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations affect the rights and administration of mineral tenure in Saskatchewan. TheOur Diabase Project lands are currently claimed as “Crown dispositions” or “mineral dispositions”. Subject to section 19 of The Crown Minerals Act, a claim grants to the holder the exclusive right to explore for any Crown minerals that are subject to these regulations within the claim lands. Claims are renewed annually and the claim holder is required to satisfy work expenditure requirements. Expenditure requirements are $nil for the first year, $15 per hectare for the second year to the tenth year of assessment work periods and $25 per hectare for the eleventh year and subsequent assessment work periods. For registering exploration expenditures, mineral dispositions maybemay be grouped at the time of submission if the total mineral disposition area is not greater than 18,000 hectares. The holder may also submit a cash payment or cash deposit in lieu of a work assessment submission for not more than three consecutive work periods. A claim may be converted to a mineral lease upon application and payment of a registration fee.

Under the mining laws of the Republic of Paraguay, title to mineral rights for theour Yuty Project is held through a “Mineral Concession Contract” approved by the National Congress and signed between the Government of the Republic of Paraguay and the Company, and titles to mineral rights for theour Oviedo Project and theour Alto Paraná Titanium Project are held through “Exploration Mining Permits” granted by the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay. These mineral rights provide for the exploration of metallic and non-metallic minerals and precious and semi-precious gems within the territory of Paraguay for up to a six-year period, and for the exploitation of minerals for a minimum period of 20 years from the beginning of the production phase, extendable for an additional ten years.

During Fiscal 2019 and Fiscal 2018, we have had communications and filings with the MOPC, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Paraná Titanium Projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages.  While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we caused our legal counsel to file an appeal with the Administrative Courts in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect our continuing rights in those concessions.

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at theour Burke Hollow Project, a 19,335-acre property located in Bee County, Texas, subject to a fixed royalty amount based on the net proceeds from sales of uranium.

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Goliad Project, a 995-acre property located in Goliad County, Texas, subject to certain fixed royalty interests or indexed to the sale price of uranium.

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at the Longhorn Project, a 651-acre property located in Live Oak County, Texas, subject to certain royalty interests indexed to the sale price of uranium.

We hold 18,763 gross mineral acres consisting of federal lode claims, private leases and state of Wyoming leases located in Campbell County, Wyoming.

We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at theour Salvo Project, a 1,514-acre1,340-acre property located in Bee County, Texas, subject to certain royalty interests indexed to the sale price of uranium.

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims and state leases in theour Anderson Project, an 8,268-acre property located in Yavapai County, Arizona.

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims in theour Workman Creek Project, a 4,036-acre property located in Gila County, Arizona, subject to a 3.0% net smelter royalty requiring an annual advance royalty payment of $100,000 for 2018 and thereafter.

We hold an undivided 100% interest in a state lease in theour Los Cuatros Project, a 640-acre property located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

We hold an undivided 100% interest in contiguous mineral lode claims in theour Slick Rock Project, a 5,333-acre property located in San Miguel County, Colorado. Certain claims of the Slick Rock Project are subject to a 1.0% or 3.0% net smelter royalty, the latter requiring an annual advance royalty payment of $30,000 beginningwhich began in November 2017.

We hold an undivided 100% interest in 10 mineral claims in theour Diabase Project, a 54,236-acre property located in the Athabasca region of Saskatchewan, Canada.

TheOur Yuty Project is a 289,680-acre property held under one exploitation concession located in Paraguay, which is subject to an overriding royalty payable of $0.21 per pound of uranium produced from the property.

TheOur Oviedo Project is a 223,749-acre property under one exploration mining permit located in Paraguay. The Oviedo Project is subject to a 1.5% gross overriding royalty over which we have an exclusive right and option at any time to acquire 0.5% for $166,667 and a right of first refusal to acquire all or any portion of the remaining 1.0%.

TheOur Alto Paraná Titanium Project is a 174,200-acre property held under five exploration mining permits located in Paraguay. The Alto Paraná Titanium Project is subject to 1.5% net smelter returns royalty. We have the right, exercisable at any time for a period of six years following the acquisition of the project, to acquire 0.5% of the royalty at a purchase price of $500,000.

Environmental Regulation

Our activities will be subject to existing federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental quality and pollution control. Our operations will be subject to stringent environmental regulation by state and federal authorities including the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RCT”), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).

In Texas surface extraction and exploration for uranium is regulated by the RCT, while ISR uranium extraction is regulated by the TCEQ. An exploration permit is the initial permit granted by the RCT that authorizes exploration drilling activities inside an approved area. This permit authorizes specific drilling and plugging activities requiring documentation for each borehole drilled. All documentation is submitted to the RCT on a monthly basis and each borehole drilled under the exploration permit is inspected by an RCT inspector to ensure compliance. At July 31, 2019, we held one exploration permit in each of Bee, Duval and Goliad counties.Counties.

Before ISR uranium extraction can begin in Texas, a number of permits must be granted by the TCEQ.

A Mine Area Permit (“MAP”) application is required for submission to the TCEQ to establish a specific permit area boundary, aquifer exemption boundary and the mineral zones of interests or production zones. The application also includes a financial surety plan to ensure funding for all plugging and abandonment requirements. Funding for surety is in the form of cash or bonds, including an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. At July 31, 2019,2020, we held Mine Area PermitsMAPs for theour Palangana Mine, the Goliad Project and the Burke Hollow Project.

A Radioactive Material License (“RML”) application is also required for submission to the TCEQ for authorization to operate a uranium recovery facility. The application includes baseline environmental data for soil, vegetation, surface water and groundwater along with operational sampling frequencies and locations. A Radiation Safety Manual is a key component of the application which defines the environmental health and safety programs and procedures to protect employees and the environment. Another important component of the application is a financial surety mechanism to ensure plant and wellfield decommissioning is properly funded and maintained. Surety funding is in the form of cash or bonds and includes an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. At July 31, 2019,2020, we held RMLs for theour Palangana Mine, the Burke Hollow Project, the Goliad Project and the Hobson Processing Facility.

PAA applications are also required for submission to the TCEQ to establish specific extraction areas inside the Mine Area PermitMAP boundary. These are typically 30 to 100-acre units that have been delineated and contain producible quantities of uranium. The PAA application includes baseline water quality data that is characteristic of that individual unit, proposes upper control limits for monitor well analysis and establishes restoration values. The application will also include a financial security plan for wellfield restoration and reclamation which must be funded and in place prior to commencing uranium extraction. At July 31, 2019,2020, we held four PAA permits for theour Palangana Mine and one for theour Goliad Project.

A Class I disposal well permit application is also required for submission to the TCEQ for authorization for deep underground wastewater injection. It is the primary method for disposing of excess fluid from the extraction areas and for reverse osmosis concentrate during the restoration phase. This permit authorizes injection into a specific injection zone within a designated injection interval. The permit requires continuous monitoring of numerous parameters including injection flow rate, injection pressure, annulus pressure and injection/annulus differential pressure. Mechanical integrity testing is required initially and annually to ensure the well is mechanically sound. Surety funding for plugging and abandonment of each well is in the form of cash or bonds, including 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. At July 31, 2019,2020, we held two Class I disposal well permits for each of theour Hobson Processing Facility, theour Palangana Satellite Facility, theour Burke Hollow Project and theour Goliad Project.

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) creates a regulatory program to protect groundwater and is administered by the EPA.  The SDWA allows states to issue underground injection control (“UIC”) permits under two conditions: the state’s program must have been granted primacy; and the EPA must have granted an aquifer exemption upon the state’s request.  Texas, being a primacy state, is therefore authorized to grant UIC permits and makes the official requests for an aquifer exemption to the EPA.  The aquifer exemption request is submitted by the Company to the TCEQ and, once approved, is then submitted by the TCEQ to the EPA for concurrence and final issuance.  At July 31, 2019,2020, we held an aquifer exemption for theour Palangana Mine, theour Goliad Project and theour Burke Hollow Project.

Waste Disposal

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state statutes affect minerals exploration and production activities by imposing regulations on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of “hazardous wastes” and on the disposal of non-hazardous wastes. Under the auspices of the EPA, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) imposes joint and several liability for costs of investigation and remediation and for natural resource damages, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons with respect to the release into the environment of substances designated under CERCLA as hazardous substances (collectively, “Hazardous Substances”). These classes of persons or potentially responsible parties include the current and certain past owners and operators of a facility or property where there is or has been a release or threat of release of a Hazardous Substance and persons who disposed of or arranged for the disposal of the Hazardous Substances found at such a facility. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some cases, third parties, to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover the costs of such action. We may also in the future become an owner of facilities on which Hazardous Substances have been released by previous owners or operators. We may in the future be responsible under CERCLA for all or part of the costs to clean up facilities or property at which such substances have been released and for natural resource damages.

Air Emissions

Our operations are subject to local, state and federal regulations for the control of emissions of air pollution. Major sources of air pollutants are subject to more stringent, federally imposed permitting requirements. Administrative enforcement actions for failure to comply strictly with air pollution regulations or permits are generally resolved by payment of monetary fines and correction of any identified deficiencies. Alternatively, regulatory agencies could require us to forego construction, modification or operation of certain air emission sources. In Texas the TCEQ issues an exemption for those processes that meet the criteria for low to zero emission by issuing a Permit by Rule. Presently theour Palangana Mine, theour Hobson Processing Facility and theour Goliad Project all have Permits by Rule covering air emissions.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) imposes restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of wastes, including mineral processing wastes, into waters of the United States, a term broadly defined. Permits must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal waters. The CWA provides for civil, criminal and administrative penalties for unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances and other pollutants. It imposes substantial potential liability for the costs of removal or remediation associated with discharges of oil or hazardous substances. State laws governing discharges to water also provide varying civil, criminal and administrative penalties and impose liabilities in the case of a discharge of petroleum or its derivatives, or other hazardous substances, into state waters. In addition, the EPA has promulgated regulations that may require us to obtain permits to discharge storm water runoff. In the event of an unauthorized discharge of wastes, we may be liable for penalties and costs. Management believes that we are in substantial compliance with current applicable environmental laws and regulations.

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.

The global titanium market is highly competitive, with the top six producers accounting for approximately 60% of the world’s production capacity according to TZ Minerals International Pty. Ltd. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Among our competitors are companies that are vertically-integrated (those that have their own raw material resources).

Research and Development Activities

No research and development expenditures have been incurred, either on our account or sponsored by customers, for our three most recently completed Fiscalfiscal years.

Employees

Amir Adnani is our President and Chief Executive Officer and, effective October 29, 2015, Pat Obara was appointed our Chief Financial Officer. These individuals are primarily responsible for all our day-to-day operations. Effective September 8, 2014, Scott Melbye was appointed our Executive Vice President. Other services are provided by outsourcing and consulting and special purpose contracts. As of July 31, 2019,2020, we had 4845 persons employed on a full-time basis and three individuals providing services on a contractcontractual basis.

Available Information

The Company’s website address is http://www.uraniumenergy.com and our annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, 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. These same reports, as well as our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished electronically with the SEC are available for review at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Printed copies of the foregoing materials are available free of charge upon written request by email at info@uraniumenergy.com. 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.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

In addition to the information contained in this Form 10-K Annual Report, we have identified the following material risks and uncertainties which reflect our outlook and conditions known to us as of the date of this Annual Report. These material risks and uncertainties should be carefully reviewed by our stockholders and any potential investors in evaluating the Company, our business and the market value of our common stock. Furthermore, any one of these material risks and uncertainties has the potential to cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by any forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf. Refer to “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements”.

There is no assurance that we will be successful in preventing the material adverse effects that any one or more of the following material risks and uncertainties may cause on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, which may result in a significant decrease in the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, there is no assurance that these material risks and uncertainties represent a complete list of the material risks and uncertainties facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of a material nature that, as of the date of this Annual Report, we are unaware of or that we consider immaterial that may become material in the future, any one or more of which may result in a material adverse effect on us. You could lose all or a significant portion of your investment due to any one of these material risks and uncertainties.

Risks Related to Our Company and Business

Evaluating our future performance may be difficult since we have a limited financial and operating history, with significant negative cash flow and an accumulated deficit to date. Our long-term success will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and to develop positive cash flow from our mining activities.

As more fully described under Item 1. Business herein, Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 and, since 2004, we have been engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on projects located in the United States, Canada and Paraguay. In November 2010, we commenced uranium extraction for the first time at theour Palangana Mine utilizing ISR methods and processed those materials at theour Hobson Processing Facility into drums of U₃O₈, our only sales product and source of revenue. We also hold uranium projects in various stages of exploration and pre-extraction in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. Since we completed the acquisition of theour Alto Paraná Project located in the Republic of Paraguay in July 2017, we are also involved in mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, of titanium minerals.

As more fully described under “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Result of Operations herein, we have a history of significant negative cash flow and net losses, with an accumulated deficit balance of $262.2$276.8 million at July 31, 2019.2020. Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and on debt financing in order to fund our operations. Although we generated revenues from sales of U₃O₈ during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012 of $3.1 million, $9.0 million and $13.8 million, respectively, with no revenues from sales of U₃O₈ generated during Fiscal 2017, Fiscal 2016, Fiscal 2014 or for any periods prior to Fiscal 2012,other fiscal years, we have yet to achieve profitability or develop positive cash flow from our operations, and we do not expect to achieve profitability or develop positive cash flow from operations in the near term. As a result of our limited financial and operating history, including our significant negative cash flow and net losses to date, it may be difficult to evaluate our future performance.

During Fiscal 2019,At July 31, 2020, we had working capital of $4.6 million including cash and cash equivalents of $5.1 million. Subsequent to July 31, 2020, we completed a public offering (the “September 2020 Offering”) of 12,613,04912,500,000 units at a price of $1.60$1.20 per unit for gross proceeds of $20.2$15 million, (the “October 2018 Offering”), and received cash proceeds of $4.9 million from the exercise of stock options and warrants, which substantially increased our cash and cash equivalent and improved our working capital positions. On December 5, 2018, we entered into the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement”) with our lenders (the ”Lenders”) whereby we and the Lenders agreed to certain further amendments to our $20.0 million credit facility (the “Credit Facility”), the maturity date was extended from January 1, 2020 to January 31, 2022, and the prior monthly principal payments were deferred until the new maturity date of January 31, 2022.position. As a result, the $10.0 million principal amounts reported as current-portion of long-term debt at July 31, 2018, representing principal amounts due over the then next 12 months from July 31, 2018, was removed from our capital resource requirement for the then next 12 months.

At July 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents and term deposits of $17.9 million and a working capital of $16.6 million. With reduction of our cash burn rate from that incurred in Fiscal 2019 by curtailing expenditures on discretionary and non-core activities and paying certain management, consulting and service provider fees by issuance of shares of the Company in lieu of cash,consequence, our existing cash resources as at July 31, 2019and cash received from the September 2020 Offering are expected to provide sufficient funds to carry out our planned operations for 12 months from the date thatof this Annual Report is issued.Report. Our continuation as a going concern for a period beyond those 12 months will be dependent upon our ability to obtain adequate additional financing, as our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. Our continued operations, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets, are dependent ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations.

Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. We may also be required to seek other forms of financing, such as asset divestitures or joint venture arrangements, to continue advancing our uranium projects which would depend entirely on finding a suitable third party willing to enter into such an arrangement, typically involving an assignment of a percentage interest in the mineral project.

Our long-term success, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets and our ability to acquire additional uranium projects and continue with exploration and pre-extraction activities and mining activities on our existing uranium projects, will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations by establishing ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium and to develop these into profitable mining activities. The economic viability of our mining activities, including the expected duration and profitability of theour Palangana Mine and of any future satellite ISR mines, such as theour Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects located within the South Texas Uranium Belt, and theour Reno Creek Project located in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, and our projects in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, have many risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium and titanium minerals; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected capital costs to construct the mine and/or processing plant; (iv) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (v) significantly lower than expected mineral extraction; (vi) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vi) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Our mining activities may change as a result of any one or more of these risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that any ore body that we extract mineralized materials from will result in achieving and maintaining profitability and developing positive cash flow.

Our operations are capital intensive, and we will require significant additional financing to acquire additional mineral projects and continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities on our existing projects.

Our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. We will require significant additional financing to fund our operations, including acquiring additional uraniummineral projects and continuing with our exploration and pre-extraction activities which include assaying, drilling, geological and geochemical analysis and mine construction costs. In the absence of such additional financing we would not be able to fund our operations or continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities, which may result in delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our uranium projects.

If we are unable to service our indebtedness, we may be faced with accelerated repayments or lose the assets securing our indebtedness. Furthermore, restrictive covenants governing our indebtedness may restrict our ability to pursue our business strategies.

On December 5, 2018,During Fiscal 2019, we entered into the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement”) with our Lenderslenders (the “Lenders”) under which we had previously drawn down the maximum of $20 million in principal.principal under our credit facility (the “Credit Facility”). The Credit Facility requires monthly interest payments calculated at 8% per annum and other periodic fees. Our ability to continue making these scheduled payments will be dependent on and may change as a result of our financial condition and operating results. Failure to make any of these scheduled payments will put us in default with the Credit Facility which, if not addressed or waived, could require accelerated repayment of our indebtedness and/or enforcement by the Lenders against our assets. Enforcement against our assets would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. Furthermore, our Credit Facility includes restrictive covenants that, among other things, limit our ability to sell our assets or to incur additional indebtedness other than permitted indebtedness, which may restrict our ability to pursue certain business strategies from time to time. If we do not comply with these restrictive covenants, we could be in default which, if not addressed or waived, could require accelerated repayment of our indebtedness and/or enforcement by the Lenders against our assets.

Our uranium extraction and sales history is limited, with our uranium extraction to date originating from a single uranium mine. Our ability to continue generating revenue is subject to a number of factors, any one or more of which may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

We have a limited history of uranium extraction and generating revenue. In November 2010, we commenced uranium extraction at theour Palangana Mine, which has been our sole source of generating revenues from the sales of U₃O₈ sold to generate revenues during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012, of $3.1 million, $9.0 million and $13.8 million, respectively, with no revenues from sales of U₃O₈ generated during Fiscal 2019, Fiscal 2018, Fiscal 2017, Fiscal 2016, Fiscal 2014 or for any periods prior to Fiscal 2012.other fiscal years.

During Fiscal 2019,2020, we continued to operate our Palangana Mine at a reduced pace since implementing our strategic plan in September 2013 to align our operations to a weak uranium commodity market in a challenging post-Fukushima environment. This strategy has included the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures and remaining in a state of operational readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices.  Our ability to continue generating revenue from the Palangana Mine is subject to a number of factors which include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected capital costs to construct the mine and/or processing plant; (iv) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (v) significantly lower than expected uranium extraction; (vi) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vii) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Furthermore, continued mining activities at the Palangana Mine will eventually deplete the Palangana Mine or cause such activities to become uneconomical, and if we are unable to directly acquire or develop existing uranium projects, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, into additional uranium mines from which we can commence uranium extraction, it will negatively impact our ability to generate revenues. Any one or more of these occurrences may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

Exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ significantly from expectations or anticipated amounts. Furthermore, exploration programs conducted on our projects may not result in the establishment of ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium.

Exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, with many beyond our control and including, but not limited to: (i) unanticipated ground and water conditions and adverse claims to water rights; (ii) unusual or unexpected geological formations; (iii) metallurgical and other processing problems; (iv) the occurrence of unusual weather or operating conditions and other force majeure events; (v) lower than expected ore grades; (vi) industrial accidents; (vii) delays in the receipt of or failure to receive necessary government permits; (viii) delays in transportation; (ix) availability of contractors and labor; (x) government permit restrictions and regulation restrictions; (xi) unavailability of materials and equipment; and (xii) the failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations. These risks and uncertainties could result in: (i) delays, reductions or stoppages in our mining activities; (ii) increased capital and/or extraction costs; (iii) damage to, or destruction of, our mineral projects, extraction facilities or other properties; (iv) personal injuries; (v) environmental damage; (vi) monetary losses; and (vii) legal claims.

Success in mineral exploration is dependent on many factors, including, without limitation, the experience and capabilities of a company’s management, the availability of geological expertise and the availability of sufficient funds to conduct the exploration program. Even if an exploration program is successful and commercially recoverable material is established, it may take a number of years from the initial phases of drilling and identification of the mineralization until extraction is possible, during which time the economic feasibility of extraction may change such that the material ceases to be economically recoverable. Exploration is frequently non-productive due, for example, to poor exploration results or the inability to establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material, in which case the project may be abandoned and written-off. Furthermore, we will not be able to benefit from our exploration efforts and recover the expenditures that we incur on our exploration programs if we do not establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material and develop these projects into profitable mining activities, and there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so for any of our projects.

Whether an ore body contains commercially recoverable material depends on many factors including, without limitation: (i) the particular attributes, including material changes to those attributes, of the ore body such as size, grade, recovery rates and proximity to infrastructure; (ii) the market price of uranium, which may be volatile; and (iii) government regulations and regulatory requirements including, without limitation, those relating to environmental protection, permitting and land use, taxes, land tenure and transportation.

