Filed Pursuant to General Instruction II.L of Form F-10
File No. 333-291078

 

The information in this preliminary prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus is not complete and may be changed. This preliminary prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus are not an offer to sell these securities and are not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

A copy of this preliminary prospectus supplement has been filed with the securities regulatory authorities in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, but has not yet become final for the purpose of the sale of securities. Information contained in this preliminary prospectus supplement may not be complete and may have to be amended.

No securities regulatory authority has expressed an opinion about these securities and it is an offence to claim otherwise.

This preliminary prospectus supplement, together with the accompanying short form base shelf prospectus dated October 31, 2025 to which it relates, as amended or supplemented, and each document incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference into this preliminary prospectus supplement and the accompanying short form base shelf prospectus, as amended or supplemented, constitutes a public offering of these securities only in those jurisdictions where they may be lawfully offered for sale and therein only by persons permitted to sell such securities. See “Plan of Distribution”.

Information has been incorporated by reference in this preliminary prospectus supplement and the accompanying short form base shelf prospectus to which it relates from documents filed with securities commissions or similar authorities in each of the provinces and territories of Canada. Copies of the documents incorporated herein by reference may be obtained on request without charge from the Corporate Secretary of Anfield Energy Inc. at 2005—4390 Grange Street, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5H 1P6, telephone (604) 669-5762, e-mail: timelinefiling@gmail.com, and are also available electronically at www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov.

SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED JULY 30, 2026

PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT

dated July 30, 2026

to the Short Form Base Shelf Prospectus dated October 31, 2025

 

New Issue				July 30, 2026

 

 

ANFIELD ENERGY INC.

US$   

Common Shares

This preliminary prospectus supplement (this “Prospectus Supplement”) of Anfield Energy Inc. (the “Company” or “Anfield”), together with the accompanying short form base shelf prospectus dated October 31, 2025, as may be amended or supplemented (the “Shelf Prospectus” and together with the Prospectus Supplement, the “Prospectus”) qualifies for the distribution (the “Offering”) of      Common Shares (as defined below) in the capital of the Company (the “Offered Shares”) at a price of US$     per Offered Share (the “Offering Price”).

The Offering is being made pursuant to an underwriting agreement (the “Underwriting Agreement”) dated July 30, 2026 among the Company and Northland Securities, Inc. (“Northland”) and Roth Capital Partners, LLC (“Roth”), as the representatives of the several underwriters named therein (the “Representatives”). The Offering is being made concurrently in Canada under the terms of this Prospectus Supplement and in the United States under the terms of the

Company’s registration statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-291078), as amended (the “Registration Statement”), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “U.S. Securities Act”) of which this Prospectus Supplement forms a part. See “Plan of Distribution”. The Offered Shares are being offered in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, other than in the province of Quebec, by Roth Canada, Inc. (the “Canadian Underwriter”) and the Offered Shares are being offered in the United States by Northland and Roth (the “U.S. Underwriters”, and together with the Canadian Underwriter, the “Underwriters”). The terms of the Offering, including the Offering Price, were determined by arm’s length negotiation between the Company and the Representatives, with reference to the prevailing market price of the Common Shares.

 

		Price to the Public		Underwriters’ Fee(1)		Net Proceeds to the Company (2)
Per Offered Share		US$		US$		US$
Total (3)		US$		US$		US$

Notes:

(1)

The Company has agreed to pay the Underwriters a cash fee equal to % of the gross proceeds from the Offered Shares sold under the Offering, including in respect of any gross proceeds raised on the exercise of the Over-Allotment Option (as defined below) (the “Underwriters’ Fee”), other than gross proceeds on any sales made to “President’s List” purchasers, on which no fees shall be paid to the Underwriters in respect of such gross proceeds. The “President’s List” includes Uranium Energy (as defined below) and other purchasers introduced by the Company’s management to the Underwriters. The Underwriters’ Fee assumes no sales to “President’s List” purchasers. See “Plan of Distribution”.

(2)	After deducting the Underwriters’ Fee (assuming no sales to “President’s List” purchasers) but before deducting the expenses of the Offering, which are estimated to be US$ , which will be paid by the Company from the proceeds of the Offering.

(3)	Based on      Offered Shares being issued at closing of the Offering.

The Company has granted to the Underwriters an option (the “Over-Allotment Option”) to purchase up to an additional   Offered Shares (the “Over-Allotment Shares”) at the Offering Price for additional gross proceeds of up to US$ . The Over-Allotment Option may be exercised by the Underwriters in whole or in part to acquire Over-Allotment Shares at the Offering Price at any time for a period of 30 days after the date of the Underwriting Agreement (the “Over-Allotment Option Exercise Period”). See “Plan of Distribution”. If the Over-Allotment Option is exercised in full, the total “Price to the Public”, “Underwriters’ Fee” (assuming no sales to “President’s List” purchasers) and “Net Proceeds to the Company” will be US$ , US$  and US$    , respectively. This Prospectus qualifies the grant of the Over-Allotment Option and the distribution of the Over-Allotment Shares issuable upon exercise of the Over-Allotment Option, as applicable. A purchaser who acquires securities forming part of the Underwriters’ over-allocation position acquires these securities under this Prospectus, regardless of whether the over-allocation position is ultimately filled through the exercise of the Over-Allotment Option or secondary market purchases. See “Plan of Distribution”.

The following table sets out the maximum number of Over-Allotment Shares that may be issued by the Company pursuant to the Over-Allotment Option:

 

Underwriters’ Position		Number of Additional Common Shares Available		Exercise Period		Exercise Price
Over-Allotment Option		Up to   Over-Allotment Shares		Up to 30 days following the date of the Underwriting Agreement		US$ per Over-Allotment Share

Unless the context otherwise requires, all references to the “Offering” and the “Offered Shares” in this Prospectus Supplement shall include all Over-Allotment Shares issuable assuming the exercise of the Over-Allotment Option. See “Plan of Distribution”.

 

- ii -

The issued and outstanding common shares of the Company (the “Common Shares”) are listed and posted for trading on the TSX Venture Exchange (the “TSXV”) and on the Nasdaq Capital Market (the “Nasdaq”) under the trading symbol “AEC” and in Germany on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (“FSE”) under the trading symbol “0AD”. On July 29, 2026, the last trading day prior to the date of this Prospectus Supplement, the closing price per Common Share on the TSXV was C$5.86, on the Nasdaq was US$4.23 and on the FSE was €3.56. The Company has applied to list the Offered Shares, including any Offered Shares issuable upon exercise of the Over-Allotment Option, on the TSXV. Listing is subject to the Company fulfilling all of the requirements of the TSXV.

The Company is permitted, under the multijurisdictional disclosure system adopted by the United States and Canada (the “MJDS”), to prepare this Prospectus Supplement and the accompanying Shelf Prospectus in accordance with Canadian disclosure requirements. Prospective investors should be aware that such requirements are different from those of the United States. Annual consolidated financial statements included or incorporated herein by reference have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”), and the interim financial statements included or incorporated by reference herein have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as applicable to interim financial reporting, including IAS 34, Interim Financial Reporting (“IAS 34”), and thus may not be comparable to financial statements of United States companies.

Investing in securities of the Company is speculative and involves a high degree of risk and should only be made by persons who can afford the total loss of their investment. A prospective purchaser should therefore review this Prospectus Supplement and the accompanying Shelf Prospectus, as amended or supplemented, and the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein, as amended or supplemented, in their entirety and carefully consider the risk factors described or referenced under “Risk Factors” herein, in the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein prior to investing in any Offered Shares offered hereby. See “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”.

Prospective investors should be aware that the acquisition, holding or disposition of the Offered Shares may have tax consequences both in Canada and the United States. Such consequences for investors who are resident in, or citizens of, the United States or who are resident in Canada may not be described fully herein. Prospective investors should read the tax discussion contained in this Prospectus Supplement and consult their own tax advisors with respect to their own particular circumstances. See “Certain Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations”, “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders” and “Risk Factors”.

Subject to applicable laws, the Underwriters may, in connection with the Offering, over-allot or effect transactions intended to stabilize or maintain the market price of the Common Shares at levels other than those which might otherwise prevail in the open market. Such transactions, if commenced, may be discontinued at any time. The Underwriters propose to offer the Offered Shares initially at the Offering Price. After a reasonable effort has been made to sell all of the Offered Shares at the price specified, the Underwriters may reduce the selling price to purchasers from time to time in order to sell any of the Offered Shares remaining unsold. Any such reduction will not affect the proceeds received by the Company. See “Plan of Distribution”.

The Underwriters, as principals, conditionally offer the Offered Shares subject to prior sale on a commercially reasonable efforts basis, if as and when issued by the Company, and accepted by the Underwriters, in accordance with the conditions contained in the Underwriting Agreement described under “Plan of Distribution” and subject to the approval of certain legal matters on behalf of the Company by Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, with respect to matters of Canadian law, and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, with respect to matters of U.S. law, and on behalf of the Underwriters by Stikeman Elliott LLP, with respect to matters of Canadian law, and Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, with respect to matters of U.S. law.

 

- iii -

Subscriptions for the Offered Shares will be received subject to rejection or allotment in whole or in part and the right is reserved to close the subscription books at any time without notice. The closing of the Offering is expected to take place on or about July 31, 2026, or such other date as the Company and the Underwriters may agree (the “Closing Date”). It is anticipated that the Offered Shares will be registered in such names and in such denominations as the Representatives shall request. The Offered Shares shall be delivered to the Representatives on the Closing Date for the respective accounts of the several Underwriters. See “Plan of Distribution”. The Underwriters expect to deliver the Offered Shares through the book-entry facilities of CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (“CDS”), The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), or by such other means as permitted by the Underwriting Agreement on or about July 31, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions. A purchaser of Offered Shares will receive only a customer confirmation from the registered dealer through which the Offered Shares are purchased. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the distribution of the Offered Shares hereunder shall terminate upon expiration of the Over-Allotment Option Exercise Period.

The U.S. Underwriters are not registered dealers in any Canadian jurisdiction and, accordingly, are not permitted to and will not, directly or indirectly, advertise or solicit offers to purchase any of the Common Shares offered hereby in Canada. The Canadian Underwriter will solicit offers to purchase the Common Shares offered hereby in Canada. See “Plan of Distribution”.

The enforcement by investors of civil liabilities under United States federal securities laws may be affected adversely by the fact that the Company is incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, that all but one of the Company’s officers and all but five of the Company’s directors are not residents of the United States, that some of the Underwriters or experts named in this Prospectus Supplement and in the accompanying Shelf Prospectus are not residents of the United States, and that certain of the Company’s assets and all or a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside of the United States. See “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities”.