We have not established proven or probable reserves through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of ourprojects, including the Palangana Mine. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as the Palangana Mine. Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials from the Palangana Mine without having established proven or probable reserves, it may result in our mining activities at the Palangana Mine, and at any future Pprojects for which proven or probable reserves are not established, being inherently riskier than other mining activities for which proven or probable reserves have been established.

We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain projects, including the Palangana Mine. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under Industry Guide 7 (“Industry Guide 7”), through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our projects, including the Palangana Mine. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as the Palangana Mine. Since we commenced uranium extraction at the Palangana Mine without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated. Any mineralized materials established or extracted from the Palangana Mine should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.

Since we are in the Exploration Stage, pre-production expenditures including those related to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred, the effects of which may result in our consolidated financial statements not being directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Despite the fact that we commenced uranium extraction at the Palangana Mine in November 2010, we remain in the Exploration Stage as defined under Industry Guide 7, and we will continue to remain in the Exploration Stage until such time proven or probable reserves have been established, which may never occur. We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) under which acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while pre-production expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time we exit the Exploration Stage.  Expenditures relating to exploration activities are expensed as incurred and expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves are established for that uranium project, after which subsequent expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred.

We have neither established nor have any plans to establish proven or probable reserves for our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as the Palangana Mine. Companies in the Production Stage, as defined by the SEC under Industry Guide 7, having established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to future reporting periods to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold. As we are in the Exploration Stage, it has resulted in us reporting larger losses than if we had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing mill and mine pre-extraction activities. Additionally, there would be no corresponding amortization allocated to our future reporting periods since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage. Any capitalized costs, such as acquisition costs of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.

Estimated costs of future reclamation obligations may be significantly exceeded by actual costs incurred in the future. Furthermore, only a portion of the financial assurance required for the future reclamation obligations has been funded.

We are responsible for certain remediation and decommissioning activities in the future, primarily for theour Hobson Processing Facility, theour Palangana Mine, theour Reno Creek Project and theour Alto Paraná Titanium Project, and have recorded a liability of $3.5$3.7 million on our balance sheet at July 31, 2019,2020, to recognize the present value of the estimated costs of such reclamation obligations.  Should the actual costs to fulfill these future reclamation obligations materially exceed these estimated costs, it may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results, including not having the financial resources required to fulfill such obligations when required to do so.

During Fiscal 2015, we secured $5.6 million of surety bonds as an alternate source of financial assurance for the estimated costs of the reclamation obligations of our Hobson Processing Facility and Palangana Mine, of which we have $1.7 million funded and held as restricted cash for collateral purposes as required by the surety. We may be required at any time to fund the remaining $3.9 million or any portion thereof for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (i) the terms of the surety bonds are amended, such as an increase in collateral requirements; (ii) we are in default with the terms of the surety bonds; (iii) the surety bonds are no longer acceptable as an alternate source of financial assurance by the regulatory authorities; or (iv) the surety encounters financial difficulties. Should any one or more of these events occur in the future, we may not have the financial resources to fund the remaining amount or any portion thereof when required to do so.

We do not insure against all of the risks we face in our operations.

In general, where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. We currently maintain insurance against certain risks including securities and general commercial liability claims and certain physical assets used in our operations, subject to exclusions and limitations, however, we do not maintain insurance to cover all of the potential risks and hazards associated with our operations.  We may be subject to liability for environmental, pollution or other hazards associated with our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities, which we may not be insured against, which may exceed the limits of our insurance coverage or which we may elect not to insure against because of high premiums or other reasons. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that any insurance coverage we currently have will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will adequately cover any resulting liability.

Acquisitions that we may make from time to time could have an adverse impact on us.

From time to time we examine opportunities to acquire additional mining assets and businesses. Any acquisition that we may choose to complete may be of a significant size, may change the scale of our business and operations and may expose us to new geographic, political, operating, financial and geological risks. Our success in our acquisition activities depends on our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, negotiate acceptable terms for any such acquisition and integrate the acquired operations successfully with those of our Company. Any acquisitions would be accompanied by risks which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For example: (i) there may be a significant change in commodity prices after we have committed to complete the transaction and established the purchase price or exchange ratio; (ii) a material ore body may prove to be below expectations; (iii) we may have difficulty integrating and assimilating the operations and personnel of any acquired companies, realizing anticipated synergies and maximizing the financial and strategic position of the combined enterprise, and maintaining uniform standards, policies and controls across the organization; (iv) the integration of the acquired business or assets may disrupt our ongoing business and our relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and contractors; and (v) the acquired business or assets may have unknown liabilities which may be significant. In the event that we choose to raise debt capital to finance any such acquisition, our leverage will be increased. If we choose to use equity as consideration for such acquisition, existing shareholders may suffer dilution. Alternatively, we may choose to finance any such acquisition with our existing resources. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with such acquisitions.

The uranium and titanium titanium industrindustriesies are subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards, including environmental protection laws and regulations. If any changes occur that would make these laws, regulations and standards more stringent, it may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Uranium and titanium exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards at the federal, state, and local levels governing permitting, pre-extraction, extraction, exports, taxes, labor standards, occupational health, waste disposal, protection and reclamation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, mine safety, hazardous substances and other matters. Our compliance with these requirements requires significant financial and personnel resources.

The laws, regulations, policies or current administrative practices of any government body, organization or regulatory agency in the United States or any other applicable jurisdiction, may change or be applied or interpreted in a manner which may also have a material adverse effect on our operations. The actions, policies or regulations, or changes thereto, of any government body or regulatory agency or special interest group, may also have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Uranium and titanium exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are subject to stringent environmental protection laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels. These laws and regulations include permitting and reclamation requirements, regulate emissions, water storage and discharges and disposal of hazardous wastes. Uranium and titanium mining activities are also subject to laws and regulations which seek to maintain health and safety standards by regulating the design and use of mining methods. Various permits from governmental and regulatory bodies are required for mining to commence or continue, and no assurance can be provided that required permits will be received in a timely manner.

Our compliance costs, including the posting of surety bonds associated with environmental protection laws and regulations and health and safety standards, have been significant to date, and are expected to increase in scale and scope as we expand our operations in the future. Furthermore, environmental protection laws and regulations may become more stringent in the future, and compliance with such changes may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations.

To the best of our knowledge, our operations are in compliance, in all material respects, with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. If we become subject to liability for any violations, we may not be able or may elect not to insure against such risk due to high insurance premiums or other reasons. Where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. However, we cannot provide any assurance that such insurance will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will be adequate to cover any resulting liability.

We may not be able to obtain, maintain or amend rights, authorizations, licenses, permits or consents required for our operations.

Our exploration and mining activities are dependent upon the grant of appropriate rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents, as well as continuation and amendment of these rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents already granted, which may be granted for a defined period of time, or may not be granted or may be withdrawn or made subject to limitations. There can be no assurance that all necessary rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents will be granted to us, or that authorizations, licences, permits and consents already granted will not be withdrawn or made subject to limitations.

Major nuclear and global market incidents may have adverse effects on the nuclear and uranium industries.

The nuclear incident that occurred in Japan in March 2011 had significant and adverse effects on both the nuclear and uranium industries. If another nuclear incident were to occur, it may have further adverse effects for both industries. Public opinion of nuclear power as a source of electrical generation may be adversely affected, which may cause governments of certain countries to further increase regulation for the nuclear industry, reduce or abandon current reliance on nuclear power or reduce or abandon existing plans for nuclear power expansion. Any one of these occurrences has the potential to reduce current and/or future demand for nuclear power, resulting in lower demand for uranium and lower market prices for uranium, adversely affecting ourthe operations and prospects.prospects of our Company. Furthermore, the growth of the nuclear and uranium industries is dependent on continuing and growing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation.

In March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a black swan event impacting about 50% of the world’s uranium production and has accelerated the market rebalancing. The timing for the return of global uranium production to pre-COVID-19 levels is highly uncertain as of the date of this Annual Report. Recent and significant production cuts were announced in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, including uranium facilities in Canada, Kazakhstan, and Namibia. It is unknown at this time exactly how long the shutdowns will last or how much uranium production will ultimately be removed from the market as a result of these shutdowns. It is the Company’s belief that the recent shutdowns are only going to further tighten the market. The Company also believes that a large degree of uncertainty exists in the market, primarily due to the size of mobile uranium inventories, transportation issues, premature reactor shutdowns in the U.S. and the length of time of any uranium mine, conversion or enrichment shutdowns.

The marketability of uranium concentrates will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control which may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital.

The marketability of uranium concentrates extracted by us will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control. These factors include: (i) macroeconomic factors; (ii) fluctuations in the market price of uranium; (iii) governmental regulations; (iv) land tenure and use; (v) regulations concerning the importing and exporting of uranium; and (vi) environmental protection regulations. The future effects of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but any one or a combination of these factors may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital.

The titanium industry is affected by global economic factors, including risks associated with volatile economic conditions, and the market for many titanium products is cyclical and volatile, and we may experience depressed market conditions for such products.

Titanium is used in many “quality of life” products for which demand historically has been linked to global, regional and local GDP and discretionary spending, which can be negatively impacted by regional and world events or economic conditions. Such events are likely to cause a decrease in demand for products and, as a result, may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. The timing and extent of any changes to currently prevailing market conditions is uncertain, and supply and demand may be unbalanced at any time. Uncertain economic conditions and market instability make it particularly difficult for us to forecast demand trends. As a consequence, we may not be able to accurately predict future economic conditions or the effect of such conditions on our financial condition or results of operations. We can give no assurances as to the timing, extent or duration of the current or future economic cycles impacting the industries in which we operate.

Historically, the market for large volume titanium applications, including coatings, paper and plastics, has experienced alternating periods of tight supply, causing prices and margins to increase, followed by periods of lower capacity utilization resulting in declining prices and margins. The volatility this market experiences occurs as a result of significant changes in the demand for products as a consequence of global economic activity and changes in customers’ requirements. The supply-demand balance is also impacted by capacity additions or reductions that result in changes of utilization rates. In addition, titanium margins are impacted by significant changes in major input costs such as energy and feedstock. Demand for titanium depends in part on the housing and construction industries. These industries are cyclical in nature and have historically been impacted by downturns in the economy. In addition, pricing may affect customer inventory levels as customers may from time to time accelerate purchases of titanium in advance of anticipated price increases or defer purchases of titanium in advance of anticipated price decreases. The cyclicality and volatility of the titanium industry results in significant fluctuations in profits and cash flow from period to period and over the business cycle.

The uranium industryindustry is highly competitive and we may not be successful in acquiring additional projects.

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.

The titanium industry is concentrated and highly competitive, and we may not be able to compete effectively with our competitors that have greater financial resources or those that are vertically integrated, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The global titanium market is highly competitive, with the top six producers accounting for approximately 60% of the world’s production capacity. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Among our competitors are companies that are vertically-integrated (those that have their own raw material resources). Changes in the competitive landscape could make it difficult for us to retain our competitive position in various products and markets throughout the world. Our competitors with their own raw material resources may have a competitive advantage during periods of higher raw material prices. In addition, some of the companies with whom we compete may be able to produce products more economically than we can. Furthermore, some of our competitors have greater financial resources, which may enable them to invest significant capital into their businesses, including expenditures for research and development.

We hold mineral rights in foreign jurisdictions which could be subject to additional risks due to political, taxation, economic and cultural factors.

We hold certain mineral rights located in the Republic of Paraguay through Piedra Rica Mining S.A., Transandes Paraguay S.A. Trier S.A. and Metalicos Y No Metalicos S.R.L., which are incorporated in Paraguay. Operations in foreign jurisdictions outside of the United States and Canada, especially in developing countries, may be subject to additional risks as they may have different political, regulatory, taxation, economic and cultural environments that may adversely affect the value or continued viability of our rights. These additional risks include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in governments or senior government officials; (ii) changes to existing laws or policies on foreign investments, environmental protection, mining and ownership of mineral interests; (iii) renegotiation, cancellation, expropriation and nationalization of existing permits or contracts; (iv) foreign currency controls and fluctuations; and (v) civil disturbances, terrorism and war.

In the event of a dispute arising at our foreign operations in Paraguay, we may be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts or may not be successful in subjecting foreign persons to the jurisdiction of the courts in the United States or Canada. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Any adverse or arbitrary decision of a foreign court may have a material and adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The title to our mineral property interests may be challenged.

Although we have taken reasonable measures to ensure proper title to our interests in mineral properties and other assets, there is no guarantee that the title to any of such interests will not be challenged. No assurance can be given that we will be able to secure the grant or the renewal of existing mineral rights and tenures on terms satisfactory to us, or that governments in the jurisdictions in which we operate will not revoke or significantly alter such rights or tenures or that such rights or tenures will not be challenged or impugned by third parties, including local governments, aboriginal peoples or other claimants. The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty Project and Alto Paraná ProjectsProject are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While the Company remainswe remain fully committed to itsour development path forward in Paraguay, it caused its legal counsel to file an appeal with the Administrative Courtswe have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions. Our mineral properties may be subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims, and title may be affected by, among other things, undetected defects. A successful challenge to the precise area and location of our claims could result in us being unable to operate on our properties as permitted or being unable to enforce our rights with respect to our properties.

Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to legal proceedings which may divert management’s time and attention from our business and result in substantial damage awards.

Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to numerous regulatory investigations, securities claims, civil claims, lawsuits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of our business including those described under Item 3. Legal Proceedings. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain and subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual costs to be incurred will depend upon many unknown factors. We may be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these suits, and we may not prevail. Defending against these and other lawsuits in the future may not only require us to incur significant legal fees and expenses, but may become time-consuming for us and detract from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. The results of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty due to the uncertainty inherent in litigation, the difficulty of predicting decisions of regulators, judges and juries and the possibility that decisions may be reversed on appeal. There can be no assurances that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or operating results.

We depend on certain key personnel, and our success will depend on our continued ability to retain and attract such qualified personnel.

Our success is dependent on the efforts, abilities and continued service of certain senior officers and key employees and consultants. A number of our key employees and consultants have significant experience in the uranium industry. A loss of service from any one of these individuals may adversely affect our operations, and we may have difficulty or may not be able to locate and hire a suitable replacement.

Certain directors and officers may be subject to conflicts of interest.

The majority of our directors and officers are involved in other business ventures including similar capacities with other private or publicly-traded companies. Such individuals may have significant responsibilities to these other business ventures, including consulting relationships, which may require significant amounts of their available time. Conflicts of interest may include decisions on how much time to devote to our business affairs and what business opportunities should be presented to us. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics Policy for Directors, Officers and Employees provides for guidance on conflicts of interest.

The laws of the State of Nevada and our Articles of Incorporation may protect our directors and officers from certain types of lawsuits.

The laws of the State of Nevada provide that our directors and officers will not be liable to our Company or to our stockholders for monetary damages for all but certain types of conduct as directors and officers. Our Bylaws provide for broad indemnification powers to all persons against all damages incurred in connection with our business to the fullest extent provided or allowed by law. These indemnification provisions may require us to use our limited assets to defend our directors and officers against claims, and may have the effect of preventing stockholders from recovering damages against our directors and officers caused by their negligence, poor judgment or other circumstances.

Several of our directors and officers are residents outside of the United States, and it may be difficult for stockholders to enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors or officers.

Several of our directors and officers are nationals and/or residents of countries other than the United States, and all or a substantial portion of such persons’ assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process on such directors and officers, or enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors and officers, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. Consequently, stockholders may be effectively prevented from pursuing remedies against such directors and officers under United States federal securities laws. In addition, stockholders may not be able to commence an action in a Canadian court predicated upon the civil liability provisions under United States federal securities laws. The foregoing risks also apply to those experts identified in this document that are not residents of the United States.

Disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, no matter how well designed and operated, are designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness.

Management’s evaluation on the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures is designed to ensure that information required for disclosure in our public filings is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis to our senior management, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly authorized, assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use and transactions are properly recorded and reported. However, any system of controls, no matter how well designed and operated, is based in part upon certain assumptions designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness. Any failure to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures in the future may result in our inability to continue meeting our reporting obligations in a timely manner, qualified audit opinions or restatements of our financial reports, any one of which may affect the market price for our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Historically, the market price of our common stock has been and may continue to fluctuate significantly.

On September 28, 2007, our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE American (formerly known as the American Stock Exchange, the NYSE Amex Equities Exchange and the NYSE MKT) and prior to that, traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.

The global markets have experienced significant and increased volatility in the past, and have been impacted by the effects of mass sub-prime mortgage defaults and liquidity problems of the asset-backed commercial paper market, resulting in a number of large financial institutions requiring government bailouts or filing for bankruptcy. The effects of these past events and any similar events in the future may continue to or further affect the global markets, which may directly affect the market price of our common stock and our accessibility for additional financing. Although this volatility may be unrelated to specific company performance, it can have an adverse effect on the market price of our shares which, historically, has fluctuated significantly and may continue to do so in the future.

In addition to the volatility associated with general economic trends and market conditions, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly due to the impact of any one or more events including, but not limited to, the following: (i) volatility in the uranium market; (ii) occurrence of a major nuclear incident such as the events in Fukushima in March 2011; (iii) changes in the outlook for the nuclear power and uranium industries; (iv) failure to meet market expectations on our exploration, pre-extraction or extraction activities, including abandonment of key uranium projects; (v) sales of a large number of our shares held by certain stockholders including institutions and insiders; (vi) downward revisions to previous estimates on us by analysts; (vii) removal from market indices; (viii) legal claims brought forth against us; and (ix) introduction of technological innovations by competitors or in competing technologies.

A prolonged decline in the market price of our common stock could affect our ability to obtain additional financing which would adversely affect our operations.

Historically, we have relied on equity financing and more recently, on debt financing, as primary sources of financing. A prolonged decline in the market price of our common stock or a reduction in our accessibility to the global markets may result in our inability to secure additional financing which would have an adverse effect on our operations.

Additional issuances of our common stock may result in significant dilution to our existing shareholders and reduce the market value of their investment.

We are authorized to issue 750,000,000 shares of common stock of which 180,896,431184,635,870 shares were issued and outstanding as of July 31, 2019.2020. Future issuances for financings, mergers and acquisitions, exercise of stock options and share purchase warrants and for other reasons may result in significant dilution to and be issued at prices substantially below the price paid for our shares held by our existing stockholders. Significant dilution would reduce the proportionate ownership and voting power held by our existing stockholders and may result in a decrease in the market price of our shares.

We filed a Form S-3 shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on March 10, 2017 (the “2017 Shelf”). The 2017 Shelf provides for the public offer and sale of certain securities of our Company from time to time, at our discretion, up to an aggregate offering amount of $100 million.

As at April 7, 2019, a total of $68.4 million of the 2017 Shelf was utilized through the registration of our shares of common stock underlying outstanding common share purchase warrants from previous registered offerings with a remaining available balance of $31.6 million under the 2017 Shelf. On April 8, 2019 we filed an additional Form S-3 shelf registration statement pursuant to Rule 462(b) of the Securities Act, which became effective upon filing on April 8, 2019, providing for the public offer and sale of certain additional securities of our Company from time to time, at our discretion, under the 2017 Shelf, of up to an aggregate offering amount of an additional $6.3 million; then bringing the balance remaining under the 2017 Shelf to $37.9 million to be sold under our current at-the-market offering (the “ATM”; as discussed herein).

We are subject to the Continued Listing Criteria of the NYSE American and our failure to satisfy these criteria may result in delisting of our common stock.

Our common stock is currently listed on the NYSE American.  In order to maintain this listing, we must maintain certain share prices, financial and share distribution targets, including maintaining a minimum amount of shareholders’ equity and a minimum number of public shareholders.  In addition to these objective standards, the NYSE American may delist the securities of any issuer (i) if, in its opinion, the issuer’s financial condition and/or operating results appear unsatisfactory; (ii) if it appears that the extent of public distribution or the aggregate market value of the security has become so reduced as to make continued listing on the NYSE American inadvisable; (iii) if the issuer sells or disposes of principal operating assets or ceases to be an operating company; (iv) if an issuer fails to comply with the NYSE American’s listing requirements; (v) if an issuer’s common stock sells at what the NYSE American considers a “low selling price” and the issuer fails to correct this via a reverse split of shares after notification by the NYSE American; or (vi) if any other event occurs or any condition exists which makes continued listing on the NYSE American, in its opinion, inadvisable.

If the NYSE American delists our common stock, investors may face material adverse consequences including, but not limited to, a lack of trading market for our securities, reduced liquidity, decreased analyst coverage of our securities, and an inability for us to obtain additional financing to fund our operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable

Item 2. Properties

General

At July 31, 2019,2020, we held mineral rights in uranium projects located in the U.S. States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay by way of federal mining claims, state and private mineral leases and mineral concessions. We also held a wholly-owned uranium processing facility located in the State of Texas, the Hobson Processing Facility, which processes material extracted from theour Palangana Mine.