NO CANADIAN SECURITIES REGULATOR HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED THE OFFERED SHARES NOR PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THE SHELF PROSPECTUS AND THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

NEITHER THE SEC NOR ANY STATE SECURITIES REGULATOR HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED THE OFFERED SHARES NOR PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THE SHELF PROSPECTUS AND THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

Ken Mushinski, John Eckersley, Jeff Duncan, Joshua D. Bleak and Stephen S. Lunsford, each a director of the Company, and Douglas L. Beahm, the Chief Operating Officer of the Company, reside outside of Canada. Ken Mushinski, John Eckersley, Jeff Duncan, Joshua D. Bleak and Stephen S. Lunsford, each a director of the Company, and Douglas L. Beahm, the Chief Operating Officer of the Company, have appointed Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, Suite 3100, 666 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2X8 as agent for service of process in Canada.

Purchasers are advised that it may not be possible for investors to enforce judgments obtained in Canada against any person that resides outside of Canada, even if the party has appointed an agent for service of process. See “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities”.

The Company’s head office and its registered and records offices are located at 2005—4390 Grange Street, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5H 1P6. The Company also has project offices in Mesa, Arizona, U.S. and Nucla, Colorado, U.S.

 

- iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT

 

		Page
ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT AND THE ACCOMPANYING SHELF PROSPECTUS			S-1
FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND CURRENCY			S-1
MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA			S-2
NON-IFRS MEASURES			S-2
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS			S-2
CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS			S-5
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE			S-6
SUMMARY OF THE OFFERING			S-8
THE COMPANY			S-9
TECHNICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING MATERIAL MINERAL PROJECTS			S-11
DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES BEING DISTRIBUTED			S-78
CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION			S-79
USE OF PROCEEDS			S-80
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION			S-82
CERTAIN CANADIAN FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS			S-91
CERTAIN U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS FOR U.S. HOLDERS			S-95
PRIOR SALES			S-104
TRADING PRICE AND VOLUME			S-105
RISK FACTORS			S-106
LEGAL MATTERS			S-110
DOCUMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT			S-110
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION			S-110
ENFORCEABILITY OF CIVIL LIABILITIES			S-111
INTEREST OF EXPERTS			S-111
AUDITORS, TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS			S-112

 

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SHORT FORM BASE SHELF PROSPECTUS

 

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS			1
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION			1
NOTICE REGARDING REPRESENTATION OF MINERAL RESERVE AND MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES			3
PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION			4
CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE RATE INFORMATION			4
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE			4
AVAILABLE INFORMATION			6
DOCUMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT			7
ENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN CIVIL LIABILITIES AND AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS			7
THE COMPANY			8
BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY			8
CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION			10
EARNINGS COVERAGE RATIOS			11
DESCRIPTION OF COMMON SHARES			11
DESCRIPTION OF DEBT SECURITIES			11
DESCRIPTION OF SUBSCRIPTION RECEIPTS			13
DESCRIPTION OF WARRANTS			14
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS			16
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION			16
USE OF PROCEEDS			18
TRADING PRICE AND VOLUME			18
PRIOR SALES			18
CERTAIN INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS			19
RISK FACTORS			19
LEGAL MATTERS			23
AUDITORS, TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR			23
INTERESTS OF EXPERTS			23
GLOSSARY OF TERMS			25

 

- ii -

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT AND THE ACCOMPANYING SHELF PROSPECTUS

This document is in two parts. The first part is this Prospectus Supplement, which describes the specific terms of the Offering and adds to and updates certain information contained in the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated by reference into the Shelf Prospectus. The second part is the Shelf Prospectus, which provides more general information, some of which may not apply to the Offering. If the information differs or varies between this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus, the information in this Prospectus Supplement supersedes the information in the Shelf Prospectus. The Shelf Prospectus and this Prospectus Supplement together comprise the Prospectus for purposes of qualifying the securities offered pursuant to the Offering.

An investor should rely only on the information contained in this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus and on the other information in the Registration Statement, of which this Prospectus Supplement and the Prospectus form a part, (including the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein) and is not entitled to rely on parts of the information contained in this Prospectus Supplement or the Shelf Prospectus (including the documents incorporated by reference herein or therein) to the exclusion of others. The Company and the Underwriters have not authorized anyone to provide investors with additional or different information. The Company and the Underwriters take no responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any other information that others may give readers of this Prospectus Supplement. Information contained on, or otherwise accessed through, the Company’s website shall not be deemed to be a part of this Prospectus Supplement or the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and such information is not incorporated by reference herein or therein, and the Company disclaims any such incorporation by reference.

The Company and the Underwriters are not offering to sell the Offered Shares in any jurisdictions where the offer or sale of the Offered Shares is not permitted. The information contained in this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus (including the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein) is accurate only as of the date of this Prospectus Supplement or Shelf Prospectus or as of the date as otherwise set out herein or therein (or as of the date of the document incorporated by reference herein or therein or as of the date as otherwise set out in the document incorporated by reference herein or therein, as applicable), regardless of the time of delivery of this Prospectus Supplement or any sale of the Offered Shares. The business, capital, financial condition, results of operations and prospects of the Company may have changed since those dates. The Company does not undertake to update the information contained or incorporated by reference herein, except as required by applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws.

This Prospectus Supplement shall not be used by anyone for any purpose other than in connection with the Offering.

The documents incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein or in the Prospectus contain meaningful and material information relating to the Company and readers of this Prospectus Supplement should review all information contained in this Prospectus Supplement, the Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein and therein, as amended or supplemented.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND CURRENCY

All currency amounts in this Prospectus Supplement are expressed in United States dollars, unless otherwise indicated. References to dollars, “$” or “US$” are to United States currency, unless otherwise indicated. All references to “C$” refer to Canadian dollars.

The following table sets forth for each period indicated (i) the high and low exchange rates for one United States dollar during such periods; (ii) the average exchange rates for one United States dollar for such period; and

 

S-1

(iii) the exchange rates in effect as at the end of the period, for one United States dollar, each expressed in Canadian dollars as quoted by the Bank of Canada.

 

		Three Months Ended March 31,								Year Ended December 31,
		2026				2025				2025				2024
		(C$)				(C$)				(C$)				(C$)
High			1.3939				1.4603				1.4603				1.4416
Low			1.3515				1.4166				1.3558				1.3316
Average			1.3717				1.4352				1.3978				1.3698
Period End			1.3939				1.4376				1.3706				1.4389

On July 29, 2026, the daily average exchange rate for the conversion of United States dollars into Canadian dollars, expressed in Canadian dollars, as quoted by the Bank of Canada, was US$1.00 = C$1.4083.

MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA

Unless otherwise indicated, the market and industry data contained or incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement and the accompanying Shelf Prospectus is based upon information from independent industry publications, market research, analyst reports and surveys and other publicly available sources. Although the Company believes these sources to be generally reliable, market and industry data is subject to interpretation and cannot be verified with complete certainty due to limits on the availability and reliability of raw data, the voluntary nature of the data gathering process and other limitations and uncertainties inherent in any survey. Actual outcomes may vary materially from those forecast in such reports, surveys or publications, and the prospect for material variation can be expected to increase as the length of the forecast period increases. While the Company believes such third party information to be generally reliable, the Company has not independently verified any of the data from third party sources referred to or incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement and the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and accordingly, the accuracy and completeness of such data is not guaranteed.

NON-IFRS MEASURES

The annual consolidated financial statements of the Company are prepared in accordance with IFRS. Additionally, the Company utilizes certain non-IFRS measures such as working capital (calculated as current assets less current liabilities). The Company believes that these measures, together with measures determined in accordance with IFRS, provide investors with an improved ability to evaluate the underlying performance of the Company. Non-IFRS measures do not have any standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS, and therefore they may not be comparable to similar measures employed by other companies. The data is intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Prospectus Supplement, the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein contain “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable securities legislation, including the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (collectively referred to herein as “forward-looking information” or “forward-looking statements”). Forward-looking statements are included to provide information about management’s current expectations and plans that allows investors and others to get a better understanding of the Company’s operating environment, business operations and financial performance and condition.

 

S-2

Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements relating to: the business and future activities of, and developments related to, the Company after the date of this Prospectus Supplement or the Shelf Prospectus, as applicable; expectations of the use by the Company of the net proceeds raised from the Offering, including as to achieving the related business objectives and milestones described herein; the sufficiency of net proceeds of the Offering to achieve the business objectives and milestones described herein; expectations of the timing, size and completion of the Offering and the listing of the Offered Shares on the TSXV and the Nasdaq; receipt of the required approvals, including, but not limited to, the approval of the TSXV of the Offering; capital expenditure programs; estimates of the quality and quantity of the mineral resources at its mineral properties; development of mineral resources; accuracy and success of exploration programs; whether mineral resources will ever be developed into mineral reserves, and information underlying assumptions related thereto; plans and expectations including anticipated expenditures relating to exploration, development, pre-extraction, extraction and reclamation activities; costs and timing of the development of new deposits; success of exploration activities and permitting timelines; fluctuations in the prices of uranium and vanadium; commodity price changes; currency fluctuations; budget estimates and expenditures to be made by the Company on its properties; planned exploration and development programs and expenditures (including, but not limited to, plans and expectations regarding advancement of the Velvet-Wood Project (as defined below), the Shootaring Canyon Mill (as defined below), the Slick Rock Complex (as defined below) and the Paradox Complex (as defined below)); the Company’s intention to focus its business activity in the near term on advancing its conventional uranium and vanadium portfolio to production, including updating its Radioactive Materials License (as defined below) at the Shootaring Canyon Mill, determining economics and completing permitting application requirements for its Paradox Complex, commencing construction activities for the Velvet-Wood Project and advancing the Slick Rock Complex; the development, operational and economic results of the 2026 PEA (as defined below), including capital expenditures, NPV (as defined below) projections, IRR (as defined below) projections, development costs and sustaining capital; the renegotiation of royalty terms with applicable governmental authorities for the DOE Lease (as defined below) renewal process and the renegotiation of the royalty terms with Cotter (as defined below); continued access to mineral properties or infrastructure; payments and share issuances pursuant to property agreements; performance of the Company’s business and operations; changes in exploration costs and government regulation in Canada and the United States; competition for, among other things, capital, acquisitions, undeveloped lands and skilled personnel; treatment under governmental and taxation regimes; belief and expectations including the possible impact of any legal proceedings, arbitration or regulatory actions against the Company; the reliability of third party information; inflation; changes in trade relationships; tariffs and trade barriers; the Company’s funding requirements and ability to raise capital; geopolitical instability; the Company’s overall strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025 and beyond; and work plans to be conducted by the Company. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, identified by words or phrases such as “expects”, “is expected”, “anticipates”, “seeks”, “believes”, “plans”, “projects”, “estimates”, “assumes”, “intends”, “strategy”, “goals”, “objectives”, “potential”, “possible” or variations thereof or stating that certain actions, events, conditions or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “should”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of fact and may be forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of factors and assumptions that, if untrue, could cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. Forward-looking statements are based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by the Company at this time, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies that may cause the Company’s actual financial results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied herein. With respect to forward-looking statements listed above and contained in the AIF (as defined below), the Company has made assumptions regarding, among other things: uncertainties relating to receiving mining, exploration, environmental and other permits or approvals; unpredictable changes to the market prices for uranium and vanadium; pricing and demand for uranium and vanadium; anticipated results of exploration and development activities for the Velvet-Wood Project, the Shootaring Canyon Mill, the Slick Rock

 

S-3

Complex and Paradox Complex; exploration and development costs for the Velvet-Wood Project, the Shootaring Canyon Mill, the Slick Rock Complex and Paradox Complex; availability of additional financing; ability to remain in compliance with the terms of the Company’s indebtedness; the Company’s ability to obtain additional financing on satisfactory terms; the ability to achieve production at any of the Company’s mineral exploration and development properties; the ability to fund, advance and develop the Company’s properties; the Company’s ability to operate in a safe and effective manner; impact of increasing competition; commodity prices, exchange rates, tariffs, trade barriers, currency rates, interest rates, trade relationships and general economic conditions; the legislative, regulatory and community environments in the jurisdictions where the Company operates; current technological trends; impact of unknown financial contingencies; budgets and estimates of capital and operating costs; estimates of mineral resources and mineral reserves; reliability of technical data; the ability to negotiate access agreements on commercially reasonable terms; and the anticipated timing and results of operations.

Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events, performance or results to differ from those expressed or implied. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of the risk factors set forth below and elsewhere in this Prospectus, including the following: risks related to the Company’s discretion in the use of proceeds from the Offering; risks that the market price of Common Shares may be depressed by substantial sales of the Common Shares; risk that an entire investment in the Offered Shares may be lost; risks that the market for the Common Shares may not be active and liquid; risks related to the Company’s PFIC (as defined below) status; risks that the proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress, including changes in U.S. tax law, may adversely impact the Company and the value of the Offered Shares; risks related to U.S. federal income taxes for U.S. persons treated as owning at least 10% of the Company’s Offered Shares; risks that the forward-looking statements may prove to be inaccurate; mining operations risks, including without limitation, the decisions to advance development of the Velvet-Wood Project, the Slick Rock Complex and Paradox Complex are not based on feasibility studies of mineral reserves demonstrating economic and technical viability; risks associated with development and industry competitiveness; risks related to mineral resource and mineral reserve uncertainties; risks in obtaining and maintaining all necessary licenses and permits for operations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals of financing or in the completion of development or construction activities; risks relating to rights of ownership of mineral properties; risks in maintaining interest in the Company’s mineral properties; risks that the development, operational and economic results of the 2026 PEA may differ from projections; risks that the Company may not be able to renegotiate the royalty terms for the DOE Leases applicable governmental authorities or with Cotter as contemplated, or at all; risks resulting from future environmental legislation, regulations and actions; risks related to environmental liabilities inherent in mining operations; uninsurable risks related to mineral properties; construction project expenditure risks; foreign operations risks; cost estimate risks; risks related to negative operating cash flows; dilution risks; risks related to not issuing dividends; financial risks; credit risks with respect to the Company’s cash and cash equivalents; risks arising from changes in foreign currency fluctuations; liquidity risks; risks related to capital resources; risks related to the Company’s capability to continue as a going concern; risks related to the market prices of uranium and vanadium; risks related to commodity prices; risks related to Uranium Energy Corp. (together with its subsidiaries, “Uranium Energy”) having significant influence over the Company; risks related to political and regulatory effects on the uranium and vanadium industries; political uncertainty risks; risks related to war and international conflict; risks resulting from adverse economic conditions in Canada, the United States and globally; risks relating to tariffs or the imposition of other restrictions on trade; risks related to the integration of acquisitions; risks related to potential joint venture operations; actual results of current exploration and development activities; conclusions of economic evaluations; uncertainties in estimating capital and operating costs, cash flows and other economics; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; future prices of metals; failure of plant, equipment or processes; risks related to geological, technical and drilling issues; unanticipated operating events; health and safety risks; risks related to accidents; unanticipated weather conditions; labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; risks related to climate change; intellectual property risks; decommissioning and reclamation risks; risks related to the Company’s capability to attract and maintain qualified key management personnel; risks related to conflicts of interest; risks related to litigation,

 

S-4

arbitration, disputes and judgments; risks related to enforcing judgements; risks related to anti-corruption; risks related to Indigenous peoples; inflationary pressure risks; information systems risks; risks related to new technology and generative artificial intelligence; risks related to tax law changes and incentive programs with respect to the mining industry; risks related to share price volatility; risks related to future issuances of shares; risks related to obtaining additional financing satisfactory to the Company; and risks related to continued listing requirements for the TSXV and the Nasdaq, as well as those factors discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in the Prospectus and in the Company’s public filings available at the Company’s profile on the Canadian System for Electronic Data Analysis and Retrieval + (“SEDAR+”) at www.sedarplus.ca and the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval System (“EDGAR”) at www.sec.gov. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended.

This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect any of the Company’s forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes its expectations are based upon reasonable assumptions and have attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. See the section entitled “Risk Factors” below, the section entitled “Risk Factors” in the Shelf Prospectus and the section entitled “Risk Factors” in the Company’s annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025, dated March 30, 2026 (the “AIF”), and incorporated by reference herein, for additional risk factors that could cause results to differ materially from forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking information and forward-looking statements contained in this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus represent the Company’s views and expectations respectively as of the date of this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus, unless otherwise indicated in such documents, and forward-looking information and forward-looking statements contained in the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein represent the Company’s views and expectations as of the date of such documents, unless otherwise indicated in such documents. The Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any forward-looking statements or the foregoing list of assumptions or factors, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. Investors are urged to read the Company’s filings with Canadian securities regulatory agencies, which can be viewed online under the SEDAR+ profile of the Company or under the EDGAR profile of the Company at the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov.

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO UNITED STATES INVESTORS

The Company is permitted under the MJDS adopted by the securities regulatory authorities in Canada and the United States to prepare this Prospectus Supplement and the accompanying Shelf Prospectus in accordance with Canadian disclosure requirements. Prospective investors should be aware that such requirements are different from those of the United States. Annual consolidated financial statements included or incorporated herein by reference have been prepared in accordance with IFRS and the interim financial statements included or incorporated by reference herein have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as applicable to interim financial reporting, including IAS 34, and thus may not be comparable to financial statements of United States companies.

Technical disclosure in this Prospectus Supplement, the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the securities laws in effect in Canada, which differ from the requirements of United States securities laws. Such technical disclosure includes mineral reserves and mineral resources classification terms made in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the “CIM”) – CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the CIM Council, as amended (the “CIM Definition Standards”). NI 43-101,

 

S-5

as developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators, establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects. These standards differ from the requirements of the SEC applicable to domestic United States reporting companies under subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (“Regulation S-K 1300”). The Company is not required to provide disclosure on its mineral properties under Regulation S-K 1300 and provides disclosure under NI 43-101 and the CIM Definition Standards. Accordingly, technical disclosure in this Prospectus Supplement, the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated herein and therein by reference that describes the Company’s mineral reserves and mineral resources estimates may differ with information made public by United States companies under Regulation S-K 1300.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Information has been incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus from documents filed with the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, which have been filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Copies of the documents incorporated by reference herein may be obtained on request without charge from the Corporate Secretary of Anfield Energy Inc. at 2005—4390 Grange Street, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5H 1P6, telephone (604) 669-5762, e-mail: timelinefiling@gmail.com, and are also available electronically under the SEDAR+ profile of the Company at www.sedarplus.ca or under the EDGAR profile of the Company at the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov. The filings of the Company available on SEDAR+ and EDGAR are not incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement except as specifically set out herein.

This Prospectus Supplement is deemed to be incorporated by reference into the Shelf Prospectus as of the date hereof and only for the purposes of the distribution of the Offered Shares. Other documents are also incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference into the Shelf Prospectus and reference should be made to the Shelf Prospectus for full details.

As of the date hereof, the following documents, filed by the Company with the securities commissions or similar authorities in each of the provinces and territories of Canada and filed with, or furnished to, the SEC, are specifically incorporated by reference into, and form an integral part of, the Prospectus, provided that such documents are not incorporated by reference to the extent that their contents are modified or superseded by a statement contained in this Prospectus Supplement, the Shelf Prospectus or in any other subsequently filed document that is also incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement, as further described below:

 

(a)

the AIF;

 

(b)	the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, together with the notes thereto and the auditor’s report thereon;

 

(c)	the management’s discussion and analysis of the results of operations and financial condition of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025;

 

(d)	the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, together with the notes thereto (the “Interim Financial Statements”);

 

(e)	the management’s discussion and analysis of the results of operations and financial condition of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2026 (the “Interim MD&A”);

 

(f)	the management information circular of the Company dated February 20, 2025 prepared in connection with the special meeting of the Company’s shareholders held on March 31, 2025;

 

(g)	the management information circular of the Company dated January 27, 2026 prepared in connection with the special meeting of the Company’s shareholders held on February 27, 2026;

 

S-6

(h)	the management information circular of the Company dated June 3, 2026 prepared in connection with the annual general and special meeting of the Company’s shareholders held on July 10, 2026 (the “Meeting”); and

 

(i)

the material change report of the Company dated January 16, 2026, in respect of the closing of the Company’s non-brokered private placement of 1,345,292 Common Shares issued pursuant to the listed issuer financing exemption under Part 5A of National Instrument 45-106—Prospectus Exemptions (the “LIFE Offering”) and the closing of its non-brokered private placement of 896,861 subscription receipts of the Company issued to UEC Energy Corp., a subsidiary of Uranium Energy (the “Concurrent Offering”).

Any document (other than confidential material change reports, if any) of the type referred to in section 11.1 of Form 44-101F1 of National Instrument 44-101 – Short Form Prospectus Distributions filed by the Company with the securities commissions or similar regulatory authorities in each of the provinces and territories of Canada after the date of this Prospectus Supplement and prior to the completion or withdrawal of the Offering shall be deemed to be incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus for the purposes of the Offering. The documents incorporated or deemed to be incorporated herein by reference contain meaningful and material information relating to the Company and readers should review all information contained in this Prospectus Supplement, the Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein and therein.

In addition, to the extent that any document or information incorporated by reference into this Prospectus Supplement is filed with, or furnished to, the SEC pursuant to the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) after the date of this Prospectus Supplement and prior to the termination or completion of the Offering, such document or information will be deemed to be incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Registration Statement of which this Prospectus Supplement forms a part (and in the case of a report on Form 6-K, only if and to the extent expressly provided therein).

Any statement contained in this Prospectus Supplement, the Shelf Prospectus or in a document incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference herein or in the Shelf Prospectus shall be deemed to be modified or superseded, for purposes of this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus, to the extent that a statement contained herein or in any other subsequently filed document that also is, or is deemed to be, incorporated by reference herein modifies or supersedes such statement. Any statement so modified or superseded shall not be deemed, except as so modified or superseded, to constitute a part of this Prospectus Supplement or the Shelf Prospectus. The modifying or superseding statement need not state that it has modified or superseded a prior statement or include any other information set forth in the document that it modifies or supersedes. The making of a modifying or superseding statement shall not be deemed an admission for any purposes that the modified or superseded statement, when made, constituted a misrepresentation, an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact that is required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light of the circumstances in which it was made. Any statement so modified or superseded shall thereafter neither constitute, nor be deemed to constitute, a part of this Prospectus Supplement or the Shelf Prospectus, except as so modified or superseded.