We have prepared and will continue to prepare, from time to time, various technical reports (each, a “Technical Report”), in accordance with the provisions and requirements of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Properties (“NI 43-101”), of the Canadian Securities Administrators (the “CSA”), respecting various of our mineral projects. Each of our Technical Reports have been and will continue to be filed by us on the public disclosure website of the CSA at www.sedar.com (“SEDAR”) as required by NI 43-101 and its companion policy and form. As also required by NI 43-101, each Technical Report is prepared by and authored by a qualified person as defined under NI 41-101.

As set forth and required by NI 43-101, each Technical Report may contain certain disclosure relating to mineral resource estimates and/or an exploration target for a subject mineral project. Such mineral resources, if any, have and will have been estimated in accordance with the definition standards on mineral resources of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum referred to in NI 43-101. Inferred mineral resources and exploration targets, while recognized and required by Canadian regulations, are not defined terms under the SEC’s Industry Guide, and are normally not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. Accordingly, we have not and will not report them in this Annual Report or otherwise in the United States. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of the mineral resources in these categories will ever be converted into mineral reserves. These termsamounts have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. In particular, it should be noted that mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of measured mineral resources, indicated mineral resources or inferred mineral resources discussed in a Technical Report will ever be upgraded to a higher category. In accordance with Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources cannot form the basis of feasibility or other economic studies. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part of the reported inferred mineral resources referred to in a Technical Report are economically or legally mineable. Exploration targets have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. In particular, it should be noted that exploration targets do not have demonstrated economic viability. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of the exploration target discussed in a Technical Report will ever be upgraded to a higher category, or if additional exploration will result in discovery of an economic mineral resource on the property.

We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under Industry Guide 7, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our mineral projects, including theour Palangana Mine. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our mineral projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as the Palangana Mine.

Texas Processing Facility and Projects

The following map shows the location of our Hobson Processing Facility and main projects in Texas:

Hobson Processing Facility

Property Description and Location

The Hobson Processing Facility is a fully-licensed and permitted in-situ recovery or ISR uranium processing plant designed to process uranium-loaded resins from satellite ISR mining facilities to the final product, U₃O₈ or yellowcake. The Hobson Processing Facility was originally constructed in 1978 and served as a central processing site for several satellite ISR mining projects until 1996. It was completely refurbished in 2008 and, on December 18, 2009, we acquired the Hobson Processing Facility through the acquisition of STMV.

The Hobson Processing Facility is located in Karnes County, Texas, on a 7.286-acre leased tract of land, approximately one mile south of the community of Hobson and about 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi, Texas. The surface lease of the Hobson Processing Facility is for an initial term of five years commencing May 30, 2007, and thereafter so long as uranium, thorium and other fissionable or spatially associated substances are being processed or refined without cessation of more than five consecutive years.

The Hobson Processing Facility has a physical capacity to process two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually and is licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually, which provides for the capacity to process uranium-loaded resins from a number of satellite ISR mining facilities in South Texas. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson Processing Facility acts as our central uranium processing site (the “hub”) for theour Palangana Mine and for future satellite ISR mines, including our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects (the “spokes”), located within the South Texas Uranium Belt.

In January 2011 the Hobson Processing Facility began processing uranium-loaded resins received from the Palangana Mine upon commencement of uranium extraction in November 2010. Since then the Hobson Processing Facility has processed 578,000 pounds of uranium concentrates. During Fiscal 2019, the Hobson Processing facility was in a state of operational readiness.

Uranium Processing System

Once the uranium-loaded resin from the satellite ISR mining facility is delivered to the Hobson Processing Facility by semi-trailer, the material is transferred and placed in a pressure vessel for elution which involves flushing with a brine solution. The uranium is stripped from the resin in a three-stage elution process and concentrated into a rich eluate tank, at which point the solution is analyzed for total uranium concentration. After the uranium is eluted from the resin, the resin is washed to remove excess brine solution, transferred back to the trailer and returned to the satellite ISR mining facility to again begin the cycle of capturing uranium from the wellfield, transport to the Hobson Processing Facility and subsequent elution.

The uranium-rich solution remaining at the Hobson Processing Facility after elution is agitated and chemicals are added to precipitate the uranium. In this precipitation process sulfuric acid is added to reduce the pH to between 2 and 3. Hydrogen peroxide (“H₂O₂”) is then added at the rate of 0.2 to 0.5 pounds of H₂O₂ per pound of uranium while maintaining the pH of the solution between two and three using sodium hydroxide. Once the precipitation reaction is complete the solution is allowed to set in order for the uranium to precipitate and settle to the bottom of the tank. The excess overflow is decanted to a storage tank or to the waste disposal system. All waste process solutions from the plant area report to a chemical waste storage tank and waste solutions are pumped to a Class I, non-hazardous, waste disposal well system.

The remaining material, at approximately 3% to 5% solids, is pumped to a filter press where the uranium is separated from the liquid. After the uranium, or yellowcake, has been filtered, fresh water is pumped through to remove the entrained salts, with the resulting liquids pumped to the fresh eluate makeup system or the waste disposal system. From the filter press the thickened yellowcake, at 50% to 60% solids, is transferred to the drying package for drying and drumming. A zero-emissions vacuum dryer removes moisture from the yellowcake and a scrubber system removes these vapors from the dryer and discharges the gases to an exhaust stack. The dried yellowcake is packaged in 55-gallon drums. Each drum is weighed, cleaned, surveyed and analyzed, after which it is transferred to a temporary yellowcake storage area at the Hobson Processing Facility. Once approximately one truckload is accumulated theThe drums are then shipped to a third-party storage and sales facility.

Palangana Mine, Duval County, Texas

Property Description and Location

The Palangana Mine is located in Texas near the center of the extensive South Texas Uranium Belt. The Palangana Mine consists of multiple leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods while utilizing the land surface (with variable conditions), as needed, for mining wells and aboveground facilities for fluid processing and ore capture during the mining and groundwater restoration phases of the project. The Palangana Mine is situated in Duval County, Texas, and is located approximately 25 miles west of the town of Alice, 6six miles north of the town of Benavides, 15 miles southeast of the town of Freer and 12 miles southwest of the town of San Diego, as shown in the map below:

Mineral Titles

At July 31, 2019,2020, there were nine leases covering 6,987 acres at the Palangana Mine. PAA-1 is on the de Hoyos leases while PAA-2, PAA-3 and the Dome trend are on the Palangana Ranch Management, LLC lease. Bordering the east side of the Palangana Ranch Management, LLC lease is the White Bell Ranch lease, comprised of 1,006 acres, which contains the Jemison Fence and Jemison East trends. The fourth major lease is the Garcia/Booth property comprised of 1,278 acres which borders the east side of the De Hoyos property and contains the NE Garcia and SW Garcia trends.

Lease ownership is held by STMV, which is wholly-owned by the Company.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

Topography, Elevation and Vegetation

Surface elevations at the Palangana Mine range from about 410 feet to 500 feet above sea level.

Climate and Length of Operating Season

The region’s subtropical climate allows uninterrupted, year-round mining activities. Temperatures during the summer range from 75°F to 95°F, although highs above 100°F are common while winter temperatures range from 45°F to 65°F. Humidity is generally over 85% year-round and commonly exceeds 90% during the summer months. Average annual rainfall is 30 inches.

Physiography

The dome area to the west of the PAA-1 and PAA-2 deposits is a concentric collapsed area with the surrounding landscape being hilly and elevated. Surface water generally drains away from the dome area although no prominent creeks or rivers are evident.

Access to Property

The Palangana Mine occurs in the South Texas Uranium Belt between San Antonio and Corpus Christi in Duval County. Corpus Christi, the largest nearby metropolitan district, is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana Mine. Approximately halfway between San Diego and Freer on Texas Highway 44 is a turn-off to the south referred to as Ranch Road 3196 that runs directly through the property about eight miles from the turn-off. The road continues southward about six miles to the town of Benavides. Access is excellent, with major two-lane roads connecting the three surrounding towns and unpaved secondary roads connecting to Palangana.

Surface Rights

The uranium leaseholders under most of the current leases have conveyed the surface rights under certain conditions of remuneration. These conditions essentially require payments for surface area taken out of usage.

Local Resources and Infrastructure

An entire infrastructure is in place including office buildings, access roads, electrical power and maintenance faculties. Each property has sources of water for drilling operations for both exploration and extraction drilling.

Manpower

A nearby workforce of field technicians, welders, electricians, drillers and pipefitters exists in the local communities. The technical workforce for facility operations from the area is sparse although ample qualified resources can be found in the South Texas area from the petrochemical industry.

History Priorprior to Acquisitionacquisition by Ourour Company

Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana Dome’s gypsum-anhydrite cap rock in 1952 by Columbia Southern Inc. (“CSI”), a subsidiary of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Corp.. CSI conducted active uranium exploration drilling on the property starting in March 1956. Records of CSI’s exploration work are unavailable, however, both CSI and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission estimated underground mineable uranium mineralization. The only known details of the estimation method include a 0.15% eU₃O₈ cut-off grade, a minimum mining thickness of three feet, and widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200-foot exploration grid. Union Carbide acquired the Palangana property in 1958 and initiated underground mine development. Development work was quickly abandoned due to heavy concentrations of H₂S gas and Union Carbide dropped the property. Union Carbide reacquired Palangana in 1967 after recognizing that it would be amenable to exploitation by the emerging ISR mining technologies. During the 1960s and 1970s, Union Carbide drilled over 1,000 exploration and development holes and installed over 3,000 injection-extraction holes in a 31-acre lease block.

Union Carbide attempted an ISR operation from 1977 through 1979 using a push/pull injection/recovery system. Ammonia was used as the lixiviate that later caused some environmental issues with groundwater. About 340,000 pounds of U₃O₈ were produced from portions of a 31-acre wellfield area. The extraction pounds indicate a 32% to 34% recovery rate. The push/pull injection/recovery system was later proven to be less productive than well configurations or patterns of injection wells around a recovery well. Further, the wellfield was developed without any apparent regard to the geology of the deposit including disequilibrium. The Union Carbide ISR work was basically conducted at a research level in contrast to the current level of knowledge. The historic extraction area lies on the western side of the dome.

In 1981 Chevron Corporation acquired the Union Carbide leases and conducted their own resource evaluation. After the price of uranium dropped to under $10 per pound, General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the processing plant in a property-wide restoration effort. Upon formal approval of the clean up by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990’s. In 2005, Everest Exploration Inc. acquired the Palangana property and later joint ventured with Energy Metals Corp. (“Energy Metals”) through the formation of STMV. An independent consultant, Blackstone (2005), estimated inferred resources in an area now referred to as the Dome trend proximal to the dome on the west side north of the prior Union Carbide leach field. In 2006 and 2007 Energy Metals drilled approximately 200 additional confirmation and delineation holes. The PAA-1 and PAA-2 areas were found during this drilling program. In 2008 Energy Metals was acquired by Uranium One. During 2008 and 2009 the remaining holes on this project were drilled by Uranium One. During this time the five exploration trends to the east of the dome were identified and partially delineated. In December 2009 we acquired 100% ownership of STMV.

Geological Setting

South Texas geology is characterized by an arcuate belt of Tertiary fluvial clastic units deposited along the passive North American plate. These units strike parallel to the Gulf Coast between the Mexican border and Louisiana within an area known as the Mississippi Embayment. The uranium-bearing sedimentary units are primarily of fluvial origin and were deposited by southeasterly flowing streams and rivers. Uranium deposits are contained within fault-controlled roll-fronts in the lower Pliocene-to-Miocene age Goliad Formation on the flank of the Palangana salt dome. The uranium mineralization in the Goliad Formation at Palangana occurs at a depth of approximately 220 to 600 feet below the surface.

Geological Model

Uranium mineralization in the South Texas Uranium Belt occurs as sandstone-hosted roll-front deposits. The deposits are strata-bound, elongate, and often, but not necessarily, occur in the classic “C” or truncated “C” roll configuration. They can be associated with an oxidation front or can be found in a re-reduced condition where an overprint of later reduction from hydrogen sulfide or other hydrocarbon reductant has seeped along faults and fractures. The uranium bearing sandstone units can themselves be separated into several horizons by discontinuous mudstone units, and separate roll-fronts and sub-rolls can occur in the stacked sandstone sequences.

The generally accepted origin of uranium mineralization in the Goliad Formation is from leaching of intraformational tuffaceous material or erosion of older uranium-bearing strata. The leached uranium was carried by oxygenated groundwater in a hexavalent state and deposited where a suitable reductant was encountered. The oxidation/reduction (redox) fronts are often continuous for miles, although minable grade uranium mineralization is not nearly as continuous. The discontinuous nature of uranium mineralization is often characterized as “beads on a string” and is due to sinuous vertical and lateral fluvial facies changes in the permeable sandstone host horizons, coupled with ground water movements and the presence or absence of reducing material.

27

---

Figure 2: Schematic view of a typical uranium roll-front configurationconfiguration.

The red area is the uranium mineralization deposited at the interface between the oxidized (up-gradient) sand shown in yellow and the reduced (down-gradient) sand shown in gray. The up-gradient sand has been altered by oxidizing groundwater that carried the uranium that was deposited in the roll-front at the oxidation/reduction (redox) interface. The uranium mineralization is hydrologically confined by an upper and lower confining layer of shale or mudstone. At wellfields, extraction (pumping) wells have been completed near the center of the roll-front and are fed lixiviate (leach solutions) by injection wells on each side of the front.

Mineralized Zones and Historical Drilling Results

As stated previously, mineralization does not occur in all of the Goliad sands nor does it persist in the same sand intervals across the dome area. On the west half of the dome near what is referred to as the Dome trend, Union Carbide developed the “C” sand zone. The NW Garcia and SE Garcia trends to the east of the dome also reside in the “C” sand zone. Also, to the east of the dome, the PAA-2 deposit, as well as the PAA-3 deposit, Jemison Fence and Jemison East trends all occur in the “E” sand, while the PAA-1 deposit occurs in the “G” sand. Within these mineralized horizons smaller roll-fronts are evident that can be mapped as discrete bodies. Some of these bodies contain economic mineralization while others do not. The mineralized horizons occur as stacked intervals often separated by claystones. Generally, they overlap one another but there are differences making a concurrent, multiple-horizon recovery scenario not uniformly effective.

The table below summarizes the historical drilling results at the Palangana Mine prior to its acquisition by theour Company on December 18, 2009.

Update to July 31, 20202019

Since commencing uranium extraction at the Palangana Mine in November 2010 to July 31, 2019,2020, the Hobson Processing Facility has processed 578,000 pounds of uranium concentrates extracted directly from the Palangana Mine utilizing ISR methods. A summary by PAA is provided below:

During Fiscal 2020, Fiscal 2019 and Fiscal 2018, and Fiscal 2017 we reduced operations at the Palangana Mine to capture residual uranium only.  As a result, no material amount of U₃O₈ was processed at the Hobson Processing Facility.

In September 2013 we implemented a strategic plan to align our operations to a weak uranium market in a challenging post-Fukushima environment. This strategy has included the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures and remaining in a state of operational readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices. As a consequence, U₃O₈ pounds extracted from the Palangana Mine and processed at the Hobson Processing Facility decreased significantly during Fiscal 2015 compared to prior years, and there have been no material amount of uranium extracted from the Palangana Mine from Fiscal 2017 to Fiscal 2019.2020.

During Fiscal 2015 the Hobson Processing Facility processed finished goods representing 18,000 pounds of U₃O₈ (Fiscal 2014: 43,000 pounds; Fiscal 2013: 194,000 pounds; and Fiscal 2012: 198,000 pounds) extracted solely from the Palangana Mine.  Based on our estimate of mineralized materials in PAA 1, 2 and 3, over which an average mining grade of 0.135% has been established, cumulative recovery since the commencement of uranium extraction in November 2010 to July 31, 20192020 was 44% (July 31, 2015: 44%; July 31, 2014: 43%; July 31, 2013: 40%; and July 31, 2012: 31%).

The following table summarizes the drill holes completed by the Company from December 18, 2009, the date of our acquisition of STMV, to July 31, 2019:2020:

We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under Industry Guide 7, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for the Palangana Mine. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as the Palangana Mine. Since we commenced extracting mineralized materials at the Palangana Mine without having established proven and probable reserves, any mineralized materials established or extracted from the Palangana Mine should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.

Burke Hollow Project, Bee County, Texas

Property Description and Location

TheOur Burke Hollow Project is comprised of two leases covering 19,335 acres located in Texas along the eastern, down-dip side end of the South Texas Uranium Belt. These leases allow for the mining of uranium by ISR methods while utilizing the land surface (with variable conditions) as needed, for mining wells and aboveground facilities for fluid processing and uranium extraction during the mining and groundwater restoration phases of the project. The Burke Hollow Project area is about 18 miles southeast of the town of Beeville, is located on the western side of US 77 and is located northeast of US 181 which links with US 59 in Beeville. The nominal center of the Burke Hollow Project lease is located at latitude 28.2638 and longitude 97.5176. Site drilling roads are entirely composed of caliche and gravel, allowing for access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.

Virtually all mining in Texas is on private lands with leases negotiated between mining companies and each individual land/mineral owner. The Burke Hollow Project consists of two leases, one lease dated February 21, 2012, comprised of 17,510 acres, with Thomson-Barrow Corporation as mineral owner and Burke Hollow Corporation as surface owner, and the other dated December 15, 2012, comprised of 1,825 acres, with a separate owner. The leases are paid-up leases for a primary term of five years and allow for an extension term of an additional five years and so long thereafter as uranium or other leased substances are being produced. The leases have various stipulated fees for land surface alterations, such as per well or exploration hole fees (damages). The primary lease stipulation is the royalty payments as a percentage of production. Because the leases are negotiated with a private land and mineral owners and none of the property is located on government land, some of the details of the lease information and terms are considered confidential.

There are no known environmental liabilities associated with the Burke Hollow Project. We currently have an exploration permit for their work in Bee County from the Texas Railroad Commission (“TRC”).

Prior to any mining activity at the Burke Hollow Project, we would be required to obtain a RML, a large area UIC Mine permit and a PAA permit for each wellfield developed for mining within the Mine Permit area. In addition, a waste disposal well would, if needed, would require a separate UIC Mine permit. These permits would be issued by Texas regulatory agencies.

The TRC requires exploration companies to obtain exploration permits before conducting drilling in any area. The permits include standards for the abandonment and remediation of test bore holes. The standards include that the American Society for Testing and Materials type 1 neat-cement be used in the plugging of test bore holes, the filling and abandonment of mud pits, and the marking of bore holes at the surface. Remediation requirements are sometimes specific to the area of exploration and may include segregation, storage, re-covering with topsoil, re-grading and re-vegetation. Potential future environmental liability as a result of the mining must be addressed by the permit holder jointly with the permit granting agency. Most permits now have bonding requirements for ensuring that the restoration of groundwater, the land surface and any ancillary facility structures or equipment is properly completed. If the Burke Hollow Project reaches economic viability in the future, we would need to complete a number of required environmental baseline studies such as cultural resources (including archaeology), socioeconomic impact and soils mapping. Flora and fauna studies will need to be conducted as will background radiation surveys.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Burke Hollow Project is situated in the interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The area is characterized by rolling topography with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. There is about 47 feet of relief at the site with ground surface elevations ranging from a low of 92 feet to a high of 139 feet above mean sea level. The leased property for the Burke Hollow Project is used mostly for petroleum production, cattle ranching and game management. Access by vehicular traffic is provided from Hwy. 77 to the property.

The property is in a rural setting in southeastern Bee County. The nearest population centers are Skidmore, approximately 11 miles west, Refugio about 15 miles east, and Beeville, approximately 18 miles northwest. While Skidmore and Refugio are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Beeville is a much larger city and provides a well-developed infrastructure that has resulted from being a regional center to support oil and gas exploration and production. The Burke Hollow Project site area has good accessibility for light to heavy equipment. There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region and the moderate topography with dominantly sandy, well-drained soils provide good construction conditions for building gravel site roads necessary for site access. Water supply in the project area is from private water wells, mostly tapping sands of the upper Goliad Formation. Water needs for potential future pre-extraction activities would be from the same sources.

Bee County has a climate characterized by long, hot summers and cool to warm winters. The moderate temperatures and precipitation result in excellent conditions for developing an ISR mine. The average annual precipitation is about 32 inches with the months from November to March normally the driest and May through October typically having more precipitation due partly to more intense tropical storms. From June through September the normal high temperatures are routinely above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, while the months from December through February are the coolest with average low temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Periods of freezing temperatures are generally quite brief and infrequent. Tropical weather from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the site area with largeheavy rain storms. The infrequent freezing weather and abnormally largeheavy rainfalls are the primary conditions that could cause temporary shutdowns at an operating ISR mine.

The necessary rights for constructing the needed surface processing facilities are in-place on selected lease agreements. Sufficient electric power is believed to be available in the area, however new lines may be needed to bring additional service to a plant site and well fields. Within a 20-mile radius of the planned Burke Hollow facility there is sufficient population to supply the necessary number of suitable mining personnel.