When the Company files a new annual information form, audited consolidated financial statements and related management’s discussion and analysis and, where required, they are accepted by the applicable securities regulatory authorities during the time that this Prospectus Supplement is valid, the previous annual information form, the previous audited consolidated financial statements and related management’s discussion and analysis and all unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and related management’s discussion and analysis for such periods, all material change reports and any business acquisition report filed prior to the commencement of the Company’s financial year in which the new annual information form is filed will be deemed no longer to be incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement for purposes of future offers and sales of Offered Shares offered under this Prospectus Supplement. Upon new unaudited interim condensed

 

S-7

consolidated financial statements and related management’s discussion and analysis being filed by the Company with the applicable securities regulatory authorities during the term of this Prospectus Supplement, all unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and related management’s discussion and analysis filed prior to the filing of the new unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements shall be deemed no longer to be incorporated by reference into this Prospectus Supplement for purposes of future offers and sales of securities hereunder.

MARKETING MATERIALS

Any “template version” of any “marketing materials” (each as defined in National Instrument 41-101 – General Prospectus Requirements) pertaining to the Offering that has been, or will be, filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov before the termination of the distribution under the Offering (including any amendments to, or an amended version of, any template version of any marketing materials) is deemed to be incorporated by reference into this Prospectus Supplement and the accompanying Shelf Prospectus solely for the purposes of the Offering.

SUMMARY OF THE OFFERING

The following is a summary of the principal features of the Offering and should be read together with the more detailed information and financial data and statements contained or incorporated by reference elsewhere in this Prospectus Supplement.

 

Issuer		Anfield Energy Inc.
Offered Securities		Common Shares.
Public Offering Price		US$
Underwriters’ Fee		% of the gross proceeds from the sale of the Offered Shares (including in respect of any gross proceeds raised on the exercise of the Over-Allotment Option), other than gross proceeds on any sales made to “President’s List” purchasers, on which no fees shall be paid to the Underwriters in respect of such gross proceeds. The “President’s List” includes Uranium Energy and other purchasers introduced by the Company’s management to the Underwriters. The Company has also agreed to reimburse the Underwriters for certain expenses. See “Plan of Distribution”.
Description of the Offering		Sales of the Offered Shares under the Prospectus are anticipated to be made pursuant to an Underwriting Agreement. In addition, the Company will grant the Underwriters the Over-Allotment Option to purchase up to an additional Offered Shares at the Offering Price to cover over-allotments, if any, and for market stabilization purposes. The Offering will be made concurrently in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, other than in the province of Quebec, and in the United States pursuant to the Registration Statement.
Common Shares Outstanding		As at July 29, 2026, without giving effect to the Offering: 18,234,976 Common Shares. See “Consolidated Capitalization” and “Plan of Distribution”.
Business of the Company		The Company is an energy metals exploration, development and near-term production company that is committed to becoming a top-tier energy-related fuels supplier by creating value through sustainable, efficient growth in its energy metals assets. The Company is focused on the acquisition and development of uranium and vanadium assets in the United States. The Company intends to focus its business activity in the near term on advancing its conventional uranium and vanadium portfolio closer to production. See “The Company”.

 

S-8

Use of Proceeds		The Company intends to use the net proceeds from the Offering to advance the Company’s uranium and vanadium assets in the United States, namely the Paradox Complex, the Velvet-Wood Project, the Slick Rock Complex and the Shootaring Canyon Mill, and for working capital and general corporate purposes.
Risk Factors		Prospective purchasers of the Offered Shares should carefully consider the information set forth under the heading “Risk Factors” and the other information included in this Prospectus Supplement, the accompanying Shelf Prospectus and the documents incorporated by reference herein and therein, as amended or supplemented, in their entirety, before deciding to invest. Investing in securities of the Company is speculative and involves a high degree of risk and should only be made by persons who can afford the total loss of their investment. See “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”.

THE COMPANY

The following description of the Company does not contain all of the information about the Company and its assets and business that you should consider before investing in the Offered Shares. You should carefully read this entire Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus, including the sections entitled “Risk Factors”, and the AIF, as well as the documents incorporated by reference herein and in the Shelf Prospectus before making an investment decision.

The Company is an energy metals exploration, development and near-term production company. The Company is focused on the acquisition and development of uranium and vanadium assets in the United States. The Common Shares are listed on the TSXV and the Nasdaq under the symbol “AEC” and on the FSE under the symbol “0AD”.

Anfield’s assets include: (i) the Paradox mine complex, located in Montrose County, Colorado (formerly known as the West Slope project) (the “Paradox Complex”); (ii) the Velvet-Wood uranium and vanadium project, located in San Juan County, Utah (the “Velvet-Wood Project”); (iii) the Slick Rock mine complex, located in San Miguel County, Colorado (the “Slick Rock Complex”); and (iv) the Shootaring Canyon mill, located in Henry Mountain District, Utah (the “Shootaring Canyon Mill”).

Management of the Company considers the Paradox Complex, Velvet-Wood Project, Slick Rock Complex and the Shootaring Canyon Mill to be the material mineral properties of the Company.

The Company intends to focus its business activity in the near term on advancing its conventional uranium and vanadium portfolio closer to production. This includes updating its radioactive materials license at the Shootaring Canyon Mill (the “Radioactive Materials License”), determining economics for its Paradox Complex and, uranium price permitting, advancing both its Velvet-Wood Project and Slick Rock Complex.

Recent Developments

On April 1, 2026, the Company announced that it revised the terms of the previously announced amending and consent agreement with Extract Advisors LLC (“Extract”) to amend the terms of its credit facility with Extract. Pursuant to the amending and consent agreement, Extract consented (the “Extract Consent”) to the Company’s proposed acquisition of B.R.S., Inc. (“BRS”). In consideration for the Extract Consent, the Company agreed to issue 50,000 Common Shares (the “Bonus Shares”) and 180,085 Common Share purchase warrants (the “Bonus Warrants”) to Extract, in accordance with TSXV Policy 5.1 – Loans, Loan Bonuses, Finder’s Fees and Commission. Each Bonus Warrant entitles the holder thereof to acquire one Common Share at an exercise price

 

S-9

of C$8.11 per Bonus Warrant until September 26, 2028. The Extract Consent was conditional upon the Company’s issuance of the Bonus Shares and Bonus Warrants to Extract. On April 14, 2026, upon the issuance of Bonus Shares and Bonus Warrants, the Extract Consent was made effective.

On April 2, 2026, the Company announced that it submitted a notice of intent to the relevant regulatory authorities in preparation for an underground drilling program at the SM-18 uranium and vanadium project in Colorado (the “SM-18 Project”).

On April 8, 2026, the Company announced that, following receipt of comments regarding the Company’s submission of a plan of operations from the DOE (as defined below) and the DRMS (as defined below), the Company had addressed all outstanding comments and submitted a permit amendment for the restart of its JD-8 mine at the Paradox Complex.

On May 4, 2026, the Company announced the results of the 2026 PEA.

On May 8, 2026, the Company announced that it had closed the acquisition of BRS. In consideration of the acquisition of BRS, the Company was required to complete a series of cash payments to its founder and the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, Douglas L. Beahm, totaling US$5,000,000. In connection with the acquisition of BRS, the Company has paid Mr. Beahm US$1,500,000, with a further US$1,500,000 payable on the first anniversary of the closing and a further US$2,000,000 on the second anniversary of the closing.

On May 13, 2026, the Company announced that it had completed monitoring well drilling programs at the Shootaring Canyon Mill and Slick Rock Complex.

On June 1, 2026, the Company announced the completion of phase one surface construction at the Velvet-Wood Project.

On June 8, 2026, the Company announced an operational update on the renewal and reactivation of its Radioactive Materials License. The Company announced that it had initiated preparatory refurbishment work at the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The Company also announced that it had entered into an investor relations agreement with CorProminence LLC for public relations and investor relations services, and an agreement with Generation IACP Inc. for market-making services. Both agreements are subject to the Company’s filing requirements with the TSXV and TSXV approval.

On June 15, 2026, the Company announced that it had received its first custom-built underground haul truck from Young’s Machine Company (“Young’s”) production line from the Company’s order for specialized mining equipment. The Company reached a further agreement with Young’s, under which Young’s will supplement underground loaders to support the Company’s mining operations.

On June 18, 2026, the Company announced that it filed the 2026 PEA on SEDAR+.

On June 24, 2026, the Company announced its corporate update discussing the Company’s operational, permitting and economic advancements for the first half of 2026. The Company also announced that it had entered into a media services agreement with Goldwyn Media LLC for comprehensive marketing and public awareness services. The media services agreement is subject to the Company’s filing requirements with the TSXV and TSXV approval.

On June 30, 2026, the Company announced that the DOGM (as defined below) is hosting an informational tour of the Velvet-Wood Project with members of the Utah Legislature on August 12, 2026.

On July 7, 2026, the Company announced that it had received its blasting permits from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for its mines in both Utah and Colorado.

 

S-10

On July 9, 2026, the Company announced that its subsidiary, Highbury Resources Inc., entered into a mining lease agreement with Gold Eagle Mining Inc. (“GEMI”) for two additional patented mining claims in Southwestern Colorado.

On July 21, 2026, the Company announced the results from the Meeting. All matters put forward before the Company’s shareholders for consideration and approval were approved by the requisite majority of votes cast at the Meeting.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING MATERIAL MINERAL PROJECTS

The Paradox Complex, Shootaring Canyon Mill, Velvet-Wood Project and Slick Rock Complex

The combined Paradox Complex, Velvet-Wood Project, Slick Rock Complex and Shootaring Canyon Mill preliminary economic assessment entitled “The Shootaring Canyon Mill and Tributary Mines, Utah and Colorado, USA Preliminary Economic Assessment National Instrument 43-101” and dated effective May 4, 2026 (the “2026 PEA”), was authored by Terence P. (Terry) McNulty, P.E., D. Sc., of T.P. McNulty and Associates Inc. as author with Douglas L. Beahm, P.E., P.G. Principal Engineer, of BRS as principal co-author. Terence P. (Terry) McNulty was the independent qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101 at the time the 2026 PEA was prepared. The effective date of the resource estimation and cost modeling contained in the 2026 PEA is May 2, 2026.

The below is a summary of the 2026 PEA as qualified by full text of the 2026 PEA. The 2026 PEA is available on the Company’s SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca. Capitalized terms used but not defined in the following summary have the meanings ascribed thereto in the 2026 PEA. The 2026 PEA is not and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement.

Where appropriate, certain information contained in this Prospectus Supplement updates information derived from the 2026 PEA. Any updates to the technical information derived from the 2026 PEA were prepared by or under the supervision of principal author Terry McNulty, P.E., D. Sc., of T.P. McNulty & Associates and co-author Douglas L. Beahm, P.E, P.G., the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, and a qualified person within the meaning of NI 43-101. Readers should be cautioned that the Company’s decision to advance the Velvet-Wood Project, the Slick Rock Complex and Paradox Complex is not based on a feasibility study of mineral reserves demonstrating economic and technical viability. As a result, there is additional uncertainty and risk related to the economics and viability of development.

Readers are cautioned that the 2026 PEA is preliminary in nature and includes a portion of the inferred mineral resources as reported herein and in the 2026 PEA. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability in accordance with CIM Definition Standards, and as such there is no guarantee the project economics described herein will be achieved. Inferred mineral resources are too speculative, geologically, to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the outcomes estimated in the 2026 PEA will be realized. Mineral reserves are not estimated in the 2026 PEA. Mineral resource estimates may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant risks, uncertainties and other factors, as more particularly described in the 2026 PEA and herein.

Project Overview

The properties addressed in the 2026 PEA can be divided into four districts based on location: 1) The Lisbon Valley District is in San Juan County, Utah and contains the Velvet-Wood Project; 2) The Slick Rock District is in San Miguel County, Colorado and contains both the Slick Rock Complex and the SR-11 project (the “SR-11 Project”); 3) The Uravan District in Montrose County, Colorado which encompasses the Paradox Complex and the SM-18 Project; and 4) The Henry Mountain District, Utah, contains the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The overall location of these districts is shown in Figure 1.1.1 below.

 

S-11

The mineral rights of these properties consist of four different types of rights; at each property these are singular or in combination. The four different types of mineral rights are: 1) State lease; 2) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lode claims; 3) Department of Energy (DOE) leases; and 4) patented/private claims.

For the purposes of the 2026 PEA, it is assumed that mineral processing will take place at Anfield’s mineral processing facility, the Shootaring Canyon Mill. Multiple mines from each of the major districts are planned to operate simultaneously providing a feed stock of mined material to the Shootaring Canyon Mill over a currently planned period of 15 years.

Figure 1.1.1—Overall Project Location Map

 

 

Anfield controls 21 of the 29 active DOE lease tracts in Colorado (the “DOE Leases”). Anfield refers to the DOE Leases as mine complexes named by geographic areas as summarized in Table 6.1.1 in the 2026 PEA. The locations of the DOE Lease are shown in Figure 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA. For completeness and due to their commonality, a general discussion of the history of all Anfield’s DOE Leases is included below. The DOE and, where applicable, the Cotter Corporation (“Cotter”) mine production royalties listed in Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA and discussed subsequently for the 6 leases included in the 2026 PEA, are considered excessive. Further discussion of royalties and their cost implications is provided below in “Capital and Operating Costs” and in Section 21 of the 2026 PEA under the discussion of operating costs.

Of the 21 DOE Leases held by Anfield, 6 are included in the 2026 PEA as mineral resources including:

 

•

Paradox Mine Complex: JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, JD-9.

 

•

Uravan Mine Complex: SM-18.

 

•

Slick Rock Complex: SR-11.

Specific details of the DOE Leases included in the 2026 PEA are provided in the discussion of mine complexes.

 

S-12

The Lisbon Valley District is made up of BLM lode claims and a State of Utah mineral lease. The Slick Rock District has a combination of BLM lode claims and DOE Leases. DOE Leases make up the bulk of the mineral rights in the Uravan District, but there are also patented/private claims.

Each type of mineral right has annual encumbrances. The State lease requires annual payments to State of Utah for lease ML 49377. BLM lode claims have claim maintenance fees of $200 per claim that are due by September 1 of each year. DOE Leases have annual advance royalty payments, and the patented/private claims have property taxes to be paid annually.

Project Description and Ownership

Velvet-Wood Project Description and Ownership

The Velvet-Wood Project area is located in San Juan County, Utah, approximately 31 miles from Monticello, Utah in Township 31 South, Range 25 East, Sections 2, 3, 4 and 10, at Latitude 38^o 07’ 00” North and Longitude 109º 09’ 00” West. The Wood area is located in Township 31 South, Range 26 East, Sections 6 and 7 and Township 31 South, Range 25 East, Sections 1, 11, and 12 at Latitude 38^o 08’ 00” North and Longitude 109^o 06’ 00” West. In total the mineral holdings within the Velvet-Wood Project area comprise approximately 2,140 acres. The ownership of the Velvet-Wood Project includes unpatented mining claims and a State of Utah mineral lease related to the Velvet and Wood mine areas as shown on Figure 4.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Access

Portions of the Velvet deposit were previously mined. Mineralization was accessed via a portal and decline. The mine entrance was closed by backfill but was reopened in November 2025 and the mine portal re-established. The Velvet portal is accessible by good quality roads beginning with the Big Indian Road, a hard surface road that exits U.S. Highway 191 about 19 miles north of Monticello, Utah or 34 miles south of Moab, Utah (See Figure 5.1.1 of the 2026 PEA).

The Big Indian Road extends eastward and loops into the Lisbon Road to serve properties in the Lisbon Valley area. A gravel road, San Juan County Road 112 (Williams Fork) exits the Big Indian Road about 5.5 miles east of its intersection with Highway 191. A private access road connects with County Road 112 about 6 miles southeast of its intersection with the Big Indian Road. The Velvet mine portal is about one mile northeast along this road. The site, as described above, is accessible via 2-wheel drive on existing county and/or two-track roads. The project is located approximately 10 miles south of La Sal, Utah. Most transport will occur via over-the-road commercial trucks. Access to exploration drill sites and vent locations are provided by existing roads connecting to the main access at the Velvet portal and the Lisbon Road.

The Wood area is located about 3 miles east of Velvet along County Road 112 and is also accessible from the east via the Lisbon Valley Road and County Road 112.

Mineral Tenure

Unpatented mining claims, both lode and placer, are under the authority of the Mining Law of 1872 on federal lands administered by the BLM. Under the Mining Law, the locator has the right to explore, develop, and mine on unpatented mining claims without paying production royalties to the federal government. Claim maintenance fees of $200 per claim are due by September 1 of each year. Unpatented federal lode mining claims are designated in the field by four corner posts, two end-center posts, and a location monument. Claim location notices for each unpatented claim are recorded in the county recorder’s office of the county in which the claims are located and then filed with the BLM State office.

In addition to the mining lode claims, three quarters of Section 2 is a State of Utah lease ML 54557 OBA. To maintain these mineral rights Anfield must comply with the state lease provisions including annual payments to State of Utah for leases ML 54557 OBA and BLM and San Juan County, Utah filing and/or annual payment requirements to maintain the validity of the unpatented mining lode claims.

 

S-13

Permitting

Permitting for Velvet-Wood Project mining operations required various approvals from the DOGM and the BLM. The Velvet-Wood Project mines have been permitted through the state of Utah and BLM. The mine portal at Velvet has been opened and work is progressing to rehabilitate the decline.

Environmental Liabilities

Financial assurance instruments are required by Utah for mine and exploration permits. The current bond for the Velvet-Wood mine complex is $539,000.

No other outstanding environmental liabilities are known to the authors.

Taxes and Royalties

Uranium mining in Utah is subject to Mineral Production Tax. Mineral Production Tax Withholding was increased from 4% to its current level of 5% effective July 1, 1993. (Refer to Utah Senate Bill 180, 1993). On the Section 2 State of Utah lease, an 8% royalty is levied on uranium, and a 4% royalty applies to vanadium production or other minerals. Additional state taxes would include property and sales taxes. At the federal level, profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates. However, for mineral properties, depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis, whichever is greater. For uranium, the percentage depletion tax credit is 22%, among the highest for mineral commodities.

The estate of Mr. Jim Butt holds a 2.5% gross production royalty on all uranium and vanadium recovered at the Shootaring Canyon Mill from material mined from the Velvet 1-9 claims. Mr. Kelly Dearth holds a 1% gross royalty for all uranium mined from the Wood claims, including UT 31-38, 41-44, 48, 50, 52, 54-72, and 129, a total of 37 claims.

Encumbrances and Risks

The Velvet and Wood mines have been permitted by the State of Utah and BLM. To the authors’ knowledge there are no other significant factors that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property if the aforementioned requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

Slick Rock District Description and Ownership

Slick Rock Complex

The Slick Rock Complex is located in San Miguel County, Southwest Colorado, approximately 24 miles north of the town of Dove Creek and east of the Dolores River. The Slick Rock Complex lode claims are located in Township 44 North, Range 18 West, Sections 15, 16, 19 to 30, 30, 32, 33, and 34 and in Township 43 North, Range 18 West, Sections 3, 4, and 5. DOE Lease SR-13 is located in Township 44 North, Range 18 West, Sections 29 to 33. DOE Lease SR-13A is located in Township 44 North, Range 18 West, Sections 19 and 30 and in Township 44 North, Range 19 West Sections 24 and 25. The approximate geographic center of the Slick Rock Complex is Latitude 38° 02’ 54.7” North, Longitude 108° 51’ 50.8” West. In total the mineral holdings within the Slick Rock Complex area comprise approximately 6,473 acres as shown on Figure 4.2.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Access

The Slick Rock Complex can be accessed via Colorado State Highway 141, County Road CR-T11, and numerous historic drill roads and trails (See Figure 5.2.1 of the 2026 PEA). To access the site: from the post office in Dove Creek, Colorado, drive 2.0 miles west-northwest on State Highway 491; turn right (north) onto State Highway 141; continue for 23.7 miles to County Road CR-T11, and then turn left onto the well-maintained gravel road.

 

S-14

Mineral Tenure

Figure 4.2.1 of the 2026 PEA shows the approximate location of the BLM lode claims on the Slick Rock Complex. The Slick Rock Complex contains four claim blocks. The Burro claim block consists of 76 claims. The SR claim block consists of 131 claims, of which 109 were included in the study area for the 2026 PEA, with the remainder located outside of the Slick Rock Complex area. The TAN claim block consists of 27 claims. The MCT claim block consists of 56 claims. The MCT and TAN claims are leased from UR Energy. A total of 268 mineral lode claims and two DOE Leases were utilized for the Slick Rock Complex mineral resource estimate in the 2026 PEA. The claims encompass an area of approximately 4,976 acres or 7.8 square miles while the SR-13 and SR-13A DOE Leases have an area of approximately 1,077 and 420 acres respectively. Anfield acquired the DOE Lease SR-13 from GEMI and the SR-13A DOE Lease from Cotter in 2024 and 2020, respectively.

To maintain these mineral rights, Anfield must comply with the BLM and San Miguel County, Colorado filing and/or annual payment requirements to maintain the validity of the unpatented mining lode claims. For the DOE Leases, Anfield must pay the annual royalty to DOE at the beginning of each lease year during the term of this lease.

Permitting

Exploration and mining activities for the mining claims of the Slick Rock Complex are administrated by the Durango, Colorado BLM field office. Exploration drilling and associated activities require an exploration permit and a reclamation bond that must be posted with the State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. At the time of the 2026 PEA, Anfield does possess an exploration permit (NOI) with the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS). The current reclamation bond held by the DRMS is $81,313.00. DOE Leases SR-13 and SR-13A were previously mined and have mine permits for reclamation through the DRMS. Future mining would require new mine permits.