History

The earliest historic uranium exploration at the Burke Hollow Project was the drilling of five exploration holes completed on the Welder lease by Nufuels (Mobil) in 1982. Oxidation/reduction interfaces were intercepted in two of the holes and oxidized tails were logged in three of the holes. In 1993 Total Minerals conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program and completed a total of 12 exploration holes of which 11 intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization. The resulting 12 log files include good quality electric logs, with each log file containing a detailed lithological report based on drill hole cuttings prepared by Total Mineral’s field geologists who were supervising and monitoring the drilling activity contemporaneously.

All of the boreholes were drilled using contracted truck-mounted drilling rigs. The holes were drilled by conventional rotary drilling methods using drilling mud fluids. All uranium exploration at the Burke Hollow Project has been conducted with vertical drill holes. Drill cuttings were typically collected from the drilling fluid returns circulating up the annulus of the borehole. These samples were generally taken at five foot intervals and laid out on the ground in consecutive rows of twenty by the drill crew for review and description by a geologist. Upon completion, the holes were logged for gamma ray, self-potential, and resistance by contract logging companies. Century Geophysical was the logging company utilized by both Nufuels and Total Minerals, and Century Geophysical provided primarily digital data. A tool recording down-hole deviation was also utilized for each of the holes drilled.

This description of previous exploration work undertaken at the Burke Hollow Project is based primarily on gamma ray and electric logs along with several small maps and cross-sections constructed by Total Minerals.

The historic data package obtained by us for a portion of the current Burke Hollow Project area provided the above described information. Based on the very limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made by either Nufuels or Total Minerals. The actual drilling and geophysical logging results, however, have been determined to be properly conducted to current industry standards and usable by our exploration staff in their geologic investigation.

The only historic work relating to uranium exploration or mining is the early exploration work done by Nufuels in 1982 and by Total Minerals in 1993 as described above. There has been no known ownership of the Burke Hollow property by a mining company and no prior ownership or changes in ownership for the property are known by our Company or are relevant to the project.

Geological Setting

Regional Geology

The Burke Hollow Project area is situated within the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province that is geologically characterized by sedimentary deposits that typically dip and thicken toward the Gulf of Mexico from the northwest source areas. Additionally, the regional dip generally increases with distance in the down dip direction as the overall thickness of sediments increase. The sedimentary units are dominantly continental clastic deposits with some underlying near shore and shallow marine facies. The uranium-bearing units of South Texas are virtually all sands and sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Lower Pliocene (youngest). At Burke Hollow, deposits are hosted by the Goliad Formation of Lower Pliocene to Miocene age.

The Project area, located about 18 miles southeast of Beeville, which is the county seat of Bee County, is situated in the major northeast-southwest trending Goliad Formation of fluvial origin. The Geologic Atlas of Texas, Beeville-Bay City Sheet (Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Revised 1987), indicates that a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation overlies the Miocene Goliad Formation. The Lissie Formation unconformably overlies the Goliad Formation and consists of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay, with minor amounts of gravel. The thickness of the Lissie Formation in the Project area ranges from approximately 35 feet on the western edge to a maximum of 70 feet in thickness on the down-dip eastern edge of the Project area. The map below shows the surface geology at the Burke Hollow Project.

The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene in age, but the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene after research revealed the presence of indigenous Miocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands. The lower Goliad fluvial sands are correlative with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera, indicative of a Miocene age (Baskin and Hulbert, 2008, GCAGS Transactions, v. 58, p. 93-101). The Geology of Texas map published by The Bureau of Economic Geology in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene.

Relevant earlier literature described the Goliad Formation as Pliocene-aged, including the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Beeville-Bay City Sheet (Bureau of Econ. Geol. revised 1987), and The Geology of Texas, Volume I (No. 3232, 1932, Texas Bureau of Econ. Geology).

Local and Property Geology

The uranium-bearing sands of the Goliad Formation at the project site occur beneath a thin layer of Lissie Formation sand, silt, clay, and gravel, which covers most of the project area with a total thickness of approximately 35 feet on the western side to approximately 70 feet thickness on the downdip eastern side of the project. The Goliad Formation underlies the Lissie and is present at depths ranging from 35 feet to approximately 1,050 feet in depth on the eastern side of the property. We have determined that uranium mineralization discovered to date occurs within at least four individual sand units in the Upper Goliad at depths generally ranging from 160 feet to 500 feet, and within two deeper sand units in the Lower Goliad located between 900 feet to 950 feet in depth.

The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in Bee County capable of yielding moderate to large quantities of fresh to slightly saline water in the south half of Bee County, which includes the project area.

The hydrogeological characteristics of the water-bearing Goliad sands at the Burke Hollow Project have not yet been determined, but required hydrogeological tests will determine the hydraulic character of the sands and the confining beds separating the individual sand zones. Information regarding the water-bearing characteristics of the Goliad sands from aquifer tests of Beeville and Refugio cityCity supply wells (O.C. Dale, et al., 1957) reported an average coefficient of permeability of about 100 gallons per day per square foot. This would be the equivalent coefficient of transmissivity of approximately 2,500 gallons per day per foot for a 25-foot thick sand. It is likely that the uranium-bearing mineralized sand zones at the Burke Hollow Project will have similar hydraulic characteristics.

There are at least two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow propertyProject that are likely related to the formation of the uranium mineralization. These faults are shown at a depth of approximately 3,500 feet below ground surface based on petroleum industry maps and extend upward into the Goliad Formation. The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is an antithetic fault downthrown to the northwest, forming a graben structure. The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site. The faulting has probably served as a conduit for reducing waters/gases migrating from deeper horizons as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands.

Mineralization

The Burke Hollow Project uranium-bearing units occur as multiple roll-front type deposits in vertically stacked sands and sandstones. Groundwater flowing from northwest to southeast in the Goliad sands likely contained low concentrations of dissolved uranium resulting from oxidizing conditions and the relatively short distance from the recharge area. The geochemical conditions in the sands near the project changed from oxidizing to reducing due to an influx of reductants. Hydrogen sulfide and/or methane dissolved in groundwater are likely sources for creating a reduction-oxidation boundary in the area with consequent precipitation and concentration of uranium mineralization.

Specific identification of the uranium minerals has not yet been determined at the Burke Hollow Project. The very fine uranium minerals found coating quartz grains and within the interstices in most South Texas sand and sandstone roll-front deposits has generally been found to be dominantly uraninite and, to a lesser extent, coffinite. No uraninite has been identified on the Burke Hollow Project and the presence of uraninite on other properties does not mean that such mineralization will be found at the Burke Hollow Project. Detailed petrographic examination of disseminated uranium mineralization within sands/sandstones is generally not suitable for identification of the specific uranium minerals. Laboratory analysis such as x-ray diffraction may be used to identify the minerals, however, the specific mineral species typically found in reduced sands are generally similar in South Texas ISR projects and leaching characteristics are also similar. Based on the experience of the ISR mines throughout South Texas, the use of gamma-ray logging with a calibrated logging probe has become the standard method to determine the thickness and estimated grade of uranium bearing minerals.

At the project site the Goliad Formation is located near the surface underlying the Lissie Formation, and extends to depths exceeding 1,050 feet on the eastern side of the property. Uranium mineralization discovered to date occurs in multiple sand/sandstone units that are all below the saturated zone. These are the Goliad Lower A sand, the Goliad Upper B sand, the Goliad Lower B sand and the Goliad D sand. The sands are fluvial-deltaic in origin, and thicken and thin across the project site. Each zone is hydrologically separated by clay or silty clay beds. The uranium deposits discovered to date range from several feet to over 30 feet in thickness. The C-shaped configuration is typically convex in a down-dip direction with tails trailing on the up-dip side.

Update to July 31, 20202019

During Fiscal 2019,2020, a total of 3126 exploration holes and 5121 cased monitor wells totaling 33,61521,069 feet were drilled at the Burke Hollow Project to depths ranging from a minimum of 240400 feet to a maximum 500 feet, with an average depth of 410448 feet. Cumulative to July 31, 2019,2020, a total of 708729 exploration holes and 81107 monitor wells totaling 364,965386,034 feet have been drilled to depths ranging from a minimum of 160 feet to a maximum of 1,100 feet, with an average depth of 463459 feet.

As of July 31, 2019,2020, a total of 30 regional baseline monitor wells have been installed in order to establish baseline water quality in both the Goliad Lower A and Goliad Lower B sands. Additionally, a total of 5172 cased monitor wells were installed in the area which will constitute PAA-1 at Burke Hollow. With respect to permitting, a pre-operational groundwater characterization sampling program from the drilling of the regional baseline monitor wells was completed in February 2014.  A drainage study of the proposed license boundary was completed in January 2013 and encompasses the first three production areas.  Archeology, socioeconomic and ecology studies for the project were all completed by December 2013. Two Class I disposal well applications were submitted and final permits were issued by the TCEQ in July 2015. The final Mine Area Permit was issued by the TCEQ in December 2016 and an Aquifer Exemption was approved by the EPA in March 2017. The final RML was issued by TCEQ in February 2019.

An earlier Technical Report dated February 27, 2013 for the Burke Hollow Project was prepared in accordance with the provisions of NI 43-101 by Thomas A. Carothers, P.G., a consulting geologist, and filed by us on SEDAR. An Updated Technical Report, dated October 6, 2014, was prepared in accordance with the provisions of NI 43-101 by Andrew W. Kurrus III, P. G., with Clyde L. Yancey, P.G., serving as the Qualified Person under NI 41-101.

Goliad Project, Goliad County, Texas

Property Description and Location

The Goliad Project is comprised of 9nine leases covering 995-acres located in Texas near the northeast end of the extensive South Texas Uranium Trend. The Goliad Project consists of multiple leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods while utilizing the land surface (with variable conditions), as needed, for mining wells and aboveground facilities for fluid processing and ore capture during the mining and groundwater restoration phases of the Project. The Goliad Project area is about 14 miles north of the town of Goliad and is located on the east side of US route 77A/183, a primary highway that intersects with US 59 in Goliad and IH-10 to the north. The approximate center of the Project area is 28° 52’ 7” N latitude, 97° 20’ 36” W longitude. Site drilling roads are mostly gravel based and allow reasonable weather access for trucks and cars. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods. A location map for the Goliad Project is shown below:

35

---

 

Virtually all mining in Texas is on private lands with leases negotiated with each individual landowner/mineral owner. Moore Energy Corporation (“Moore Energy”) obtained leases for exploration work in the project area in the early 1980s and completed an extensive drilling program resulting in a historic uranium mineral estimate in 1985. We obtained mining leases from individuals and by assignment from a private entity in 2006.

At July 31, 2017, we held nine leases ranging in size from 42-acres to 253-acres, for a total of 995-acres. The majority of the leases have starting dates in 2005 or 2006 with an initial term of five years and a five-year renewal option. The various lease fees and royalty conditions are negotiated with individual lessors and terms may vary from lease to lease. We have amended the majority of the leases to extend the time period for an additional five years past the five-year renewal option period.

No historic uranium mining is known to have occurred on any of the Goliad Project lease properties and only state permitted uranium exploration drilling has taken place. There are believed to be no existing environmental liabilities at the property leases. Prior to any mining activity at the Goliad Project, we are required to obtain a RML, a large area Underground Injection Control Mine Permit and a PAA Permit for each wellfield developed for mining within the Mine Permit area. In addition, a waste disposal well will, if needed, require a separate UIC Mine permit. These permits will be issued by Texas regulatory agencies. The current drilling and abandonment of uranium exploration holes on any of the leases is permitted by the TRC. Potential future environmental liability as a result of the mining must be addressed by the permit holder jointly with the permit granting agency. Most permits now have bonding requirements for ensuring that the restoration of groundwater, the land surface and any ancillary facility structures or equipment is properly completed.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Goliad Project area is situated in the interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The area is characterized by rolling topography with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys. There is about 130 feet of relief at the site with ground surface elevations ranging from a low of 150 feet to a high of 280 feet above mean sea level. The leased property for the Goliad Project is used mostly for livestock grazing pasture and woodland. The overall property area is shown as having a Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic vegetation/cover type.

The site property is accessed from combined route US 77A/183 that trends north-south to the west of the property. Highway FM 1961 intersects with 77A-183 at the crossroad town of Weser. Highway FM 1961 to the east of the intersection trends along the south side of the property. Access from either of these roads into the property is via vehicular traffic on private gravel roads.

The property is in a rural setting at the north end of Goliad County. The nearest population centers are Goliad (14 miles south), Cuero (18 miles north) and Victoria (about 30 miles east). While Goliad and Cuero are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies. Victoria is a much larger city and provides a well-developed infrastructure that has resulted from being a regional center to support oil and gas exploration and production. The Goliad Project site area generally has very good accessibility for light to heavy equipment. There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region and the moderate topography, with dominantly sandy, well-drained soils, provides good construction conditions for building gravel site roads necessary for site access.

The climate in Goliad County is mild with hot summers and cool to warm winters. The moderate temperatures and precipitation result in excellent conditions for developing an ISR mine. Periods of freezing temperatures are generally very brief and infrequent. Tropical weather from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the site area with large rain storms.heavy rainfall. The periodic freezing weather and abnormally large rainfallsheavy rainfall are the primary conditions that can cause temporary shutdowns. Otherwise there is not a regular non-operating season.

The necessary rights for constructing needed surface processing facilities are in-place on selected lease agreements. Sufficient electric power is believed to be available in the area; however, new lines may be needed to bring additional service to the plant site and wellfields. We believe that within a 30-mile radius of the planned Goliad Project facility there is sufficient population to supply the necessary number of suitable mining personnel.

History

Ownership History of the Property

The Goliad Project site is located in the north-central portion of Goliad County to the east and north of the intersection of U.S. Routes 77A/183 and Farm to Market Route 1961. There has been a long history of oil and gas exploration and production in the area and oil and gas is still a primary part of the economy for the relatively lightly populated county. In the period from October 1979 to June 1980, as a part of a large oil, gas and other minerals lease holding (approximately 55,000 acres), Coastal Uranium utilized the opportunity to drill several widely spaced exploration holes in the region. There were reported to be eight holes drilled at or near the Goliad Project area.

In the early 1980s Moore Energy obtained access to review some of the Coastal Uranium wide-spaced drilling exploration data. The review resulted in Moore Energy obtaining several leases from Coastal Uranium, including several of the current Goliad Project leases. During the period from March 1983 through August 1984, Moore Energy conducted an exploration program in the Goliad Project area. No further drilling was done at the Goliad Project area until we obtained the leases through assignment from a private entity and from individual mineral owners.

Exploration and Pre-extractionPre-extraction Work Undertaken

This description of previous exploration and pre-extraction work undertaken at the Goliad Project is based primarily on electric logs and maps produced by Moore Energy during the period 1983 to 1984. Moore Energy completed 479 borings on various leases. Eight widespread exploration borings were completed by Coastal Uranium in 1980. We obtained leases through an assignment from a private entity in 2006 and from individual mineral owners thereafter and began confirmation drilling in May 2006.

In December 2010, the TCEQ approved the mine permit and the production area authorization for PAA-1 and granted the request for the designation of an Exempt Aquifer for us. In December 2011, a RML was issued by the TCEQ. All other state-level permits and authorizations have been received including a Class III Injection Well Permit (Mine Permit), two Class I Injection Well Permits (disposal well permits), a PAA for its first production area, a Permit by Rule (air permit exemption) and an Aquifer Exemption for which we received concurrence from the regional EPA.

A Technical Report, dated March 7, 2008 for the Goliad Project, prepared in accordance with the provisions of NI 43-101, was completed by Thomas A. Carothers, P.G., a consulting geologist, and filed by us on SEDAR.

Geological Setting

Regional Geology

The Goliad Project area is situated in the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province that is geologically characterized by sedimentary deposits that typically dip and thicken toward the Gulf of Mexico from the northwest source areas. Additionally, the regional dip generally increases with distance in the down dip direction as the overall thickness of sediments increase. The sedimentary units are dominantly continental clastic deposits with some near shore and shallow marine facies. The uranium-bearing units are virtually all sands and sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Upper Miocene (youngest).

Local and Property Geology

The surface of the property is all within the outcrop area of the Goliad Formation (Figure 4-3). The mineralized units are sands and sandstone within the Goliad Formation and are designated by us as the A through D sands from younger (upper) to older (lower), respectively. The sand units are generally fine to medium grained sands with silt and varying amounts of secondary calcite. The sand units vary in color depending upon the degree of oxidation-reduction and could be from light brown-tan to grays.greys. The sandssand units are generally separated from each other by silty clay or clayey silts that serve as confining units between the sand units.

The Goliad Formation at the Projectproject site occurs from the surface to a depth of about 500 feet. Depending upon the land surface elevation, groundwater occurs in the sands of the formation below depths of about 30 to 60 feet. The four sand/sandstone zones (A-D) designated as containing uranium mineralization at the site are all considered to be a part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer on a regional basis. At the project area, however, each zone is a hydrogeologic unit with similar but variable characteristics. The A Zone is the uppermost unit and based on resistance logs groundwater in this unit may be unconfined over portions of the site. The three deeper zones are confined units with confining clays and silts above and below the water-bearing unit.

Groundwater from sands of the Goliad Formation is used for water supplies over much of the northern portion of Goliad County. Water quality in the Goliad Formation is variable and wells typically can yield small to moderate amounts of water. Data indicates an approximate average hydraulic conductivity of the water-bearing zones of the Goliad Formation in Goliad County is 100 gallons per day per square foot. Based on this value, a 20-foot sand unit would have an approximate transmissivity of 2,000 gallons per day. With sufficient available drawdown properly completed ISR wells could have average yields in the range of 25 to 50 gallons per minute.

The site area structures include two faults that intersect and offset the mineralized units. These faults are normal, with one downthrown toward the coast and one downthrown toward the northwest. The fault throws range from about 40 to 80 feet.

Project Type

The Goliad uranium projectProject is characteristic of other known Goliad sand/sandstone deposits in South Texas. The mineralization occurs within fluvial sands and silts as roll frontroll-front deposits that are typically a “C” or cutoff “C” shape. The roll-fronts are generally associated with an extended oxidation-reduction boundary or front.

The other Goliad projects in the region include the Palangana Mine, the Kingsville Dome mine southeast of Kingsville, the Rosita mine west of Alice, the Mesteña Alta Mesa mine in Brooks County and the former Mt. Lucas mine at Lake Corpus Christi. These mines are all located south of the Goliad Project from about 60 to 160 miles. The average tons and uranium grade information for these mines is not known, but all these ISR projects mining Goliad Formation sand units have been very successful with the following characteristics in common: excellent leaching characteristics rate and favorable hydraulic conductivity of host sands.

At the Goliad Project there are four stacked mineralized sand horizons (A-D) that are separated vertically by zones of finer sand, silt and clay. Deposition and concentration of uranium in the Goliad Formation likely resulted due to a combination of leaching of uranium from volcanic tuff or ash deposits within the Goliad Formation or erosion of uranium-bearing materials from older Oakville deposits. The leaching process occurred near the outcrop area where recharge of oxidizing groundwater increased the solubility of uranium minerals in the interstices and coating sand grains in the sediments. Subsequent downgradient migration of the soluble uranium within the oxygenated groundwater continued until the geochemical conditions became reducing and uranium minerals were deposited in roll-front or tabular bodies due to varying stratigraphic or structural conditions.

There are at least two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Goliad property that are likely related to the formation of the Goliad Project mineralization. The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is downthrown to the northwest, forming a graben structure. Both faults are normal faults. Throw on the northwest fault is about 75 feet and the southeast fault has about 50 feet of throw. The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site. The faulting has probably served as a conduit for reducing waters/gases to migrate from deeper horizons as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands.

Mineralization

The Goliad Project uranium-bearing units occur as multiple roll frontroll-front type structures in vertically stacked sands and sandstones. Groundwater flowing from northwest to southeast in the Goliad sands likely contained low concentrations of dissolved uranium resulting from oxidizing conditions and the relatively short distance from the recharge area. The geochemical conditions in the sands near our property changed from oxidizing to reducing due to an influx of reductants. Hydrogen sulfide and/or methane dissolved in groundwater are likely sources of creating a reduction-oxidation boundary in the area with consequent precipitation and concentration of uranium mineralization.

Specific identification of the uranium minerals has not been determined at the Goliad Project. The very fine uranium minerals found coating quartz grains and within the interstices in most South Texas sand and sandstone roll-front deposits has generally been found to be dominantly uraninite. No uraninite has been identified on the Goliad Project and the presence of uraninite on other properties does not mean that such mineralization will be found on the Goliad Project. Detailed petrographic examination of disseminated uranium mineralization within sands/sandstones is generally not suitable for identification of the specific uranium minerals. Laboratory equipment such as x-ray diffraction units may be used to identify the minerals, however, the specific mineral species typically found in reduced sands are generally similar in South Texas ISR projects and leaching characteristics are also similar. Based on the experience of the ISR mines throughout south Texas, the use of gamma-ray logging with a calibrated logging probe has become the standard method to determine the thickness and estimated grade of uranium bearing minerals.