Environmental Liabilities

The DOE Leases SR-13 and SR-13A have current mine permit bonds for US$31,282.00 and US$6,000.00 respectively. Reclamation of these sites was completed in 2025, but the bonds have not been released. Anfield is unaware of any additional significant environmental liabilities on the property. DOE also maintains a legacy site within the property boundary.

Taxes and Royalties

Uranium mining in Colorado is subject to Minerals Severance Tax of 2.25% after the first $19 million of gross product. In addition, two claim blocks are associated with royalties of 1% related to the Holley BC claims and 3% associated with the MCT claims. At the federal level, profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates. Pre and post tax economic analyses are provided below in “Economic Analysis” and in Section 22 of the 2026 PEA.

The DOE Leases SR-13 and SR-13A pay royalties to the DOE annually and this amount will be credited against royalty bid payments. The royalties are US$13,200.00 for SR-13 and US$10,200.00 for SR-13A. These annual royalties will not be refunded if the lease is cancelled, relinquished, or expires. The royalty bid payment is per dry ton of processed ore and is 15.52% for SR-13 and 29.50% for SR-13A. Cotter retained a royalty in the amount of 15% on uranium and vanadium produced from the properties. Refer to Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Encumbrances and Risks

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other forms of encumbrance related to the Slick Rock Complex.

 

S-15

The Slick Rock Complex does have some risks similar in nature to other mining projects in general and uranium mining projects specifically, i.e., risks common to mining projects as discussed below. In addition, the Slick Rock Complex is located in San Miguel County, Colorado. The county has passed its own mining regulations which are being challenged on a preemptory basis, as by law, regulation of mining in the US is reserved to the Federal and State governments, in this case BLM and DRMS. Some level of public resistance to mining is likely in this area.

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other significant factors that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property if the aforementioned requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

SR-11 Project

The SR-11 Project is located in San Miguel County, Colorado approximately 5 miles southwest of the Slick Rock Complex and 27 miles west of Naturita. This DOE Lease is located in Township 43 North and Range 19 West, Sections 8, 17, and 18. The approximate geographic center of the SR-11 Project is Latitude 38° 59’ 31.6” North, Longitude 108° 59’ 33.5” West. Refer to Figure 4.2.2 of the 2026 PEA.

Access

The SR-11 Project is reached by Colorado State Highway 141, a paved 2 lane highway. From Highway 141, gravel county roads (S8 to Q1 to Q4) and existing dirt and two-track roads provide secondary access to the site.

Mineral Tenure

Anfield acquired the DOE Lease SR-11 from Cotter in 2019. For DOE Leases, Anfield must pay the annual advance royalty to DOE at the beginning of each lease year during the term of this lease.

Permitting

The SR-11 lease has had past mining and has a previous mining permit through the DRMS. The SR-11 lease consists of approximately 1,303 acres, and the DRMS reclamation permit for the lease applies to 11.3 acres of the lease tract.

Environmental Liabilities

The DOE Lease SR-11 has a current mine permit bond for US$94,400.00. Anfield is unaware of any additional significant environmental liabilities on the property.

Taxes and Royalties

Uranium mining in Colorado is subject to Minerals Severance Tax of 2.25% after the first $19 million of gross product. At the federal level, profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates. However, for mineral properties depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis whichever is greater. For uranium, the percentage depletion tax credit is 22%, among the highest for mineral commodities.

For DOE Leases including SR-11, Anfield pays royalties to the DOE annually and this amount will be credited against royalty bid payments. The advance royalty amount is US$24,900.00 per year. These annual royalties will not be refunded if the lease is cancelled, relinquished, or expires. The royalty bid payment is per dry ton of ore and is 13.73%. Cotter retained a royalty in the amount of 15% on uranium and vanadium produced from the properties. Refer to Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Encumbrances and Risks

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other forms of encumbrance related to the SR-11 Project.

 

S-16

The SR-11 Project does have some risks similar in nature to other mining projects in general and uranium mining projects specifically, i.e., risks common to mining projects as discussed below. In addition, the SR-11 Project is located in San Miguel County, Colorado. The county has passed its own mining regulations which are being challenged on a preemptory basis, as by law, regulation of mining in the US is reserved to the Federal and State governments, in this case BLM and the DRMS. Some level of public resistance to mining is likely in this area.

The SR-11 DOE Lease tract has been mined in the past and is a brownfield site. Current environmental and cultural studies have been completed for the project as part of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental clearances required by DOE for current reclamation obligations. The existing mine portal and associated infrastructure are in place. A new mine permit is required for the resumption of mining. Some level of public resistance to mining is likely in this area.

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other significant factors that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property if the aforementioned requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

Uravan District Description and Ownership

The Uravan District is located in Montrose County, Colorado within 20 miles of Naturita, Colorado. Included in the 2026 PEA within the district are the Paradox Complex, JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, JD-9, and the Uravan mine complex, SM-18. Mineral tenure consists of DOE Leases and adjacent mining claims as described below. Refer to Figure 4.3.1 and Figure 4.3.2 of the 2026 PEA, respectively for location and mineral ownership.

Paradox Complex

The Paradox Complex is located within the Uravan District of southwestern Colorado, approximately 10 miles west of Naturita, Colorado (see Figure 4.3.1 of the 2026 PEA), within Township 46 North and Range 17 West, Sections 16 to 22, 29, and 30 in Montrose County, Colorado. The approximate geographic center of the Paradox Complex is Latitude 38° 13’ 27.1” North, Longitude 108° 46’ 11.8” West. The Paradox Complex consists of four adjacent DOE Leases, JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, and JD-9, that were previously developed and mined by Cotter from the late 1970s to early 2000s. All four leases experienced underground mining activity over the 30-year period. In addition, the JD-7 lease had significant open pit stripping performed to within 100 feet of the top of mineralization. The total area is approximately 3,014 acres. Refer to Figure 4.3.1 of the 2026 PEA.

The DOE Leases can be reached by taking Colorado Highway 141 west approximately 1.5 miles from Naturita, turning south on State Highway 90, and then proceeding approximately 9 miles west. There, heading south on a maintained gravel road to Monogram Mesa accesses the JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 lease tracts. The JD-7 lease is accessed by another gravel road, which heads south from State Highway 90, approximately 1.5 miles west from the Monogram Mesa access road. Refer to Figure 5.3.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Mineral Tenure

The JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, and JD-9 leases were acquired by Anfield in 2020 from Cotter. Anfield must pay the annual advance royalty to DOE at the beginning of each lease year during the term of the lease.

Permitting

Each of the sites within the Paradox Complex have had past mining and each have previous mining permits through the DRMS. The DOE Lease tracts have been mined in the past and are brownfield sites. Current environmental and cultural studies have been completed for the project as part of the environmental protection plan required by DOE. Existing mine portals and associated infrastructure are in place. A new mine permit is required for the resumption of mining.

 

•

A new mine permit for the JD-8 mine has been filed with the DRMS and DOE, has been accepted as complete by the DRMS and is under review and public comment. With the original filing a public

 

S-17

notice and comment period was required. Public comment will be complete and a decision from the DRMS is due on July 28, 2026.

 

•

The JD-6 lease consists of 325 acres, and the DRMS reclamation permit for the lease applies to 2.48 acres of the lease tract.

 

•

The JD-7 lease consists of 320 acres on the DOE mining lease and 120 acres on the JD-7A lease, which is used for overburden placement from the open-pit mine. The DRMS reclamation permit for the JD-7 mine specifies an area of no greater than 650 acres of the lease tract may be disturbed.

 

•

The JD-8 lease consists of 813 acres, and the DRMS reclamation permit applies to 20.96 acres of the lease tract.

 

•

The JD-9 lease consists of 897 acres, and the DRMS reclamation permit applies to 11.1 acres of the lease tract.

Environmental Liabilities

Current mine permit bonds are US$2.64 million. Future development, whether mining or mineral processing, would require adequate decommissioning and reclamation bonds for the life of the planned operations.

Taxes and Royalties

Mineral severance taxes in Colorado are at a rate of 2.38% of gross value.

On March 1, 2019, Anfield reported the acquisition of nine past-producing uranium and vanadium properties in southwestern Colorado, and the Charlie in-situ project in northeastern Wyoming. The subject DOE Leases of the 2026 PEA, JD-6, 7, 8, and 9, were included in this transaction. Cotter received 11,051,775 Common Shares of Anfield. Cotter retained a royalty in the amount of 15% on uranium and vanadium produced from the properties. Refer to Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

DOE royalties vary by lease and require annual advance payment. The annual advance royalty payments shall be credited against the royalty bid payments upon successful mineral extraction from the individual leases. Refer to Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

DOE Leases included in the 2026 PEA within the Uravan District include the Paradox Complex, (JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, and JD-9) on Monogram Mesa, and the SM-18 Project adjacent to Uravan. Each of these leases has had past mining and has a previous mining permit through the DRMS. Future mining would require new mine permits. A new mine permit for the JD-8 mine has been filed with the DRMS and DOE and has been deemed complete.

Encumbrances and Risks

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other forms of encumbrance related to the Paradox Complex. All of the DOE Leases in the Paradox Complex have been mined in the past. The JD-8 permit has been filed, accepted as complete and is under review and public comment.

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other significant factors that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property if the aforementioned requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

SM-18 Project

The SM-18 Project is located in Montrose County, Colorado and is approximately 15 miles northwest of Naturita. SM-18 is located in Township 48 North and Range 17 West, Sections 22, 26, and 27. The approximate geographic center of the SM-18 Project is Latitude 38° 23’ 19.7” North, Longitude 108° 43’ 57.8” West. Refer to Figure 4.3.2 of the 2026 PEA.

 

S-18

Access

The SM-18 Project is adjacent to Colorado State Highway 141, a paved 2 lane highway providing major access to the site. From Highway 141, gravel county roads and existing dirt and two-track roads provide secondary access to the site.

Mineral Tenure

The SM-18 DOE Lease was acquired by Anfield in 2019 from Cotter as part of the West Slope acquisition. Anfield must pay the annual advance royalty to DOE at the beginning of each lease year during the term of this lease.

Permitting

The SM-18 Project has had past mining and has a previous mining permit through the DRMS. The SM-18 DOE lease consists of approximately 1,181 acres, and the DRMS reclamation permit for the lease applies to 14.9 acres of the lease tract. The SM-18 DOE Lease tract has been mined in the past and is a brownfield site. Current environmental and cultural studies have been completed for the project as part of the environmental protection plan required by DOE. The existing mine portal and associated infrastructure are in place. A new mine permit is required for the resumption of mining.

Environmental Liabilities

The DOE Lease SM-18 has a current mine permit bond for US$63,900.00. Anfield is unaware of any additional significant environmental liabilities on the property.

Taxes and Royalties

Uranium mining in Colorado is subject to Minerals Severance Tax of 2.25% after the first US$19 million of gross product. At the federal level, profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates. However, for mineral properties depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis whichever is greater. For uranium, the percentage depletion tax credit is 22%, among the highest for mineral commodities.