At the projectGoliad Project site the Goliad Formation is exposed at the surface and extends to depths exceeding 500 feet. Uranium mineralization occurs in four sand/sandstone units that are all below the saturated zone. The zones are designated A to D from the top to the bottom of the sequence. The sands are fluvial-deltaic in origin, and thicken and thin across the Project site. Each zone is hydrologically separated by 10 to 50 feet or more of clay or silty clay. The uranium deposits are tabular in nature and can range from about one foot to over 45 feet in thickness. The “C” shaped configuration is typically convex in a downdip direction with leading edge tails on the upper end. Most of the exploration and delineation holes with elevated gamma ray log anomalies are situated within a southwest-northeast trending graben and most of the gamma ray anomaly holes are situated along the northernmost of the two faults comprising the graben. This northernmost fault is downthrown to the southeast, which is typical for the majority of faults along the Texas coastal area.

Leach Amenability

Mineral processing or metallurgical testing was not reported as being conducted on any of the samples drilled or recovered during the Moore Energy exploration in the mid-1980s. We submitted selected core samples from our core hole # 30892-111C to Energy Laboratories, Inc. in Casper, Wyoming, in January 2007. These samples from the Goliad Project were sent to the laboratory for leach amenability studies intended to demonstrate that uranium mineralization at the property was capable of being leached using conventional in situ leach chemistry. The tests do not approximate other in-situ variables (permeability, porosity, and pressure) but provide an indication of a sample’s reaction rate and the potential chemical recovery.

Split sections of core were placed in laboratory containers and a lixiviate solution with 2.0 grams per liter HCO₃ (NaHCO₃) and either 0.50 or 0.25 g/L of H₂O₂ (hydrogen peroxide) was added to each test container. The containers were then rotated at 30 rpm for 16 hours. The lixiviate was then extracted from each test container and analyzed for uranium, molybdenum, sodium, sulfate, alkalinity (bicarbonate, carbonate), pH and conductance. A clean charge of lixiviate was added and the container rotated another 16 hours. Each sample rotation and lixiviate charge cycle was representative of five pore volumes with chemical analyses after each cycle. The cycle was repeated for a total of six cycles or the equivalent of 30 pore volumes.

The four core samples subjected to the leach amenability tests were determined to contain from 0.04% to 0.08% cU₃O₈ before testing. Leach tests conducted on the core samples from the A-Zone indicate leach efficiencies of 60% to 80% U₃O₈ extraction while the tails analyses indicate efficiencies of 87% to 89%. The differences between the two calculations involve the loss of solid clay-based materials during multiple filtrations. Based on post leach solids analysis, the core intervals were leachable to a very favorable 86% to 89%. After tests the tails were reanalyzed for uranium concentration to determine the recovery, which ranged on the four samples using two methods from 60% to 89%.

Laboratory amenability testing of the cores samples indicated that the uranium (dissolved elemental U) recoveries ranged from 86.4% to 88.9% in the four tests. These results show that the mineralized intervals at the Goliad Project are very amenable to ISR mining even when exposed to only one-half of the oxidant concentration normally used in the Leach Amenabilityleach amenability test. Based on our experience withthe ISR mining of the Catahoula and Oakville uranium deposits, as well as discussions with other Goliad deposit mining personnel, the geologically younger deposits in Texas (Goliad formation) have typically been the most amenable to in-situ leaching. The uranium recovery is generally more complete (% recovery) and occurs in a shorter time period. Both of these factors are important for ISR pre-extraction economics.

Based on the amenability test results, the size of the mineralization at the Goliad Project, the geologic setting and the current and projected future demand and price of uranium, the most feasible and cost effective mining method for the Goliad property uranium is by ISR. This method is most suitable for the size and grade of the deposits in sands that are below the water table and situated at depths that would be prohibitive for open pit or underground mining.

The amenability testing described above was conducted on core recovered from four depth intervals from one boring. While this was a limited sampling for this property, the samples are believed to be generally representative of the characteristics of the mineralized intervals and the determined recovery ranges for these intervals is considered to be reliable. Two of the four samples tested contained approximately 0.08% cU₃O₈ and two contained lower grades of uranium (~0.04% cU₃O₈). Energy Laboratories, Inc. in Casper, Wyoming, conducted the laboratory testing for this project. The laboratory has been in business since 1952, is fully certified, but not ISO certified. Certifications include the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the “NRC”)NRC and the following U.S. states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Update to July 31, Goliad Project Developments2019

The following are the material developments respecting the Goliad Project:

On or about March 9, 2011, the TCEQ granted our Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, PAA and AE for the Goliad Project.  On or about December 4, 2012, the EPA concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the AE permit.  With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, the Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status.  On or about May 24, 2011, a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the 250^th District Court in Travis County, Texas.  A motion filed by us to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about June 14, 2013, when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position.  On or about January 18, 2013, a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the United States (the “Fifth Circuit”) to appeal the EPA’s decision.  On or about March 5, 2013, a motion filed by us to intervene in this matter was granted.  The parties attempted to resolve both appeals and, to facilitate discussions and to avoid further legal costs, the parties jointly agreed, through mediation which was initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about August 8, 2013, to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about August 21, 2013, the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings.  The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA’s stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval.  In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE.  We and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, if granted, to be limited to a 60-day review period.  On December 9, 2013, by way of a procedural order from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to 60 days. In March of 2014, at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, we conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed our previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about June 17, 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of our existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than 10% of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but not denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about September 9, 2014, the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in August 2013 and to set a briefing schedule (the “Status Report”). In that Status Report, the petitioners also stated that they had decided not to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. We continue to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and we are continuing forward as planned towards uranium extraction at its fully-permitted Goliad Project.

Mineral Exploration Projects

We hold mineral rights in the U.S. States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay by way of federal, state and provincial mining claims and private mineral leases and mineral concessions.

We plan to conduct exploration programs on these mineral exploration properties with the objective of determining the existence of economic concentrations of uranium. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under Industry Guide 7, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of the uranium projects discussed below. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining.

Arizona

All of our Arizona claims and state leases were previously the subject of exploration drilling for the search of uranium by companies such as Union 76 Oil, Urangesellschaft, Wyoming Minerals, Noranda, Inc., Uranerz Energy Corp. (“Uranerz”), Homestake Mining Co., Occidental Minerals and Oklahoma Public Services. Claims staked directly by us have been in areas known for uranium occurrences as shown in the Arizona State publication “Occurrences of Uranium in Miscellaneous Sedimentary Formations, Diatremes and Pipes and Veins”.

Arizona: Anderson Project

Property Location and Description

The Anderson Project is an 8,268-acre property located in Yavapai County, west-central Arizona, approximately 75 miles northwest of Phoenix and 43 miles northwest of Wickenburg (latitude 34°18’29” N and longitude 113°16’32” W, datum WGS84). The general area is situated along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin. The Anderson Project is located on the south side of the Santa Maria River approximately 13 miles west of State Highway 93. The Anderson Project occupies part or all of Sections 1 and 3, 9 through 16, 21 through 27, and 34 through 36 of Township 11 North, Range 10 West and portions of Sections 18, 19, and 30 of Township 11 North Range 9 West of the Gila and Salt River Base Meridian.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

The Anderson Project is accessed by paved, all-weather gravel and dirt roads. The property is accessed via the Alamo Lake turnoff, located approximately 21 miles northwest of Wickenburg on Arizona State Highway 93 (Joshua Tree Parkway), then driving 0.25 miles north of mile marker 179, and then following the Alamo Road for 5.8 miles to the Pipeline Ranch Road turnoff. The road passes through the Pipeline Ranch, located in the bottom of Date Creek Wash and continues for approximately 6.3 miles to FR 7581. The property boundary is located 1.4 miles north on FR 7581. There are alternate dirt roads, including a 15-mile primitive road from Highway 93 over Aso Pass (2,900-foot elevation).

The Anderson Project is located in the northeast portion of the Date Creek Basin. The basin consists of low undulating terrain, centrally dissected by Date Creek Wash. The site lies along the south bank of the Santa Maria River which runs along the northern edge of the basin. Elevations above sea level are between 1,700 feet and 2,400 feet. Maximum local topographic relief at the site is approximately 700 feet.

Vegetation on the property is typical of the Sonoran Desert of central Arizona and consists predominately of Joshua trees, palo verde bushes, saguaro, cholla, ocotillo, creosote bushes and desert grasses. Fauna includes:includes jackrabbits, rattlesnakes, roadrunners, desert tortoise, various lizards and less common mule deer, wild burros and mules.

The alluvial valley of the Santa Maria River varies substantially in width and depth to bedrock. The volume of alluvium, and particularly the depth of the material, influences the proportion of surface flow to underflow in the river valley. The groundwater in the alluvium consists of underflow that is forced toward the surface as the depth of the alluvium decreases.

The climate is arid, with hot summers and mild winters. Annual rainfall averages 10 to 12 inches with rain showers from January through March and during summer thunderstorms. Snowfall is rare. On average temperatures range between a low of 31°F during winter months and a high of 104°F during summer months. Temperature extremes of 10°F in winter and 120°F in summer have been recorded. The climate is favorable for year-round mining operations and requires no special operational or infrastructure provisions that relate to weather.

Various water wells exist on and near the Anderson Project that can support large-scale mining operations. There is plenty of usable land space to locate processing plants, heap leach pads, tailings storage areas, waste disposal areas and other infrastructure development associated with large-scale mining. The Anderson Project includes most of a 195-acre area designated by the BLM as “disturbed” resulting from surface mining in the 1950s. It may be possible to expedite the permitting process for future metallurgical exploration and mining activities, including waste disposal within the disturbed area.

The Anderson Project area is undeveloped with the exception of various access and drill roads and various water wells previously constructed. No utilities exist on or adjacent to the area. A transmission power line runs northwest-southeast along Highway 93, approximately eight miles to the east;east, however, direct access to the power line may be obstructed by the Arrastra Mountain Wilderness and Tres Alamos Wilderness located between the power line and the Anderson Project. The construction of a power line would require routing along one of the existing road corridors, a distance of 16.2 miles to the Projectproject boundary.

The nearest town is Congress (population 1,700) located 32 road miles to the east. The nearest major housing, supply center and rail terminal is in Wickenburg (population 6,363) located approximately 43 miles from the Anderson Project by road. Phoenix (population approximately 1.45 million) is approximately 100 miles to the southeast by road and is the nearest major industrial and commercial airline terminal. Kingman (population 24,000) is located approximately 110 miles to the northwest by road. Our surface rights encompass 15.4 square miles which is sufficient for the surface structures associated with any proposed mining operation.

History

In January 1955, T.R. Anderson of Sacramento, California, detected anomalous radioactivity in the vicinity of the Anderson Project using an airborne scintillometer. After a ground check revealed uranium oxide in outcrop, numerous claims were staked. The “Anderson Mine,”Mine”, as the operation was known at the time, was drilled and mined by Mr. Anderson. Work between 1955 and 1959 resulted in 10,758 tons that averaged 0.15% U₃O₈ and 33,230 pounds U₃O₈ were shipped to Tuba City, Arizona, for custom milling. In 1959, production stopped when the Atomic Energy Commission ended the purchasing program.

During 1967 and 1968, Getty Oil Company (“Getty”) secured an option on claims in the northern portion of the Anderson Project. Some drilling and downhole gamma logging was conducted during the option period, but this failed to locate a sizeable uranium deposit. In 1968, Getty dropped their option.

In 1974 the increasing price of uranium created a renewed interest in the vicinity of the Anderson Project. Following a field check and an evaluation of the 1968 Getty drill data, MinEx optioned the northern portion of the current Anderson Project.

In 1975 MinEx purchased the northern portion of the current Anderson Project after a 53-hole, 5,800 m (19,000 feet) drilling program on 250 m centers confirmed a much greater uranium resource potential than had been interpreted from the 1968 Getty gamma log data. Further exploration work, consisting of a 180-hole, 22,555 m (74,000 feet) drill and core program on 120 m centers was conducted from November 1975 through February 1976 to further delineate the uranium resources. By 1980 MinEx had completed a total of 1,054 holes by rotary and core drilling.

In 1977 the Palmerita Ranch, located 11 km west of the deposit along the Santa Maria River, was acquired by MinEx to provide a water source for the operations in the event that closer sources proved inadequate. Based on favorable economics, indicated in a preliminary feasibility study completed by Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. in December 1977, a detailed final feasibility study was undertaken early in 1978 to evaluate the MinEx holdings on the northern portion of the current Anderson Project.

In 1973 Urangesellschaft expressed an interest in the former Anderson Property.property. Urangesellschaft located a claim block, the “Date Creek Project”, on the down-dip extension of the mineralization immediately to the south of MinEx’s claims. In 1973 to 1982 subsequent drilling programs delineated mineralization from a total of 352 drill holes with 122,744 m (402,773 feet) of rotary and core drilling. The following table summarizes the phases of the historical exploration.

Exploration History at the Anderson Property (Arsenau, 2011)

Geologic Setting

Regional Geology

The Anderson Project is located along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States. The Date Creek Basin is one of hundreds of Paleogene basins throughout western Arizona, southeastern California, Nevada and western Utah. Paleogene lacustrine and fluvial sediments and Quaternary gravels have filled these basins to depths of several thousand meters. The approximate location of the Basin boundaries is shown in the figure below.

The Basin is surrounded by dissected mountain ranges containing Precambrian metamorphic rocks and granites. Surrounding mountain ranges include the Black Mountains to the north and northeast and the Rawhide, Buckskin and McCracken Mountains to the west. To the south and southeast the Basin is bordered by a low drainage divide imposed by the Harcuvar and the Black Mountains. Margins of the Basin are filled with early Paleogene volcanic flows and volcaniclastic sediments. The Basin itself is filled with Oligocene to Miocene lacustrine and deltaic sediments covered by a thick mantle of Quaternary valley fill.

45

---

Local and Property Geology

Three major faults cross the Anderson Project: the East Boundary Fault System; Fault 1878; and the West Boundary Fault System. Faults trend predominantly N30ºW to N55ºW and dip steeply (approximately 80º) to the southwest. Another set of faults trending more westerly (N65ºW) are present in the south-central portion of the Anderson Project. A fault set trending northeast-southwest has been speculated by Urangesellschaft and others, but has not been observed in the field. Many of the northwesterly surface water drainage tributaries are developed partially along fault traces.

Minor faults and shear zones occur throughout the Anderson Project. These probably represent fractures with slight offset of strata during differential compaction of the underlying sediments or local adjustment to major faulting.

The largest fold in the area is a broad, gentle, northwest-trending syncline in the southeastern quarter of Section 9, T11N, R10W. Dips reach a maximum of 13º except where modified by shearing. Many smaller folds with amplitudes of several feet are present in the lacustrine strata.

Fault displacements range from a few centimetres to more than 100 m. Fault movement is generally of normal displacement resulting in stair-stepped fault blocks. Local faults also have a tendency to hinge. Minor faulting across the mineralized area is often difficult to discern from variations in sedimentary dips. The lacustrine sediments dip south to southwesterly from 2º to 5º, to a maximum of 15º. Much of this dip is attributed to recurrent faulting during deposition.

Nine stratigraphic units were identified on the Anderson Project, listed from oldest to youngest, as follows:

Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project occurs exclusively in the sequence of Miocene-age lacustrine lakebed sediments. The lacustrine sediments unconformably overlie the andesitic volcanic unit over most of the Anderson Project. However, to the east of the Anderson Project they overlie the felsic to intermediate volcanic unit.

Evidence suggests that deposition of the lacustrine sediments occurred in a restricted basin less than five km wide by 10 km to 12 km long on the northern edge of an old Paleogene lake. Moving southward, these sediments inter-tongue with siltstones and sandstones. The lakebed sediments represent time-transgressive facies deposited within a narrow, probably shallow, basinal feature. This type of depositional environment exhibits complex relationships between individual facies, lensing out, vertical and horizontal gradation, and interfingering.

The lake sediments include green siltstones and mudstones, white calcareous siltstones, and silty limestone or calcareous tuffaceous material. Much of this material is silicified to varying extents and was derived in part from volcanic ashes and tuffs common throughout the lakebeds. Also present in the lacustrine sequence are zones of carbonaceous siltstone and lignitic material. Along the boundary between the former MinEx and Urangesellschaft properties, drill holes encounter the basal arkosic sandstone. To the south and southwest, lakebeds interfinger with and eventually are replaced by a thick, medium to coarse-grained, arkosic sandstone unit.

Mineralization

Uranium mineralization in outcrops and the pit floor at the old Anderson mine was reported by the US Bureau of Mines in Salt Lake City as tyuyamunite (Ca(UO₂)₂(VO₄)₂•5-8H₂O). Carnotite (K(UO₂)2(VO₂(VO₄)₂•3H₂O), and a rarer silicate mineral, weeksite (K₂(UO₂)₂(Si₂O₅)_3•4H₂O), were also reported in outcrop samples. Carnotite mineralization occurs as fine coatings and coarse fibrous fillings along fractures and bedding planes and has been noted in shallow drill holes and surface exposures.

The uranium mineralization found at depth on the former Urangesellschaft property was reported by Hazen Research, Inc. (“Hazen Research”) to be poorly crystallized, very fine-grained, amorphous uranium with silica. This could be in the form of either coffinite (U(SiO₄)_1-x(OH)_4x) or uraninite (UO₂) in a primary or unoxidized state (Hertzke, 1997). Mineralogical studies performed by Hazen Research (1978a, 1978b, 1978c and 1979) on Urangesellschaft core found that mineralization was associated, for the most part, with organic-rich fractions of the samples. Specifically, the uraniferous material occurs as stringers, irregular masses and disseminations in carbonaceous veinlets with uranium up to 54% as measured by microprobe analysis. X-ray diffraction identified the mineral as coffinite. It is possible that an amorphous, ill-defined uranium silicate with a variable U:Si ratio is precipitated and, under favorable conditions, develops into an identifiable crystalline form (coffinite).

Of special note is the detection of high-grade, low-reflecting uraniferous material occurring with carbonaceous material in the siltstone. Similar assemblages in unoxidized mineralization have also been reported for the former MinEx property.

Urangesellschaft distinguished seven mineralized zones, identified as Horizons A, B, C, D, E, F and G, with the youngest (uppermost) being Horizon A and the oldest (deepest) being Horizon G. The majority of uranium occurs in Horizons A, B and C within the property. A conglomeratic sandstone unit interbeds with these units, but does not contain uranium mineralization; it is referred to as the Barren Sandstone Unit and it lies between Horizon C and Horizon D. Consequently, Horizons A through C have been called the Upper Lakebed Sequence and Horizons D through G have been called the Lower Lakebed Sequence.

Grades of mineralization range from 0.025% U₃O₈ to normal highs of 0.3% to 0.5% U₃O₈ with intercepts on occasion of 1.0% to 2.0% U₃O₈. Secondary enrichment of the syngenetic mineralization is observed along faults and at outcrops.

Exploration

A Light Detection and Ranging (“LiDAR”) survey was performed over the entire project area by Cooper Aerial Surveys Co. (“Cooper Aerial”) on July 9, 2011, between 13:07 UTC and 15:14 UTC (6:07 A.M. and 8:14 A.M., MST). Aerial imagery was collected at the same time. Data was processed using one of two base stations to obtain positional accuracies of between three cm and 10 cm. 24 ground control points showed a root mean square error of 6.7 cm between predicted and measured elevations. Cooper Aerial provided us with a one-meter pixel digital elevation model (DEM) and a 0.61 m contour shape-file derived from the LiDAR data. Cooper Aerial also corrected the ortho imagery with a 0.15 m pixel size. Coordinates were converted from WGS84 to NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N in meters, and elevation was reported in NAVD 1988 international feet. The conversion caused no distortion in elevations used in the resource model.

We have not performed any drilling to date on the Anderson Project.

Update to July 31, 2019

A Technical Report, dated June 19, 2012, for the Anderson Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Bruce Davis and Robert Simm, consulting geologists, and filed by us on SEDAR.

A Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”),PEA, dated July 6, 2014 for the Anderson Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Douglas Beahm, PE, PG, and Terence McNulty, PE, and filed by us on SEDAR.

Arizona

Arizona: Workman Creek Project

The Workman Creek Project is a 4,036-acre property located in Gila County, Arizona.

The Workman Creek Project consists of seven claim blocks, totaling 198 unpatented mining claims located within Gila County, in the central portion of the State of Arizona. We entered into a property acquisition agreement with Cooper Minerals Inc. on November 7, 2011 for the mineral claims which constitute the Workman Creek Project.

The Workman Creek Project is located in the Sierra Ancha region, approximately 50 kilometres north of Globe, within Gila County, Arizona. Some of the claim blocks can be accessed easily via highway 288, while other claim blocks are only accessible with the use of all-terrain-vehicles. The Sierra Ancha region is host to 18 historic uranium mines which were in operation between 1953 and 1960. During that period, over 122,000 pounds of U₃O₈ concentrate was produced with an average grade of 0.20% U₃O₈.

The Workman Creek Project and surrounding area of the Sierra Ancha region are underlain by igneous and sedimentary rocks of Precambrian age. The sedimentary rocks are nearly flat-lying except for minor undulations near regional-scale monoclines. The Dripping Spring Quartzite is the host rock for uranium mineralization throughout the Sierra Ancha region. Uranium mineralization in the Dripping Spring Quartzite consists of low-grade disseminations and concentrations in fine-grained strata and along bedding planes, and higher-grade layers and veinlets.

Wyoming Minerals Corporation developed the most prominent pre-1960 uranium mines into what they referred to as the “Dripping Springs Project”. In 1980, Wyoming Minerals Corporation contracted Dravo Engineers and Constructors to conduct a feasibility study of the Workman Creek deposits. This study of the “Dripping Springs Project” is within the Workman Creek Project. Shortly after the feasibility study was finished, the uranium market saw a prolonged depression.

A Technical Report, dated July 7, 2012 for the Workman Creek Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Neil G. McCallum, P.G., and Gary H. Giroux, P.E., a consulting geologist and engineer, respectively, and filed by us on SEDAR.

The following table provides information relating to our mineral rights located in Arizona:

Colorado

Claims and leases acquired by us in Colorado have historical production tonnages and grades published in the Colorado Geological Survey, Bulletin 40 “Radioactive Mineral Occurrences of Colorado”. Also, our geological staff has evaluated a portion of the claims currently owned by us.

Colorado:Slick Rock Project

Pursuant to a Uranium Mining Lease dated May 23, 2012, we acquired from UR-Energy LLC a mining lease for uranium on theour Slick Rock Project located in San Miguel and Montrose Counties, Colorado.

Since January 2011 we staked a total of 129 claims in the Slick Rock district of the Uravan Mineral Belt. In June 2011 we acquired 103 claims from Spider Rock Mining also in the Slick Rock District for a one-time payment of $500,000. As a result, we now hold a total of 315 contiguous claims in the Slick Rock District. Certain claims of the Slick Rock Project are subject to a 1.0% or 3.0% net smelter royalty, the latter requiring an annual advance royalty payment of $30,000 beginningwhich began in November 2017.

The Slick Rock Project is located in San Miguel County, Colorado approximately 24 miles north of the town of Dove Creek. The Slick Rock Project occupies all or parts of sections 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 in T44N R18W, NM Principal Meridian, and parts of sections 3, 4 and 5 of T43N R18W, NM Principal Meridian. The Slick Rock Project consists of 315 contiguous mineral lode claims and covers approximately 5,230 acres (8.2 square miles). The Slick Rock Project is bordered to the west by the Department of Energy's (“DOE”) Uranium lease tracts C-SR-13 and C-SR-13A, to the southwest by DOE Uranium lease tract C-SR-14(1), and to the north and northeast by the Sunday / Carnation / Topaz / Saint Jude mine complex, formerly owned by Energy Fuels.

The Slick Rock Project produced uranium and vanadium from 1957 to 1983 via the Burro Mines. The historic production totals of the Burro Mine are as follows:

All uranium/vanadium production came from the Upper Rim Sand of the Salt Wash Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation.

Within the Slick Rock Project area, the Salt Wash Member is approximately 275 to 400 feet thick. The Fluvial sediments of the Salt Wash were deposited by north to northeast flowing paleostreams. In the project area, these streams were deflected eastward by the paleotopographic high caused by the northwest/southeast trending Gypsum Valley anticline. This allowed for thick accumulations of Salt Wash sediments along the southwestern flank of the anticline and across the project area. The Salt Wash is composed of white to grey, light-buff and rusty-red, fine to medium-grained, cross-bedded, lenticular sandstone interbedded with red, green, or light-gray shale and mudstone. The Salt Wash contains three major sandstone ledges, ranging from 20 to 150 feet in thickness and separated by clay and shale layers. The uppermost thick, continuous sandstone lens is commonly the most highly mineralized of the sequence. The largest Salt Wash uranium deposits are near the edges of thick sandstone where a transition to sandy mudstone takes place, and in the scours or on the flanks of paleostream channels. Mineralized pods average in the range of 3000 tons to as much as 100,000 tons taken from a single cluster of deposits. Locally, deposits attain a thickness of 30 feet, but two to nine foot thicknesses are most common. Minerals are carnotite, tyuamunite, and brightly colored vanadates, vanadium hydromica or clay. Unoxidized mineralization is commonly black, consisting or uraninite, coffinite, montroseite and vanadium hydromica or clay.

A Technical Report, dated February 21, 2013, for the Slick Rock Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Bruce Davis and Robert Simm, consulting geologists, and filed by us on SEDAR.

A PEA dated April 8, 2014 for the Slick Rock Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Douglas Beahm, PE, PG, and filed by us on SEDAR.

The following table provides information relating to our mineral rights located in Colorado:

New Mexico

In December 2014, we staked 51 claims over the historic Dalton Pass project in the Crownpoint uranium district. Historic drilling at Dalton Pass by Pathfinder Mines indicates that the uranium mineralization occurs as both primary tabular and roll frontroll-front deposits. Mineralization is hosted by the upper Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation, a sequence of stacked sands separated by discontinuous shale breaks, at depths ranging from 1,900 feet to 2,100 feet.

The following table provides information relating to our mineral rights located in New Mexico:

Texas

At July 31, 2019,2020, we currently own various exploration projects located in the South Texas Uranium Belt. The location and acquisition of these leases are based on historical information contained within our extensive database, as well as current, ongoing geologic analyses by our exploration staff.

Texas: Salvo Project

TheOur Salvo Project is a 1,514-acre1,340-acre property located in Bee County, Texas.

A Phase I exploration drill program was completed in April 2011 with a total of 105 holes drilled. Phase II drilling began at the Salvo Project in October 2011 with two drilling rigs targeting Lower Goliad P and Q sand objectives. A total of 122 exploration and delineation holes for a total of 70,760 feet were drilled during Phase II which was concluded in May 2012. 29 holes (23%) met or exceeded a grade-thickness (“GT”) cutoff of 0.3 GT.

Interpretation of our exploration and delineation drilling, along with historic data from 1982 to 1984 exploration drilling by Mobil and URI, revealed the existence of two ore-bearing redox boundaries within the area, which has the potential to become PAA-1. A significant under-explored extension to this area which exhibits strong mineralization remains open-ended. Future plans would include further exploration/delineation drilling in this area in order to fully identify the extent of the mineralized zones in proposed PAA-1. Historic and recent Company drilling results are being reviewed for future exploration/delineation activities in the Salvo Project in order to fully identify the extent of the mineralized zones.

A Technical Report, dated July 16, 2010, for the Salvo Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Thomas A. Carothers, P.G., a consulting geologist, and filed by us on SEDAR. A further Technical Report, dated March 31, 2011, for the Salvo Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Thomas A. Carothers, P.G., a consulting geologist, and also filed by us on SEDAR.

Texas: Longhorn Project

TheOur Longhorn Project is located in Live Oak County, Texas, which historically has produced uranium by both open pit and ISR methods. The property lies within the historic US Steel Clay West production area where uranium was previously mined utilizing ISR methods along the historic George West district trend. We have an extensive database of information regarding the area including drill maps and over 500 gamma logs. The project lies on trend between two former U.S. Steel production areas, the Boots/Brown and the Pawlik. At least five separate roll-fronts are believed to exist across the project area.  Uranium grades within these Oakville deposits ranged from 0.10% to in excess of 0.20% U₃O₈ according to U.S. Steel reports and historic well logs obtained by us.  Well-developed Oakville sands in this area exhibit higher than average uranium grades for South Texas, as shown on many historic gamma ray logs, of which we have at least 500+ pertaining to the project from various databases. These higher than average reported uranium grades were later proven by excellent recoveries in the U.S. Steel ISR production areas.

The property is located approximately 65 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 55 miles southwest of Hobson. It is comprised of 39 lease agreements covering 651 acres, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium. We anticipate that any uranium identified at the Longhorn Project will be extracted using ISR mining and processed at Hobson.

The following table provides information relating to our main mineral rights located in the South Texas Uranium Belt, excluding theour Palangana Mine and the Goliad and Burke Hollow Projects:

Wyoming

We acquired the Reno Creek Project on August 9, 2017 and the North Reno Creek Project on May 1, 2018.

Wyoming: Reno Creek Project

TheOur Reno Creek project is located in the Powder River Basin of northeast Wyoming, one of the most prolific uranium producing regions in the U.S. and the home of five producing ISR operations: Cameco’s Smith Ranch/Highland; Cameco’s North Butte satellite; Uranium One’s Willow Creek; Energy Fuels, Nuclear, Inc.’s (“EFN”EFR”) Nichols Ranch; and Strata’s Lance project.  The project is less than 1013 miles from the nearest town, Wright, Wyoming, with a population of 1,800.

The project consists of 19,76918,763 gross acres of properties including a 40-acre, Company-owned central processing plant (the “CPP”) site, and five major resource units, all within sixten miles of the proposed CPP.

Uranium was originally discovered within the project area by several 1960s/1970s mining companies, including Rocky Mountain Energy, Cleveland Cliffs, American Nuclear and TVA, Pathfinder Mines and others.  Most of the leases and claims that held the resources were dropped in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  In the mid-2000s Strathmore minerals re-staked mining claims and took leases on most of the current project.  Strathmore in 2010 sold them to AUC LLC (“AUC”), which was acquired by us in 2017 and is our wholly-owned subsidiary and the operator of the project.

Uranium deposits at the Reno Creek Project lie within a geologically favorable fairway characterized by porous and permeable fluvial sandstones of the Eocene Wasatch Formation.  The sandstone aquifers are overlain and underlain by barren sequences of shales and occasional thin coals.   A complex series of stacked roll frontsroll-fronts occur along oxidation/reduction boundaries forming prospective trends that extend for over 40 miles through the greater project area.  The deposits occur at shallow depths between 200 to 400 feet in a sparsely populated area with gentle terrain, providing excellent logistics and access. 

While much of the trend has been very well explored by AUC and past operators, we believe that excellent upside for further discoveries exists.   Company databases includesinclude more than 10,000 uranium drill holes and over a 1,000 Coal Bed Methane logs to guide future exploration.

Geologists have mapped 10 to 20 miles of roll-fronts on the holdings that are undrilled or under-drilled, providing numerous high-quality exploration targets to expand current resources. During 2012 and 2013, AUC drilled 800 holes along one such trend, adding approximately two million pounds to the resource base.

AUC conducted permitting and licensing activities and received final permits from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) and the EPA in 2015 and from the NRC in 2017.  The WDEQ issued its Permit to Mine in July 2015, and also referred its recommended approval of the AE to EPA, which approved it in October 2015.  In 2016, WDEQ’s Air Quality Division approved the Air Quality Permit.Permit and re-issued the Air Quality Permit in October 2019.

The NRC issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement in July 2016, and the final in December of 2016.  In its release the NRC noted that that “only small environmental impacts would result from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration and decommissioning of the proposed in-situ recovery facility. Small impacts are defined as those that would be undetectable or so minor that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the environmental resource in question”.  The NRC then issued the License for the project in February 2017 covering 6,057 acres and approximately 13.74 million pounds of U₃O₈. Subsequently, the NRC approved of the transfer of control to us on July 31, 2017. Additionally, the State of Wyoming became an NRC Agreement state in September 2018 and, therefore, the Reno Creek Project is now permitted and licensed by the WDEQ.

The permits and license provide for a full central processing plant on 40 acres owned by us, which lies approximately a quarter mile from two all-weather highways and high voltage power lines, and less than three miles from natural gas lines.  The project is licensed to produce up to two million pounds per year of U₃O₈, per year, and may also treat by tolling either lixiviant or resin produced by others, or alternate feed material.  Included in the current license are the two largest resource units, North Reno Creek and Southwest Reno Creek.  The outlying resource units will be added for extraction by amending the current license.

License.

The North Reno Creek Project is situated within and adjacent to our existing permit boundary at the Reno Creek Project, in the Powder River Basin, Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 80 miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming. We are currently working on a significant revision to the Permit to Mine to incorporate the North Reno Creek Project into the Permit. This permitting action will allow us to mine the resources acquired as part of the transaction.

Substantial historical exploration, development and project permitting have been performed on the North Reno Creek property. Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing into the mid-1980s, Rocky Mountain Energy (“RME”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad, drilled more than 800 exploration drill holes on the North Reno Creek property. In the late 1970s and early 1980s RME successfully operated and restored and reclaimed a uranium ISR pilot plant. Subsequently, RME nearly completed permitting and licensing for a commercial scale ISR facility.

In 1992 the project approximately covering the area of our current Reno Creek and North Reno Creek Project was acquired by EFNEFR from RME. Over the next decade EFNEFR and its successor, International Uranium Corporation (now Denison Mines), continued to advance the project toward full permitting and licensing. Subsequently, Rio Algom and Power Resources held the project until dropping all of their interests in 2003. Between 2006 and 2008 Uranerz acquired mineral and surface land interests covering approximately 1,280 acres of fee mineral leases and federal mining claims comprising the North Reno Creek Project. In June 2015, EFNEFR acquired Uranerz, whose development assets included the North Reno Creek Project.

Geologic characteristics of the North Reno Creek Project are similar to the permitted Reno Creek resource areas since the sandstone units are adjacent and contiguous. The uranium deposits within each of these areas occur in medium to coarse-grained sand facies in the lower portion of the Eocene-age Wasatch Formation. The uranium mineralization occurs as interstitial fillings between and coatings on the sand grains along roll frontroll-front trends formed within the host sandstone aquifers.

We engaged Behre Dolbear & Company (USA), Inc. (“Behre Dolbear”) to review and provide a revised Technical Report at the Reno Creek Project integrating the resources present within the North Reno Creek Project acquired on May 1, 2018. A Technical Report, dated December 31, 2018, for the Reno Creek Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Behre Dolbear and filed by us on SEDAR.

Canada

Canada: DiabaseDiabase Project

TheOur Diabase propertyProject is at anthe exploration stage, with exploration focused on testing the Cable Bay fault corridor, interpreted to represent a suture zone between the Archean Mudjatik and Talston domains within the Trans-Hudson orogeny. Historical work started in the late 1970s, with the first major programs completed by the Saskatchewan Mineral Development Corporation in 1979 and the last major program completed by Nuinsco Resources Inc. (“Nuinsco”) in 2011. There is a total of 67 exploration diamond drill holes on the property. Anomalous uranium values have been intersected on the property, primarily associated with an area intruded by a late diabase dyke, highlighted by drill holes ND0801 (707 ppm Upartial over 0.25 m) and ND0807 (426 ppm Upartial over 0.40 m).

The Diabase Project is located on the southern rim of the Athabasca Basin uranium province in Saskatchewan, Canada, approximately 75 km to the west of Cameco’s Key Lake uranium mill. The project is comprised of 1110 mineral dispositions totalingclaims covering 54,236 acres. Subject to section 19 of The Crown Minerals Act of Saskatchewan, a claim grants to the holder the exclusive right to explore for any Crown minerals that are subject to these regulations within the claim lands. If an economic deposit wasis discovered, the ore would be extracted by underground methods and would likely be shipped to the Key Lake mill for custom milling.

Paraguay

We hold interests in two uranium projects withinlocated in the South American countryRepublic of Paraguay. The following map shows the location of both projects, Coronel Oviedo and Yuty.

Paraguay: Oviedo Project

Property Description and Location

TheOur Oviedo Project is located in southeasternsouthern Paraguay, approximately 95 miles east of Asuncion, the capital of Paraguay. The Oviedo Project consists of a large exploration mining permit covering a total area of 223,749 acres. The property can be classified as an early to intermediate stage exploration project. Several areas have undergone drilling in the past by The Anschutz Company (“Anschutz”) of Denver, Colorado (early 1980s), and recently by Crescent Resources (“Crescent”) in 2007. Access to the project is by paved roads from Asuncion to the City of Coronel Oviedo and other populated areas. There is good access into the interior of the concession mainly by unpaved secondary roads. The terrain is rolling hills with areas of forest, small farms, and some large cattle ranches.

Prior Exploration

The Oviedo Project located in central Paraguay was subject to reconnaissance uranium exploration between 1976 and 1983 by Anschutz and by Crescent between 2006 and 2008. Most of the uranium occurrences in this environment are “roll-front” type deposits similar to those currently being produced by low-cost ISR methods in Texas, the western United States, Central Asia and Australia. The work by Anschutz and Crescent was centered on a large belt of Permo-Carboniferous age continental sandstones that represent the western flank of the Paraná Basin. According to the Geological Survey of Brazil or CPRM, these same sandstones within the Brazilian section of the Paraná Basin contain numerous uranium occurrences including the Figueira Mine.

From 2006 to 2008 the Oviedo Project was optioned to Crescent Resources. During this period a total of 24 holes were drilled and logged in the southern portion, offsetting mineralized holes drilled by Anschutz.

A Technical Report, dated October 15, 2012, for the Oviedo Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G, a consulting geologist/engineer, and filed by us on SEDAR, and the Technical Report reported that 14 of the 24 holes had a GT product (in feet) equal to or greater than 0.30 GT. GT values equal to and above 0.30 are typically considered producible under ISR production methodology. The known uranium mineralization on the Oviedo Project intersected by the past drilling is at depths between 450 and 750 feet. Crescent Resources dropped the option on the Oviedo Project in 2008.

Aquifer Test

During 2010, and prior to the acquisition of the Oviedo Project, we conducted a 24-hour aquifer test in the area of the resource trend identified by the combined Anschutz-Crescent drilling programs. The test was designed to assess aquifer properties of the lower massive sand, a uranium-bearing sandstone within the San Miguel Formation. The focus of the test was to determine if the aquifer could sustain extraction rates typical of ISR mining of uranium. Results of the test indicate that the uranium-bearing unit has aquifer characteristics that would support operational rates for ISR mining. The aquifer properties determined from the hydrologic test fall within the range of values determined at other uranium ISR projects located in Wyoming, Texas and Nebraska.

During Fiscal 2012, we completed a 10,000-meter drilling program.program at the project. A total of 35 holes were drilled, averaging 950 feet in depth. The holes were drilled on east to west lines across known geologic structures believed to be integral in controlling uranium occurrence. The holes were drilled on wide spacings, approximately one to 1.5 miles apart (see map above). Historic and recent drilling results are being reviewed for future exploration/delineation drilling at the Oviedo Project. A radon extraction survey is being completed along the western basin margins, following up on historic airborne radiometric anomalies and outcrop sampling results that indicate a potential for shallow uranium mineralization.

Paraguay: Yuty Project Paraguay

Property Description and Location

TheOur Yuty Project covers 289,680 acres and is located approximately 125 miles east and southeast of Asunción, the capital of Paraguay. It is located within the Paraná Basin, which is host to a number of known uranium deposits, including Figueira and Amorinópolis in Brazil. Preliminary studies indicate amenability to extraction by ISR, which is the same process currently used by our Company at its Texas operations. Cue spent over CAD$16 million developing Yuty since 2006.

History

Exploration for uranium in southeastern Paraguay was started in 1976 by Anschutz, after a Concession Agreement between the Government of Paraguay and Anschutz in December 1975. This agreement allowed Anschutz to explore for all minerals, excluding oil, gas and construction materials. The initial uranium exploration by Anschutz in 1976 covered an exclusive exploration concession of some 162,700 square kilometers, virtually the whole eastern half of Paraguay. This was followed by a program of diamond drilling and rotary drilling over selected target areas. In total, some 75,000 meters of drilling were completed from 1976 to 1983.to1983. Data is available for a total of 257 drill holes in the San Antonio area. Anschutz carried out exploration on behalf of a joint venture with Korea Electric Power Corporation and Taiwan Power Company. Anschutz intersected uranium mineralization in drill holes ranging from 0.115% U₃O₈ over 10.2 meters to 0.351% U₃O₈ over 0.3 meters in sandstones and siltstones. Work was suspended in 1983 due to the decline in the price of uranium, and no further work was done at that time.

During the exploration programs by Anschutz, airborne radiometric surveys, regional geological mapping and geochemical sampling were the main exploration tools for uranium exploration in the southeastern part of Paraguay. This was followed-up by core and rotary drilling in two phases. The initial phase was to drill wide-spaced reconnaissance diamond drill holes along fences spaced approximately ten miles apart. The objective of this initial phase was to obtain stratigraphic information across an inferred host trend. The second phase was to drill rotary holes, spaced approximately 1,000 feet apart, within and between the fences of reconnaissance holes, to establish and outline target areas. All drill holes were logged and probed by gamma, neutron and resistivity surveys.

Exploration work by Anschutz outlined several large target areas including what is now the Yuty Project. These include the San Antonio, San Miguel, Typychaty and Yarati-í targets near and around the village of Yuty, approximately 125 miles southeast of Asunción.

Geologic Setting and Mineralization

The Yuty Project area is situated within the western part of the Paraná Basin in Southeastern Paraguay, which also hosts the Figueira uranium deposit in Brazil. The area is underlain by Upper Permian-Carboniferous (“UPC”) continental sedimentary rocks. The exploration methodology applied during past programs has been to determine the favorable host rocks of the UPC sequence and to explore favorable areas of the host sandstone.

Continental sedimentary units of the Independencia Formation (of the UPC) are known to have high potential for uranium exploration in eastern Paraguay. The source of the uranium is thought to be the Lower Permian-Carboniferous Coronel Oviedo Formation, which is correlated with the Itataré Formation underlying the Rio Benito Formation in Brazil. Occasional diabase sills and dikes intrude the sedimentary rocks, such as at the San Antonio area near the village of Yuty. Outcrops are rare, mostly along road cuts, and mapping is done by drilling.