Anfield pays royalties to the DOE annually for the SM-18 DOE Lease, and this amount will be credited against royalty bid payments. The royalty amount is US$37,700.00. These annual royalties will not be refunded if the lease is cancelled, relinquished, or expires. The royalty bid payment is per dry ton of ore and is 16.08%. Cotter retained a royalty in the amount of 15% on uranium and vanadium produced from the properties. Refer to Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Encumbrances and Risks

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other forms of encumbrance related to the SM-18 Project. The SM-18 DOE Lease tract has been mined in the past. A new mine permit will be required for mining.

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other significant factors that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property if the requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

Shootaring Canyon Mill Description and Ownership

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is located in Garfield County Utah approximately 52 miles south of Hanksville, Utah in Township 36 South, Range 11 East, Sections 3 and 4 and Township 35 South, Range 11 East, Sections 33 and 34 at approximate Latitude 37^o 43’ 00” North and Longitude 110^o 41’ 00” West.

 

S-19

Access

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is located approximately 2 miles west of Utah Highway 276 and approximately 3 miles north of Ticaboo, Utah as shown in Figure 1.1.1. By road it is approximately 180 miles from the mill to the Velvet mine area. Access to the mill is via paved highways with the exception of the 2-mile gravel road from the mill to Highway 276.

Mineral Tenure

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is located on lands which are split estate as shown on Figure 4.4.1 of the 2026 PEA. The surface estate is fee land held by Anfield, and the mineral estate is Utah State Trust Land held by Anfield through two mineral leases as follows.

Surface Ownership:

 

•

Township 35 South, Range 11 East, SLB&M, Section 33: S/2SW/4SE/4, SE/4SE/4, Section 34: SW/4SW/4, W/2SE/4SW/4.

 

•

Township 36 South, Range 11 East, SLB&M, Section 3: Lot 4, Section 4: Lots 1, 2, N/2S/2NE/4.

 

•

Approximately 264.52 Acres.

Mineral Ownership:

 

•

State of Utah Lease ML 53604, Township 36 South, Range 11 East, Section 3: Lot 4, Section 4: Lots 1, 2, N/2S/2NE/4.

 

•

Approximately 144.5 Acres

 

•

State of Utah Lease ML 49310, Township 35 South, Range 11 East, Section 32: All, Section 33: S/2SW/4SE/4, SE/4SE/4, Section 34: SW/4SW/4, W/2SE/4SW/4.

 

•

Approximately 760 Acres.

To maintain these mineral rights, Anfield must comply with the state lease provisions including annual payments with respect to State of Utah leases ML 49310, and ML 53604.

Permitting

The Shootaring Canyon Mill has the existing Radioactive Materials License. The Radioactive Materials License was originally issued by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). When Utah became an agreement state it assumed regulatory jurisdiction over the Radioactive Materials License through the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). Anfield submitted a license renewal application to convert the existing Radioactive Materials License from care-and-maintenance to operational status on April 5, 2024. Anfield has been conducting by-monthly meetings with DWMRC during the license renewal process. DWMRC completed its initial review of the license amendment and provided its Requests for Additional Information (RAIs). Anfield completed responses to all RAIs in April 2026, and they are under review by DWMRC. As additional questions arise, they are discussed at the bi-monthly meetings. It is anticipated that the licensing process, including a public comment period, will be completed by Q4 2026.

Environmental Liabilities

The current surety bond for the Shootaring Canyon Mill totals $12,294,452.00.

No other outstanding environmental liabilities are known to the authors.

 

S-20

Taxes and Royalties

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is subject to property taxes at a mill levy rate of 0.01. The current annual cost is approximately $115,000.00 per year. As improvements are made, the assessed value will increase as will the property tax.

Encumbrances and Risks

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other forms of encumbrance related to the Shootaring Canyon Mill. Shootaring Canyon Mill has the Radioactive Materials License and the Shootaring Canyon Mill has operated in the past. The site produced limited waste as it processed less than 6,000 tons of material. Containment and remediation requirements are included in the aforementioned surety bond.

To the authors’ knowledge there are no other significant factors that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property if the aforementioned requirements, payments, and notifications are met.

History

Velvet-Wood Project History

The Velvet-Wood Project mineral holdings have gone through a succession of ownership. Anfield purchased the Velvet-Wood Project mines along with other conventional uranium assets from Uranium One including the Velvet-Wood Project in August 2015.

The Velvet-Wood Project, as discussed in the 2026 PEA, consists of two areas which were historically held by separate companies. The Velvet area was held by Atlas Minerals who mined portions of the mineralized material. The Wood area was held during a similar time frame by Uranerz. Uranerz drilled 120 rotary holes from 1985 through 1991 and outlined the current Wood mineral resource area. The exploration resulted in the discovery of three mineralized zones in the Cutler Formation. The most important of these, the Wood mineralized body, was outlined in 14 holes that intercepted high grade material. The Wood area described in the 2026 PEA was drilled but not mined. Atlas Minerals completed feasibility studies for mining the Section 2 mineral resources including hoisting and haulage of mined products to their Moab mill for processing in 1980. These plans were never executed due to low uranium prices in the 1980s, and the Section 2 property was sold by Atlas Minerals as they were experiencing an economic downturn. The Velvet mine was closed in 1984.

A historic mineral resource estimate for the Velvet area within Section 2 was completed by MRC using a polygonal method. A similar historical mineral resource estimate for the Velvet area within Section 3 was completed by Price, 1987. Mineral resources related to the Wood area, located in T31S, R26E, Section 7, is referenced in the literature. However, the original source and basis of this estimate is not known and thus cannot be stated herein.

The Velvet mine operated into the early 1980s. Due to continued low uranium prices, Atlas Minerals closed all of its mines and mill, which included the Velvet mine in southeastern Lisbon Valley in March 1984. When the Velvet mine was closed it had produced approximately 400,000 tons of ore which graded 0.46 percent U₃O₈ and 0.64 percent V₂O₅ with total production estimated at 4.2 million pounds of U₃O₈.

Slick Rock District History

Surficial to shallow uranium/vanadium mineralization has been known in the Slick Rock Complex area since the early 1900s (then called the McIntyre district). First mined for radium and minor uranium until 1923, numerous companies sporadically operated small-scale mining and processing facilities along the Dolores River. In 1931, a mill was constructed by Shattuck Chemical Co. to process vanadium ore. In 1944, the area was worked by the Union Mines Development Corp. for uranium/vanadium ore.

 

S-21

Between November 1948 and March 1956, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) drilled 2,641 holes in the Slick Rock District to explore for uranium- and vanadium-bearing deposits. The drilling was part of an exploration program OFR70-348 conducted for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC). Fifty-two of these drill holes were located within the boundary of Anfield’s Slick Rock Complex area. The first phase of the USGS’s exploration was to obtain geological data and delineate areas of favorable ground. This widely spaced drilling program was done on approximately 1,000 foot centers. The second phase was drilled with more moderate spacing (100-300 foot centers) to discover ore deposits. The third phase was drilled on more closely spaced intervals (50-100 foot centers) to extend and outline any deposits discovered by earlier drilling. At this time, private industry was also actively exploring the area. By 1954, an estimated 212,000 feet of drilling was completed district wide.

By December of 1955, Union Carbide Nuclear Corp. (UCNC) had drilled out a sufficient resource on the north side of Burro Canyon and began sinking three shafts. In December 1957, the shaft sinking was complete on the Burro No. 3, 5, and 7 mines to total depths of 408 feet, 414 feet, and 474 feet, respectively. In the same year, initial ore shipments were made to UCNC’s concentrating mill at the Slick Rock Complex.

The Slick Rock Complex has received more recent interest by the exploration activities of United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) Energy Fuels, and Homeland Uranium. In 2006, USEC drilled 17 boreholes. All boreholes were completed to target depth, except one borehole SR-1011 which was abandoned.

In 2007, Energy Fuels drilled five boreholes on the extreme northern portion of the project. Four of the boreholes were oxidized and barren. The fifth borehole was abandoned due to excessive water encountered in the Burro Canyon Formation and the upper Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation.

In 2008, Homeland Uranium drilled four boreholes in an effort to twin the mineralized boreholes drilled by the USAEC in the 1950s. All boreholes were completed to target depth.

Uranium Energy began acquiring mineral interests in the Slick Rock Complex area beginning in December of 2010 by staking areas where the previous owner had allowed the mining claims to lapse. Uranium Energy then held 293 mineral lode claims encompassing an area of approximately 4,858.5 acres. Uranium Energy also began leasing additional claims from UR Energy on November 30, 2011.

Anfield entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the Slick Rock Complex property from Uranium Energy in an asset swap transaction on April 21, 2022, which subsequently closed on June 8, 2022.

There are no historical mineral resource estimates for the Slick Rock Complex known to the authors.

In 1971, the final year that the USAEC reported production figures, the Burro mines had produced 404,804 tons of ore at an average grade of 0.25% U₃O₈ yielding 1,992,898 lbs U₃O₈, and 1.5% average grade V₂O₅ yielding 12,149,659 lbs V₂O₅. According to the Colorado Bureau of Mines’ annual reports, the Burro mines produced an additional 243,825 lbs U₃O₈ at an average grade of 0.20% and 1,791,798 lbs V₂O₅ at an average grade of 1.4% up until 1983 when depressed uranium prices forced an end to mining activities. The total production of the Burro mines was 2,236,723 lbs U₃O₈ and 13,941,457 lbs V₂O₅ as summarized in Table 6.3.1 of the 2026 PEA.

DOE Leases History

DOE Leases are managed by the DOE Legacy Management Program (LM). LM currently manages the Uranium Leasing Program (ULP) and continues to administer 31 lease tracts, all located within the Uravan Mineral Belt in southwestern Colorado. Of these lease tracts, 29 of these lease tracts are actively held under lease and two have been placed in inactive status indefinitely. Anfield controls 21 of the 29 active DOE Lease tracts. Anfield refers to the DOE Leases as mine complexes named by geographic areas as summarized in Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA. The locations of the DOE Leases are shown on Figure 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

 

S-22

For completeness and due to their commonality, a general discussion of all Anfield’s DOE Leases is included in the 2026 PEA. Of the 21 DOE Leases held by Anfield, 6 are included in the 2026 PEA as mineral resources including:

 

•

Paradox Mine Complex; JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, JD-9.

 

•

Uravan Mine Complex; SM-18.

 

•

Slick Rock Complex; SR-11.

Nine of the leases were obtained by Cotter who extensively explored them by surface drilling methods. Mineralized deposits were delineated, and underground mining was completed on each of the leases from the late 1970s to the early 2000s. The JD-7 lease also underwent surface mining, with preliminary stripping of an open-pit completed to within 100 feet of the top of mineralization. In addition, 12 of the leases were obtained by GEMI and Golden Eagle Uranium (GEU). These leases, like those controlled by Cotter, had historic underground mine production. The current 10-year lease agreements were executed in 2020.