The rocks of the Yuty area are very gently east dipping and undeformed. Occasional northwest and northeast trending normal faults cut the sedimentary units. Exploration work to date suggests that the uranium mineralization within the San Miguel Formation is stratabound and possibly syngenetic or diagenetic in origin. Recent interpretation of exploration data suggests that areas of limonite and hematite alteration within the grey-green, fine-grained sandstones in the San Antonio area have characteristics similar to the alteration assemblages present at roll-front type uranium deposits of the Powder River basin in the United States.

Geologic Setting of the Yuty Project Paraguay

Recent Exploration

In late July 2006, Cue signed an agreement with the shareholders of Transandes Paraguay S.A. to option the Yuty Property,property, followed by a formal earn-in agreement signed on November 6, 2007, and started a systematic uranium exploration program. This included a compilation of all previous exploration data, including lithologic and radiometric logs, stored at the MOPC in Asunción. The most recent drilling completed in the San Antonio area was in November and December 2010, at which time 33 holes were completed for a total of 11,500 feet. Of these holes, five were not successfully completed. Of the 28 holes that reached the target, ten had intersections greater than a GT (grade x thickness) of 0.10m% eU₃O₈, and an additional 13 had intersections exceeding a GT of 0.03m% eU₃O₈.

Drilling and Sampling

Approximately 240,000 feet of drilling (core as well as rotary) were completed by Anschutz in previous campaigns.campaigns on the Yuty property.

The procedures used during the diamond and rotary drilling programs were drafted by Anschutz technical personnel. Healex reviewed all of the drill logs at the MOPC in Asunción and iswas of the opinion that the lithologic logging procedures are comparable to industry standards. Detailed information on sampling methods and approach during the Anschutz drilling campaigns is not available. Nevertheless, previous technical reports (Scott Wilson (2008) and Healex (2009)) have concluded that sampling procedures were comparable to industry standards of that time. Mr. Beahm (2011 technical report) concurs with this determination. From 2007 to 2010, Cue completed over 100,000 feet of drilling at the San Antonio target area in 256 drill holes. Most of the holes were collared with a rotary drilling rig, surface casing was then installed, and the holes were drilled to completion depth with a diamond rig. To date, diamond drilling totals approximately 52,800 feet and rotary drilling approximately 50,000 feet. For diamond drill holes, HQ-size core was retrieved and the drilling contractor was Empire Drilling S.A. of Quito, Ecuador. For rotary drilling, the contractor was 9 de Junio S.A. (Primo) of Asunción, Paraguay.

Exploration Potential

Except for the San Antonio area, the Yuty Uranium Project is at an early-to intermediate stage of exploration. A number of areas of anomalous concentrations of uranium occur in UPC sedimentary rocks within the property area. Past work was focused on developing roll-front type targets. Preliminary interpretation of the drill results in the San Antonio area suggests that the basal sandstone unit (San Miguel Formation) is a favorable host for uranium mineralization. These results also suggest that the diabase sill overlying the San Miguel Formation may have acted as a trap for diagenetic fluids and provided a horizontal conduit for the circulation of the diagenetic fluids and emplacement of uranium mineralization near the margin of a topographic high (gentle hill) below the diabase sill.

Historic and recent drilling results are being reviewed by our Company for future exploration/delineation drilling at the Yuty Project.

A Technical Report, dated August 24, 2011, for the Yuty Project, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, was completed by Douglas Beahm, P.G., P.E., Bill Northrup and Andre Deiss, consulting geologists, and filed by us on SEDAR.

In April 2015 the Yuty Project received a signed resolution from the MOPC, the national agency that regulates mining in Paraguay, advancing the project from the Exploration Phase into the Exploitation Phase. The Yuty Project is only the third mining project to achieve the Exploitation Phase since the current Paraguayan mining law was promulgated in 2007.

When the MOPC grants a mineral concession to an operator the project initially enters the Exploration Phase for a maximum of six years, during which period a company must advance and demonstrate a viable project.  The Exploration Phase is followed by the Exploitation Phase for a maximum of 20 years renewable every five years indefinitely, during which period the environmental licensing process may begin, a key milestone required before starting production, as well as allowing for reductions in land and various investment costs.  The Exploitation Phase is followed by the Production Phase which lasts for an indefinite period.

Paraguay: Alto Paraná Titanium Project

We acquired theour Alto Paraná Titanium Project from CIC Resources Inc. (“CIC”) on July 7, 2017.

Property Description and Location

The Alto Paraná Titanium Project is a titanium project located in Eastern Paraguay in the Alto Paraná province approximately 100 km north of Ciudad del Este and consists of 174,200 acres. The Alto Paraná Project resource is atypically high in titanium values when compared to most beach sand deposits. High iron laterite hosts heavy minerals containing high iron and titanium values as ilmenite, titanomagnetite and magnetite.

History

Exploration work on the property was initiated by CIC in 2009 with a program of widespread hand-dug pits consisting of channel samples at approximately one-meter verticalsvertical intervals within the laterite. The initial phase of pitting and sampling was followed up by more closely spaced deep pitting and shallow (one m) auger drilling in 2010 and 2011. In total, 4,432 samples from deep pits and 2,992 one-meter auger samples have been collected and analyzed. The purpose of the exploration work was to evaluate the original CIC hectares to determine the area of best grade and thickness. Based on these extensive sampling efforts, we now control this generally higher-grade/thickness area as previously noted.

CIC also conducted extensive process development work with the objective of a viable process flow sheet for beneficiation of the heavy minerals from the laterite. This work carried out by Mineral Advisory Group, (“MAG”), and included design, construction and operation of a 1.5 tonne per hour pilot plant in Paraguay. During operations the plant underwent continual process improvements and eventually produced 108 tonnes of concentrate over a three-month period. In January 2012 the concentrate was shipped to MINTEK in South Africa for smelting in a MINTEK pilot plant.

Geologic Setting and Mineralization

Mineralization on the property consists of laterite containing ilmenite, titanomagnetite and magnetite derived from Early Cretaceous tholeitic basalts of the Paraná Basin and associated gabbro intrusions. The basalts and gabbros have been weathered to laterite to an average depth of approximately seven mmetres over a very extensive area. Kaolinite is the dominant mineral, representing 60% to 75% of the mineral assemblage. Ilmenite, magnetite and titanomagnetite are present in the laterite as discrete minerals ranging in particle size from <40 µm to 350 µm with average particle sizes in the 135 μmµm to 165 μmµm range. The grade of titanium in the laterite ranges up to approximately 11% but is typically in the 5% to 9% range.

Summary

The Alto Paraná Titanium Project appears to be homogeneous and much higher grade than existing mineral sands deposits. Further work on particle size distribution of the ilmenite/titanomagnetite fractions and variable laterite bulk density as a function of depth will help better define the Alto Paraná Titanium Project.

On September 12, 2017, we filed a NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Alto Paraná Project authored by Martin C. Kuhn, PhD, PE and David M. Brown, P. Geo., and filed it on SEDAR.

The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty Project and Alto Paraná Project are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions.

Other Properties

As of July 31, 2019,2020, we owned 32 acres of real estate located in Goliad County, Texas, 22 acres of real estate in Karnes County, Texas, 40 acres of real estate in Campbell Country, Wyoming, and 76.6 acres of real estate located in the Republic of Paraguay.

As of July 31, 2019,2020, we have entered into office rental and service agreements as follows:

Our Databases

We have acquired historical exploration data that will assist in the direction of proposed exploration program on lands held in our current property portfolio. This prior exploration data consists of management information and work product derived from various reports, drill hole assay results, drill hole logs, studies, maps, radioactive rock samples, exploratory drill logs, state organization reports, consultants, geological study and other exploratory information.

The following provides information relating to our databases:

Tronox Worldwide

Effective February 20, 2008, we acquired from Tronox Worldwide LLC certain assets, consisting of certain maps, data, exploration results and other information pertaining to lands within the U.S. (excluding New Mexico and Wyoming), Canada and Australia, and specifically including the former uranium exploration projects by Kerr McGee Corporation. The Tronox database contains records on some of our properties located in Arizona, the Colorado Plateau and Texas. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Jebsen

TheOur Jebsen database covers territory in Wyoming and New Mexico, including some of our existing properties. The database belonged to a pioneering uranium developer and represents work conducted from the 1950s through to the present.

This database adds over 500 drill holes and over 500,000 feet of drilling data results to our existing library of data. Other than logs, the data set consists of volumes of maps, lithographic logs, geologic reports, and feasibility studies, and many other essential tools for uranium exploration and pre-extraction.

Our geologists have linked contents of the database to some of our existing properties, specifically pertaining to our projects in the Shirley Basin and Powder River Basin of Wyoming, and in the Grants Uranium District of New Mexico. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Halterman

TheOur Halterman database consists of exploratory and pre-extraction work compiled during the 1970s and 1980s, including extensive data on significant prospects and projects in the following known uranium districts in the States of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, including in the Grants, San Juan Basin, Chama Basin, Moab, Lisbon Valley, Dove Creek, Slick Rock and Uravan districts.

This database includes drilling and logging data from over 200,000 feet of uranium exploration and pre-extraction drilling, resource evaluations and calculations, drill-hole locations and grade thickness maps, competitor activity maps as well as several dozen geological and project evaluation reports covering uranium projects in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Texas and California. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Brenniman

TheOur Brenniman database includes drilling and logging data from over two million feet of uranium exploration and pre-extraction drilling, resource calculation reports and various other geological reports, drill hole location maps and other mapping. This database includes approximately 142 drill hole gamma and E-logs. The data was originally compiled from 1972 to 1981 by various exploration companies, and covers over 100 uranium prospects in 15 southern U.S. states. This library will be used by our technical personnel to determine locations of where drill-indicated uranium may exist. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Kirkwood

We acquired a database of uranium exploration results covering an area of approximately 13,000 acres within the uranium zone known as the Poison Spider area, in central Wyoming. The area covered includes property already held by us, as well as by other publicly-traded uranium exploration companies. The database was compiled by William Kirkwood of North American Mining and Minerals Company, a significant participant in the uranium, coal, gold and oil and gas industries in the western United States since the 1960s. The data acquired was generated from exploration originally conducted by companies such as Homestake Mining, Kennecott Corp, Rampart Exploration and Kirkwood Oil and Gas, largely between 1969 and 1982. The database consists of drill hole assay logs for 470 holes, including 75,200 feet of drilling, 22,000 feet of gamma logs, drill hole location maps, cross sections, geological maps, geological reports, and other assay data and will be used to locate possible mineralized zones in the Poison Spider area in central Wyoming. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Odell

We acquired the rights to a database containing over 50 years of uranium exploration data for the State of Wyoming. This database consists of 315,000 feet of drill logs, over 400 maps, copies of all US geological survey uranium publications dating back to 1954 and geological reports on uranium ore bodies throughout Wyoming. The database will be used to locate possible mineralized zones. The database is made available to us by Robert Odell, the compiler and publisher of the Rocky Mountain Uranium Minerals Scout since 1974. We do not own or have exclusive rights to this database.

Moore

We acquired a database of U.S. uranium exploration results from Moore Energy, a private Oklahoma-based uranium exploration company.

The Moore Energy U.S. uranium database consists of over 30 years of uranium exploration information in the States of Texas, New Mexico and Wyoming, originally conducted during the 1970s to the 1990s. It includes results of over 10,000 drill holes, plus primary maps and geological reports. It covers approximately one million acres of prospective uranium claims in the South Texas Uranium Belt, New Mexico, and Powder River Basin, Wyoming, as well as zones in Texas, and will be used to locate possible mineralized zones.

The database also provides us with exploration data about our Goliad Project, including 250,000 feet of drill logs and further delineates zones of potential uranium mineralization. It also contains drilling results from properties that are being developed by other uranium exploration companies, and also widespread regional data from throughout the South Texas uranium trend. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Uranium Resources Inc.

We acquired the full database of historic drill results for our Salvo Project located in Bee County, Texas. The database consists of 425 gamma ray/resistivity and lithology logs, PGT logs and drill plan maps. We have exclusive ownership of this database.

Uranium One – South Texas Goliad Project

TheOur South Texas Goliad database includes raw and interpreted data compiled by Total Minerals (“TOMIN”) and others from the mid1980s to 1993. The database is an evaluation of the uranium potential within the Goliad Formation from south of Houston to the Mexican border.

Through TOMIN’s purchase of the Holiday - ElHoliday-El Mesquite project, located in Duval County, Texas, in 1990, TOMIN acquired the Mobil uranium exploration database. Starting with this data, and earlier data purchased from Tenneco Uranium, TOMIN also acquired regional oil and gas logs (included in the database), water well driller logs and other regional information to begin their study of the Goliad Formation along the South Texas Uranium Belt.

As a result of the study TOMIN identified 62 targets and drilled 22 holes by project end in 1993. Of the 22 drilled, 19 were disproved and the remaining three await further drilling to assess trends. Another 40 targets remain to be drill-evaluated.

In summary, the database contains:

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

As of the date of this Annual Report, other than as disclosed below, there are no material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business, to which our Company or any of our subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is subject, and no director, officer, affiliate or record or beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock, or any associate or any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder, is: (i) a party adverse to us or any of our subsidiaries in any legal proceeding; or (ii) has an adverse interest to us or any of our subsidiaries in any legal proceeding. Other than as disclosed below, management is not aware of any other material legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against us or our properties.

On or about March 9, 2011, the TCEQ granted our Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, PAA and AE for our Goliad Project.  On or about December 4, 2012, the EPA concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the AE permit.  With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, our Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status.  On or about May 24, 2011, a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the 250^th District Court in Travis County, Texas.  A motion filed by our Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about June 14, 2013, when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position.  On or about January 18, 2013, a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to appeal the EPA’s decision.  On or about March 5, 2013, a motion filed by our Company to intervene in this matter was granted.  The parties attempted to resolve both appeals, to facilitate discussions and avoid further legal costs. The parties jointly agreed, through mediation initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about August 8, 2013, to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about August 21, 2013, the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings.  The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA’s stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval.  In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE.  We and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, and if granted, to be limited to a 60-day review period.  On December 9, 2013, by way of a procedural order from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to 60 days. In March of 2014, at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, our Company conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed our previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about June 17, 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of our existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than 10% of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but not denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about September 9, 2014, the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in August 2013 and to set a briefing schedule. In that Status Report the petitioners also stated that they had decided not to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. We continue to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and is continuing as planned towards uranium extraction at its fully-permitted Goliad Project.

On or about October 2, 2015, Marnie W. McMahon filed a stockholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against the Company’s Board of Directors, executive management and three of its vice presidents (the “Company parties”) in the District Court of Nevada (the “Nevada Derivative Case”) seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the Company against the Company parties for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company with respect to allegations previously made in a prior class action complaint as against the Company and two of its executive officers which was dismissed in September of 2016 (the “Securities Case”). On January 21, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay the Nevada Derivative Case pending the outcome of what was then a federal derivative case involving the same Company parties with similar allegations. Following the voluntary dismissal of the federal derivative case in November of 2017, Ms. McMahon filed an amended complaint on February 10, 2017, which again asserted that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties relating to the factual allegations in the Securities Case. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and on September 13, 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Nevada Derivative Case. On or about October 5, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Court. On June 14, 2018, the plaintiff filed the Appellant’s opening brief in the Supreme Court of Nevada. In response on August 2018, we filed our answering brief. On February 22, 2019, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order Of Affirmance affirming the Reno, Nevada trial court’s dismissal of the Nevada Derivative Case.  The time for the plaintiff to seek reconsideration of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision has expired and the court has closed the case.

The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Parana projectsProjects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While the Company remainswe remain fully committed to itsour development path forward in Paraguay, it caused its legal counsel to file an appealwe have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Pursuant to Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, issuers that are operators, or that have a subsidiary that is an operator, of a coal or other mine in the United States, and that is subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Safety Act”), are required to disclose in their periodic reports filed with the SEC information regarding specified health and safety violations, orders and citations, related assessments and legal actions, and mining-related fatalities. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2019,2020, our Company’s Palangana Mine was not subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Mine Safety Act.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Shares of our common stock commenced trading on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “URME” on December 5, 2005. On September 28, 2007, shares of our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE American (formerly known as the American Stock Exchange, the NYSE Amex Equities Exchange and the NYSE MKT) under the symbol “UEC”. The market for our common stock is limited and can be volatile. The following table sets forth the high and low trading prices relating to our common stock on the NYSE American on a quarterly basis for the periods indicated:

The last reported closing price for our shares on the NYSE American on October 10, 201927, 2020 was 1.13$0.9151 per share.  As of October 10, 2019,27, 2020, we had 217216 registered shareholders.

Dividend Policy

No dividends have been declared or paid on our common stock. We have incurred recurring losses and do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Compensation Plans

At July 31, 2019,2020, we had one equity compensation plan, our 20192020 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2019“2020 Plan”). The table below sets forth information relating to our equity compensation plan at our fiscal year end July 31, 2019:2020:

Notes:

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Compensation Plans

20192020 Stock Incentive Plan

On June 6, 2019,5, 2020, our Board of Directors authorized and approved the adoption of the Company’s 20192020 Plan, under which an aggregate of 25,785,62327,620,197 of our shares may be issued, subject to adjustment as described in the 20192020 Plan, and which, at that time, consisted of: (i) 15,822,72511,778,500 shares issuable pursuant to stock options previously granted that were outstanding under our 20182019 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2018“2019 Plan”); (ii) 885,3769,861,687 shares remaining available for issuance under the 20182019 Plan; and (iii) 6,000,000 additional shares that may be issued pursuant to awards that may be granted under the 20192020 Plan (collectively the “Stock Incentive Plan”). On July 30, 2019,2020, our shareholders approved the adoption of our 20192020 Plan. The 20192020 Plan supersedes and replaces our prior equity compensation plan, being the 20182019 Plan, such that no further shares are issuable under the 20182019 Plan.

The purpose of the 20192020 Plan is to enhance our long-term stockholder value by offering opportunities to our directors, officers, employees and eligible consultants to acquire and maintain stock ownership in order to give these persons the opportunity to participate in our growth and success, and to encourage them to remain in our service.

The 20192020 Plan is to be administered by our Compensation Committee (therein our “Administrator”) which shall determine, among other things: (i) the persons to be granted awards under the 20192020 Plan (each an “Award” to an “Eligible Participant”); (ii) the number of shares or amount of other Awards to be granted; and (iii) the terms and conditions of the Awards granted. We may issue shares, options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units, performance restricted stock units, deferred stock units and dividend equivalent rights, among others, under the 20192020 Plan.

An Award may not be exercised after the termination date of the Award and may be exercised following the termination of an Eligible Participant’s continuous service only to the extent provided by the Administrator under the 20192020 Plan. If the Administrator under the 20192020 Plan permits an Eligible Participant to exercise an Award following the termination of continuous service for a specified period, the Award terminates to the extent not exercised on the last day of the specified period or the last day of the original term of the Award, whichever occurs first. In the event an Eligible Participant’s service has been terminated for “cause”, he or she shall immediately forfeit all rights to any of the Awards outstanding.

The foregoing summary of the 20192020 Plan is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the 20192020 Plan, a copy of which has been filed electronically with the SEC, which is available under the Company’s filings at www.sec.gov.

As of October 10, 2019,27, 2020, there were stock options outstanding under our 20192020 Plan exercisable for an aggregate of 6,798,75014,171,250 shares of our common stock.

Common Stock Purchase Warrants

As of October 10, 2019,27, 2020, there were common stock purchase warrants issued and outstanding exercisable for an aggregate of 19,443,91014,555,314 shares of our common stock.

Recent SalesIssuances of Unregistered Securities

All of our issuances of unregistered securities during our fiscal year ended July 31, 20192020 were previously disclosed in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for our first, second and third quarters of our fiscal year ended July 31, 20192020 and in our current reports on Form 8-K as filed periodically with the SEC. There were no sales of unregistered securities duringDuring our fourth quarter ended July 31, 2019.2020, we issued the following securities that were not registered under the Securities Act:

Comparative Stock Performance 

The graph below compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock assuming an investment of $100 and the reinvestment of all dividends, if any, for the years ended July 31, 2014,2016, through to July 31, 2019,2020, with: (i) the cumulative total return on the shares of common stock of a current peer group index comprised of Denison Mines Corp., UR-Energy Inc., Adams Resources & Energy, Inc., Hallador Energy Company, Abraxas Petroleum Corporation, Fission Uranium Corp., Approach Resources, Inc., Evolution Petroleum Corporation, NexGen Energy Ltd., Polymet Mining Corp., Isramco Inc., Comstock Resources, Inc., Silvercorp Metals Inc., Energy Fuels Inc., Laramie Resources Ltd. and UEX Corporation (collectively, the “Current Peer Group”); (ii) the cumulative total return on the shares of common stock of a previous peer group index comprised of Denison Mines Corp., UR-Energy Inc., Gastar Exploration Inc., EFN, Adams Resources & Energy, Inc., Hallador Energy Company, Abraxas Petroleum Corporation, Fission Uranium Corp., Approach Resources, Inc., Evolution Petroleum Corporation, NexGen Energy Ltd., Cloud Peak Energy Inc., Polymet Mining Corp., Isramco Inc., Comstock Resources, Inc. and, Silvercorp Metals Inc., Energy Fuels Inc., Laramie Resources Ltd. and UEX Corporation (collectively, the “Previous Peer Group”); and (iii) the cumulative return on the Russell 3000 Index. The change in peer group was made to address changes in the external market and to better reflect our Company’s business.

68

---

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following tables provide selected financial data for each of the past five fiscal years, and should be read in conjunction with, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations herein and our consolidated financial statements and related notes for Fiscal 2019,2020, as presented under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.Data herein. These historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

Consolidated Statements of Operations

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following management’s discussion and analysis of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations contain forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions including, among others, statements regarding our capital needs, business plans and expectations. In evaluating these statements, you should consider various factors, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions set forth in reports and other documents we have filed with or furnished to the SEC and,, including, without limitation, this Form 10-K filing for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2019,2020, including the consolidated financial statements and related notes contained herein. These factors, or any one of them, may cause our actual results or actions in the future to differ materially from any forward-looking statement made in this document. Refer to “Cautionary“Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-lookingForward-looking Statements” and Item 1A. Risk Factors.Factors herein.

Introduction

The following discussion summarizes the results of operations for each of our fiscal years ended July 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 and 2017 (again,(“Fiscal 2020”, “Fiscal 2019”, and “Fiscal 2018” and “Fiscal 2017”) and our financial condition as at July 31, 20192020 and 2018,2019, with a particular emphasis on Fiscal 2019,2020, our most recently completed fiscal year.

Business

We operate in a single reportable segment and, since 2004, as more fully described under “General Business” of Item 1. Business herein, we have been primarily engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the United States, Canada and Paraguay.

We utilize ISR mining for our uranium projects where possible which we believe, when compared to conventional open pit or underground mining, requires lower capital and operating expenditures with a shorter lead time to extraction and a reduced impact on the environment. We have one uranium mine located in the State of Texas, theour Palangana Mine, which utilizes ISR mining and commenced extraction of U₃O₈, or yellowcake, in November 2010. We have one uranium processing facility located in the State of Texas, theour Hobson Processing Facility, which processes material from the Palangana Mine into drums of U₃O₈, our only sales product and source of revenue, for shipping to a third-party storage and sales facility. At July 31, 2019,2020, we had no uranium supply or off-take agreements in place.

Our fully-licensed and 100% owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically the South Texas Uranium Belt where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson Processing Facility, which has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U₃O₈ annually and is licensed to process up to one million pounds of U₃O₈ annually, acts as the central processing site (the “hub”) for our Palangana Mine, and future satellite uranium mining activities, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (the “spokes”).

We also hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Texas, and in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our mineral rights in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.

Our operating and strategic framework is based on expanding our uranium extraction activities, which includes advancing certain uranium projects with established mineralized materials towards uranium extraction, and establishing additional mineralized materials on our existing uranium projects or through acquisition of additional uranium projects.

During Fiscal 2019 we:

Key Issues

Since commencing uranium extraction at the Palangana Mine in November 2010, we have been focused primarily on expanding our South Texas uranium mining activities and establishing additional uranium mines through exploration and pre-extraction activities and direct acquisitions in both the U.S. and Paraguay, all of which require us to manage numerous challenges, risks and uncertainties inherent in our business and operations as more fully described in Item 1A. Risk Factors.Factors herein.

Our operations are capital intensive, and we will require significant additional financing to continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities and acquire additional uranium projects. Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and, for Fiscal 2014 and Fiscal 2013, on debt financing, in order to fund our operations. We have also relied on cash flows generated from our mining activities during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012, however, we have yet to achieve profitability or develop positive cash flow from operations. Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electricity generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. We may also be required to seek other forms of financing, such as asset divestitures or joint venture arrangements, to continue advancing our uranium projects which would depend entirely on finding a suitable third party willing to enter into such an arrangement, typically involving an assignment of a percentage interest in the mineral project. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in securing any form of additional financing when required and on terms favorable to us. Our inability to obtain additional financing would have a negative impact on our operations, including delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our uranium projects.

We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under Industry Guide 7, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our mineral projects. We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including theour Palangana Mine. Since we commenced uranium extraction at the Palangana Mine without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated. The Palangana Mine has been our sole source forto generate sales revenues from the sales of U₃O₈ sold to generate our sales revenues during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012, with no sales revenues generated during Fiscal 2019, Fiscal 2018, Fiscal 2017, Fiscal 2016, Fiscal 2014 or for any periods prior to Fiscal 2012.other years. The economic viability of our mining activities, including the expected duration and profitability of the Palangana Mine and of any future satellite ISR mines, such as theour Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt, has many risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected capital costs to construct the mine and/or processing plant; (iv) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (v) significantly lower than expected uranium extraction; (vi) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vii) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Our mining activities may change as a result of any one or more of these risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that any ore body that we extract mineralized materials from will result in achieving and maintaining profitability and developing positive cash flow.

Uranium extractionIn response to COVID-19 pandemic, we have taken proactive steps to lower our operating expenses and to adjust our timing on capital expenditures. For the protection of our employees, we have arranged for our teams at our Vancouver, Corpus Christi and Paraguay offices to work remotely. In addition, previous plans to resume last year’s successful drilling program at our Burke Hollow Project has been postponed along with the associated capital outlays until market conditions normalize. In the meantime, we continue to operate our Palangana Mine continued to operate at a reduced pace since implementingto capture residual uranium only and continue to advance our strategic plan in September 2013 to align our operations to a weak uranium market in a challenging post-Fukushima environment. This strategy has includedISR projects with engineering and geologic evaluations that support the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures and remaining in a state of operationalCompany’s extraction readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices. strategy.

At July 31, 2019,2020, we had no uranium supply or off-take agreements in place. Future sales of U₃O₈ are therefore expected to generally occur through the uranium spot market, with any fluctuations in the market price continuing to have a direct impact on our revenues and cash flows.

The table below provides the high/low/average/close for the uranium spot price for each of theour last five fiscal years ended July 31 as obtained from UxC Broker Average Price:

Historically, the uranium spot price has been difficult to predict and subject to significant volatility and will continue to be affected by numerous factors beyond our control.

Results of Operations

For Fiscal 2020, Fiscal 2019 and Fiscal 2018, and Fiscal 2017, we recorded a net loss of $14,610,516 ($0.08 per share), $17,152,789 ($0.10 per share), and $17,826,634, ($0.11 per share) and $17,971,056 ($0.14 per share), respectively. Costs and expensesLoss from operations during Fiscal 2020, Fiscal 2019 and Fiscal 2018 totaled $14,334,523, $14,977,013 and Fiscal 2017 were $14,977,013, $16,313,981, and $15,218,433, respectively.

No revenue from U₃O₈ sales was generated during Fiscal 2019,2020, Fiscal 20182019 and Fiscal 2017.

Uranium Extraction Activities2018.

During the second half of Fiscal 2019, Fiscal 20182020, in response to the significant financial market uncertainty as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented corporate-wide cost-cutting and Fiscal 2017cash saving measures including deferral of capital expenditures to reduce cash outlays. In the meantime, we continued with our strategic plan for reduced operations implemented in September 2013 and our operations at the Palangana Mine continued at a reduced level to capture residual uraniumpounds of U₃O₈ only.

While we remain in a state of operational readiness, uranium extraction expenditures incurred for PAA-1, 2 and 3 at the Palangana Mine directly related to regulatory/mine permit compliance, lease maintenance obligations and maintaining a minimum labor force will be charged to the consolidated statement of operations.

As a result, no uranium concentrate was extracted at the Palangana Mine and processed at the Hobson Processing Facility during Fiscal 20192020 and Fiscal 2018.2019. At July 31, 2019,2020, the total value of inventories was $211,662 (July 31, 2018:2019: $211,662).

Costs and Expenses

During Fiscal 2019,2020, costs and expenses totaled $14,977,013$14,334,523, (Fiscal 2019: $14,977,013; Fiscal 2018: $16,313,981; Fiscal 2017: $15,218,433)$16,313,981), primarily comprised of mineral property expenditures of $4,487,537$4,582,403 (Fiscal 2019: $4,487,537; Fiscal 2018: $4,552,151; Fiscal 2017: $4,120,388)$4,552,151), general and administrative expenses of $10,142,035$9,441,898 (Fiscal 2019: $10,142,035; Fiscal 2018: $11,407,206; Fiscal 2017: $10,241,681),$11,407,206) and depreciation, amortization and accretion of $347,441$310,222 (Fiscal 2019: $347,441; Fiscal 2018: $354,624; Fiscal 2017: $497,728) and impairment loss on mineral properties of $Nil (Fiscal 2018: $Nil; Fiscal 2017: $297,942)$354,624).

Mineral Property Expenditures

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures totaled $4,487,537 (Fiscal 2018: $4,552,151; Fiscal 2017: $4,120,388), comprised of expenditures relating to permitting, property maintenance, exploration and pre-extraction activities and all other non-extraction related activities on our mineral projects.

The following table provides mineral property expenditures on a project basis during the past three fiscal years:

During Fiscal 2019, and Fiscal 2017, the asset retirement obligations (“ARO”) of theour Palangana Mine were revised due to changes in the estimated timing of restoration and reclamation of the Palangana Mine, resulting in the corresponding mineral rights and properties being reduced by $258,114, and $157,130, respectively, and a credit amount of revaluation of ARO totaling $274,195 and 187,255, respectively, being recorded against the mineral property expenditures for the Palangana Mine. No ARO revision was recorded for the Palangana Mine for Fiscal 2020 and Fiscal 2018.

In Fiscal 20192020 mineral property expenditures included costs directly related to maintaining operational readiness and permit compliance at the Palangana Mine and Hobson Processing Facility totaled $1,215,657$1,130,028 (Fiscal 2019: $1,215,657; Fiscal 2018: $1,326,809; and Fiscal 2017: $1,297,673)$1,326,809).

The following isprovides a breakdown ofdiscussion on significant mineral property expenditures by major category for each project:certain of our projects:

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures at the Palangana Mine totaled $1,027,139$1,342,927 (Fiscal 2019: $1,027,139; Fiscal 2018: $1,047,635; Fiscal 2017: $880,633)$1,047,635), which were comprised of maintenance of operational readiness and permit compliance of $754,046$772,515 (Fiscal 2019: $754,046; Fiscal 2018: $888,898; Fiscal 2017: $805,295)$888,898), permitting and property maintenance of $271,187$553,531 (Fiscal 2019: $271,187; Fiscal 2018: $151,612; Fiscal 2017: $69,869)$151,612) and exploration and development costs of $1,906$16,881 (Fiscal 2019: $1,906; Fiscal 2018: $7,125; Fiscal 2017: $5,469)$7,125).

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures at the Goliad Project totaled $96,789$190,278 (Fiscal 2019: $96,789; Fiscal 2018: $105,264; Fiscal 2017: $114,286)$105,264), which were comprised of permit compliancepermitting and property maintenance costs of $23,974$117,204 (Fiscal 2019: $23,974; Fiscal 2018: $29,935; Fiscal 2017: $23,291)$29,935), exploration expenditures of $7,115$7,108 (Fiscal 2019: $7,115; Fiscal 2018: $9,770; Fiscal 2017: $24,437)$9,770) and plant and wellfield development costs of $65,700$65,966 (Fiscal 2019: $65,700; Fiscal 2018: $65,559; Fiscal 2017: $66,558)$65,559).

During Fiscal 2020, we completed a drilling campaign initiated in Fiscal 2019 and drilled 26 exploration holes and 21 monitor wells totaling 21,069 feet at the Burke Hollow Project. Since the commencement of the 2019 drilling campaign in March 2019, a total of 57 exploration and delineation holes and 76 monitor wells have been completed. During Fiscal 2019, we continued to advance theadvanced our permitting activities and received the final RML from TCEQ. During Fiscal 2019, we commenced a drilling campaign and drilled 31 exploration/delineation holes and completed 51 monitor wells totaling 33,615 feet at the Burke Hollow Project.

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures at the Burke Hollow Project totaled $1,616,601$1,130,467 (Fiscal 2019: $1,616,601; Fiscal 2018: $675,605; Fiscal 2017: $1,020,965)$675,605), which were comprised of permitting and property maintenance costs of $400,686$384,885 (Fiscal 2019: $400,686; Fiscal 2018: $197,641; Fiscal 2017: $47,695)$197,641), exploration costs of $524,618$214,246 (Fiscal 2019: $524,618; Fiscal 2018: $477,964; Fiscal 2017: $973,270)$477,964), primarily for exploration and delineation drilling activities, and wellfield development and monitor well installation costs of $691,297$531,336 (Fiscal 2019: $691,297; Fiscal 2018: $Nil; Fiscal 2017: $Nil).

During Fiscal 2019, mineral property expenditures at the Longhorn Project totaled $45,848 (Fiscal 2018: $14,401; Fiscal 2017: $32,796), primarily for property maintenance.

During Fiscal 2019, mineral property expenditures at the Salvo Project totaled $35,923 (Fiscal 2018: $36,056; Fiscal 2017: $37,551), primarily for property maintenance.

During Fiscal 2019, mineral property expenditures at the Anderson Project totaled $81,414 (Fiscal 2018: $68,167; Fiscal 2017: $68,303), primarily for property maintenance.

During Fiscal 2019, mineral property expenditures at the Workman Creek Project totaled $30,709 (Fiscal 2018: $31,300; Fiscal 2017: $31,265), primarily for property maintenance.

During Fiscal 2019, mineral property expenditures at the Slick Rock Project totaled $53,843 (Fiscal 2018: $52,218; Fiscal 2017: $44,231), primarily for property maintenance.

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures at the Reno Creek Project totaled $655,807$596,551 (Fiscal 2019: $655,807; Fiscal 2018: $795,130; Fiscal 2017: $Nil)$795,130), which were comprised of $513,220 (Fiscal 2018: $284,537; Fiscal 2017: $Nil), for property maintenance costs of $484,228 (Fiscal 2019: $513,220; Fiscal 2018: $284,537) and $142,587permitting and exploration costs of $112,323 (Fiscal 2019: $142,587; Fiscal 2018: $510,593;$510,593). During Fiscal 2017: $Nil) for exploration and permitting. In2018, in connection with the completion of the acquisition of the Reno Creek acquisition,Project, we paid reimbursable expenses totaling $483,829 for property maintenance costs incurred at the Reno Creek Project prior to the closing of the Reno Creekthis acquisition, which were also included in the mineral property expenditures for Fiscal 2018.

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures at the Yuty Project totaled $102,882$65,679 (Fiscal 2019: $102,882; Fiscal 2018: $425,298; Fiscal 2017: $365,517)$425,298), which were comprised of permitting and property maintenance costs of $Nil$7,927 (Fiscal 2019: $Nil; Fiscal 2018: $225,044; Fiscal 2017: $268,800)$225,044) and exploration expenditures of $102,882$57,752 (Fiscal 2019: $102,882; Fiscal 2018: $200,254; Fiscal 2017: $96,717)$200,254).

During Fiscal 2019,2020, mineral property expenditures at the Oviedo Project totaled $288,324$350,211 (Fiscal 2019: $288,324; Fiscal 2018: $119,082; Fiscal 2017: $331,798)$119,082), which were comprised of property maintenance costs of $105,641$78,223 (Fiscal 2019: $105,641; Fiscal 2018: $Nil; Fiscal 2017: $70,782)$Nil) and exploration expenditures of $182,683$271,988 (Fiscal 2019: $182,683; Fiscal 2018: $119,082; Fiscal 2017: $261,016).$119,082) primarily for an exploration drilling program.

During Fiscal 2020, we completed a drilling program with total costs of $230,350 to prepare for a PEA where we drilled 49 holes totaling 500 feet at our Alto Parana Project. During Fiscal 2019 and Fiscal 2018, mineral property expenditures at the Alto Paraná Titanium Project totaled $168,956 (Fiscal 2018: $175,768), primarilyand $175,768, respectively, which included property maintenance costs of $45,466 and $29,521 and exploration costs of $123,490 and $146,247, respectively.

During Fiscal 2020, we continued to maintain our projects in good standing, and the costs incurred on other projects of our Company were mainly for property maintenance and exploration. During Fiscal 2017, we recorded mineral property expenditures of $800,023 at the Alto Paraná Titanium Project primarily for reimbursement of general maintenance costs incurred prior to the closing of the acquisition the Alto Paraná Titanium Project.costs.

General and Administrative

During Fiscal 2019,2020, general and administrative expenses totaled $9,441,898, which decreased by $700,137 compared to $10,142,035 in Fiscal 2019, and which decreased by $1,265,171 compared to $11,407,206 during Fiscal 2018, and increased by $1,165,525 during Fiscal 2018 compared to $10,241,681 during Fiscal 2017.2018.

The following summary provides a discussion of the major expense categories, including analyses of factors that caused significant variances from year-to-year:

Depreciation, Amortization and Accretion

During Fiscal 2019,2020, depreciation, amortization and accretion totaled $347,441,$310,222, which was consistent compared to $347,441 and $354,624 during Fiscal 2018,2019 and which decreased by $143,104 during Fiscal 2018, compared to $497,728 during Fiscal 2017, primarily as a result of certain property and equipment reaching full amortization and/or depreciation.respectively.

Depreciation, amortization and accretion includes depreciation and amortization of long-term assets acquired in the normal course of operations and accretion of asset retirement obligations.

Impairment Loss on Mineral Properties

During Fiscal 2019 and Fiscal 2018, we did not record any impairment losses. During Fiscal 2017, we abandoned the Nichols Project located in Texas and certain non-core mineral interests at projects located in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico with a combined acquisition cost of $297,942. As a result, an impairment loss on mineral properties of $297,942 was reported on the consolidated statements of operations.

Other Income and Expenses

Interest and Finance Costs

During Fiscal 2019,2020, interest and finance costs totaled $3,249,881, which were consistent when compared to $2,952,202 during$3,460,970 (Fiscal 2019: $3,249,881; Fiscal 2018 and $2,914,862 during Fiscal 2017. During Fiscal 2019, interest and finance costs2018: $2,952,202), comprised primarily of interest on long-term debt of $1,622,222$1,626,667 (Fiscal 2018:2019: $1,622,222; Fiscal 2017:2018: $1,622,222), amortization of debt discount of $1,464,989$1,669,514 (Fiscal 2019: $1,464,989; Fiscal 2018: $1,180,139; Fiscal 2017: $1,156,657)$1,180,139) and surety bond premium of $134,117$130,262 (Fiscal 2019: $134,117; Fiscal 2018: $118,944; Fiscal 2017: $117,069)$118,944). The increase in interest and finance costs year over year were primarily a result of an increase in amortization of debt discount due to the higher effective interest rate after the third amendment to our Credit Facility in December 2019.

Income or Loss from Equity-Accounted Investment

During Fiscal 2020, we recorded income of $2,967,583 from our investment in Uranium Royalty Corp (“URC”). As a consequence of the initial public offering and other private placements URC completed during Fiscal 2020, our ownership interest in URC decreased to 19.5% at July 31, 2020 from 32.6% at July 31, 2019, which resulted in a dilution gain of $3,056,656 being recorded. During Fiscal 2020, we recorded a loss pick up of $89,073 representing our share of URC’s loss.

During Fiscal 2019, we completed a royalty purchase agreement (the "Royalty Purchase Agreement") with URC, in connection with the purchase by URC from our Company of 1% net smelter return Royalties,royalties, for uranium only, on each of our Slick Rock, Workman Creek and Anderson Projects. On December 4, 2018, we closed the Royalty Purchase Agreement and received 12,000,000 shares of URC with a fair value of $9,077,842. As a result, we own 14,000,000 shares representing a 32.6 %32.6% interest in URC as at July 31, 2019 (July 31, 2018: 11.3%). Our ability to exercise significant influence over URC’s operating and financing policies continued to exist during Fiscal 2019. Refer to Note 5:3: Mineral Rights and Properties and Note 8:6: Equity-Accounted Investment, to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal 2019.Statements.

As a result of the increased interest in URC, duringDuring Fiscal 2019, we recorded a loss of $1,103,356, which was comprised of aour share of URC’s loss totaling $1,858,901, offset by a gain on ownership interest dilution totaling $755,545. During Fiscal 2018, we recorded an income offrom our investment in URC totaling $423,657, which was comprised of aour share of income of $29,001 and a gain on ownership interest dilution of $394,656.

Gain or Loss on Disposition of Assets

During Fiscal 2020 and Fiscal 2019, we recorded a gain of $2,343 and $1,595,513, respectively, on disposition of assets, compared towhereas we recorded a loss of $1,696 and $1,055 foron disposition of assets during Fiscal 2018 and Fiscal 2017.2018. During Fiscal 2019, we recorded a gain of $1,578,864 on disposition of assets from the sale of royalty interests to URC. Refer to Note 5:3: Mineral Rights and Properties to the Consolidated Financial Statements.Statements herein.

Liquidity and Capital Resources