Anfield purchased the Cotter leases in March 2019 and the GEU/GEMI leases in January 2024.

In the DOE ULP Annual Status and Activities Report for Calendar Year 2024, March 2025, LM states it has begun preparing updates to the lease agreements to be issued in the future. DOE has verbally stated it intends to re-issue the leases to current lessees for an additional 10-year period so long as conditions of the leases are being met.

Eleven of the leases have existing permits with reclamation plans and respective bonds as discussed above. These reclamation plans can be superseded with new mine permits.

As part of the DOE leasing program’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), issued in March 2014, DOE estimated the remaining uranium resources for the lease tracts, see Table 6.2.1 of the 2026 PEA. The method and resource classification for this estimate was not provided.

Past production is reported on 17 of the 21 DOE Leases controlled by Anfield as shown on Table 6.3.2 of the 2026 PEA. Note past production is reported for all the DOE Leases controlled by Anfield.

Shootaring Canyon Mill History

The Shootaring Canyon Mill was licensed and constructed by Plateau Resources and has had a succession of owners including US Energy and Uranium One prior to Anfield’s acquisition. The Shootaring Canyon Mill was constructed by Plateau Resources and operated briefly in 1982. The Shootaring Canyon Mill processed less than 6,000 tons and produced and sold 27,825 pounds of U₃O₈. The Shootaring Canyon Mill has not been decommissioned and has been under care and maintenance since cessation of operations. The Shootaring Canyon Mill and the Radioactive Materials License have been maintained.

Anfield purchased the Shootaring Canyon Mill along with other conventional uranium assets from Uranium One including the Velvet-Wood Project in August 2015.

Geology and Mineralization

Regional Geology

The Colorado Plateau is a regional geologic feature characterized by high elevation mesas and deeply incised canyons in southwestern Colorado and much of eastern Utah. The sedimentary units which dominate the Colorado Plateau were deposited during a period of tectonic stability beginning in the early Paleozoic and running through the Mesozoic Eras. During this time, a stable shelf depositional environment allowed thick

 

S-23

accumulations of clastic, carbonate, and evaporitic sediments. Beginning approximately 6 million years ago, the entire Colorado Plateau was subject to epeirogenic uplift of 4,000-6,000 feet. This geologically rapid uplift caused the existing rivers and streams to aggressively downcut resulting in the canyon lands topography of today. The Velvet-Wood, Slick Rock, and Uravan Districts are situated in the central portion of the Colorado Plateau. The Velvet-Wood Project lies along the western flank of the Lisbon Valley anticline in the Lisbon Valley Utah while the Slick Rock Complex and SR-11 Project are located along the spine of the Disappointment syncline in the Paradox Basin of Colorado.

Sedimentary strata within the Colorado Plateau hosts numerous uranium/vanadium deposits. Uranium deposits are hosted by the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Formation, the Permian Cutler Formation, the Triassic Chinle Formation, and the Jurassic Morrison Formation as shown on the stratigraphic description in Table 7.0.1 of the 2026 PEA. During the Jurassic, rising salt domes, which caused anticlinal and synclinal folding, were the positive topographic features that dictated the direction of river systems flowing from the highlands to the southwest. This resulted in a pattern of high sandstone to mudstone ratios in synclinal valleys that flanked the elongated salt domes at the time. The high ratio of sandstone to mudstone allowed for increased permeability and porosity. This permitted increased fluid flow, which later influenced the formation of the uranium and vanadium deposits. Thicker sequences of sandstone were generally more conducive for development of the mineralized zones of uranium and vanadium.

The Lisbon Valley anticline along which the Velvet-Wood Project is located is the most productive uranium producing area in Utah. Among the rock units exposed along the Lisbon Valley anticline, those that contain documented uranium mineralization are the Permian Cutler Formation, the Triassic Chinle Formation (Moss Back Member) and the Morrison Formation (Salt Wash Member).

The majority of the uranium production in the Colorado Plateau was from the Morrison Formation, specifically the Salt Wash Member. In the Salt Wash Member, deposits are concentrated along a thin, one to several mile-wide arcuate belt that extends from the Gateway district through the Uravan District and south to the Slick Rock District. This concentration of deposits was termed the Uravan Mineral Belt as shown on Figure 7.0.1 of the 2026 PEA. This crescent-shaped area in the Jurassic Morrison Formation has closely spaced, larger-sized, and higher-grade uranium deposits than the adjoining areas.

The Paradox Complex and the SM-18 Project are located within the northern half of the Uravan Mineral Belt, while the Slick Rock Complex and the SR-11 Project lie within the southern half. The Uravan Mineral Belt has been a historically significant producer of uranium and vanadium since the early 20th century. All projects have significant adjacent and adjoining uranium and vanadium production histories, as discussed above.

Local Velvet-Wood Project Geology

The dominant feature in the Velvet-Wood Project area is the Lisbon Valley anticline. The Lisbon Valley anticline is a northwest/southeast feature about 20 miles long that was formed when salt in the Paradox Formation was mobilized. The up-warping and subsequent erosion of the anticline has exposed Pennsylvanian to Cretaceous age rocks along the length of the anticline. Consolidated rocks that crop out in the Lisbon Valley area range in age from Late Pennsylvanian to early Pleistocene. The oldest, the Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation, is exposed in the interior of the anticline with successively younger rocks exposed in the faces of three mesas along the flanks of the anticline. In the Velvet-Wood Project area, the mesa recedes southward stepwise away from the center of the anticline and is known as Three Step Hill. The surficial geology of the Velvet-Wood Project is shown on Figure 7.1.1 of the 2026 PEA and the Regional Cross Section in Figure 7.1.2 of the 2026 PEA.

Three Step Hill is a mesa composed of three benches, each progressively higher than the last. The Velvet-Wood Project deposit is under the lowest bench and on the margin of the second. The top of the mesa is a dip slope primarily on the top of the Wingate Sandstone. Low mesas of Kayenta Formation rocks are preserved near the southern base of the dip slope. The dip slope of the middle bench is composed of resistant sandstone units of the

 

S-24

Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation. The Brushy Basin Member has been stripped off the plateau but is exposed near the base of the slope of the third mesa. The highest mesa is capped by the Burro Canyon Formation. Some remnants of Dakota Sandstone are exposed on the upper plateau. The dips of the rocks are progressively shallower toward the south. The dips on the lower plateau are about 6 to 8 degrees and dips on the upper plateau are about 3 to 5 degrees.

Locally, uranium mineralization is found in the Permian Cutler Formation. The Cutler formation in Lisbon Valley is composed predominantly of fluvial arkosic sandstones, siltstones, shales, and mudstones that were deposited by meandering streams that flowed across a flood plain and tidal flat. This flood plain was occasionally transgressed by a shallow sea from the west, resulting in the deposition of several thin limestones and marine sandstones. Wind transported sand along the shoreline of the shallow sea, forming dunes. The marine and eolian sandstones are usually finer grained, better sorted, and cleaner than the fluvial arkosic sandstones. The fluvial sandstones are medium to very coarse grained and have abundant feldspar and biotite. The sandstone units are usually red-brown to purple red in color. Some of the sandstones have been bleached tan to gray-white. The top of the Cutler is truncated by a regional unconformity that has removed in excess of two hundred feet of the formation in the northern part of Lisbon Valley.

The unconformity at the top of the Cutler has truncated the southward dipping Cutler beds, the mineralized sandstone bed at the Velvet-Wood Project deposit is stratigraphically a few hundred feet above that at the Big Buck mine in the northern end of Lisbon Valley. The purple-red fluvial sandstones occur in large lenticular bodies that are hundreds of meters long and range in thickness from less than 3 to over 75 feet. Laterally these lenses thin and grade into the shale, mudstone, and siltstone sequences.

The fluvial sandstones are composed of medium to coarse-grained quartz, feldspar, and rock fragments in sub equal amounts. These arkosic sandstone units’ source of sediment was the Uncompahgre highland northeast of the Velvet-Wood Project area on the Utah/Colorado border. The cementing agent in the Cutler fluvial sandstones is either calcite or secondary overgrowth on the quartz grains. All of the known mineralized fluvial sandstone units were bleached light tan-pink or gray-white.

The upper portion of the Cutler Formation, which is the primary host of known uranium mineralization in the Velvet-Wood Project area, is composed of intervals of siltstone interbedded with thin-bedded, fine-grained sandstone. In places there are thicker, more resistant sandstone beds up to 47 feet thick. The thickness and frequency of sandstone beds increases downward, and siltstone is less common. Thick mudstone intervals separate the sandstone beds. A few limestone and conglomerate beds occur in the bottom third of the formation. The rocks are mostly greenish-gray, reddish-brown, or reddish-orange. The limestone beds are usually olive-gray.

Faulting and folding are the major structural features of the Velvet-Wood Project area. There are two major faults in the Velvet-Wood Project area. The faults are northeastward dipping normal faults with displacement ranging from a few feet to as much as 700 feet. The rock units between the two faults are folded downward to the northeast. The sandstones in the Velvet-Wood Project area exhibit jointing parallel to the Lisbon Valley anticline and are thought to be tensional joints. The host rocks of the Velvet-Wood Project area are truncated by the faulting on the southwest side of the Lisbon Valley graben. The mineralization of the Velvet-Wood Project deposit appears to be fault bounded on the northeast side of the deposit.

Deposit type

Uranium mineralization in the Velvet and Wood areas is found in sandstone units within the Cutler Formation. The sandstones are fluvial arkose that has been bleached. The mineral deposits are irregular tabular bodies located at the base, at the top, or close to pinch-outs of the sandstone bodies. The major producing zone in the Cutler occurs near the unconformity between the Cutler and the overlying Chinle Formation. The mineralization may extend a short distance into the sandstone of the Moss Back above. The uranium-bearing sandstones are

 

S-25

petrologically very similar to other Cutler fluvial sandstones but contain less calcite and more clay and are slightly coarser grained. Uraninite is the principal uranium mineral encountered in the reduced zones of the Velvet area. In areas where the mineralization lies above groundwater levels, oxidized uranium minerals such as carnotite and tyuyamunite may occur. Uranium mineralization within the Colorado Plateau of Southwestern Colorado and Southeastern Utah have been described as tabular-blanket type deposits that are sub-parallel to bedding planes and/or features such as unconformities. Mineralization is often confined to paleochannels and controlled by lithology, permeability, porosity, and the presence of a chemical reductant, often carbonaceous material. A similar depositional morphology is observed at the Wood mine.

Uranium mineral resources within and in the vicinity of the project are found in the upper Permian Cutler formation. Many of the other mines in the district are located in the basal Moss Back Member of the Triassic Age Chinle Formation overlying the Cutler Formation. As shown on Figure 8.1.1 of the 2026 PEA, the Velvet-Wood Project Stratigraphic Column, there is an erosional unconformity between the Permian and Triassic aged beds where the Triassic Moenkopi formation was eroded away before the placement of the Moss Back Member of the Chinle Formation. Observations from the 2007 and 2008 coring program on the Velvet-Wood Project have developed the model that mineralization in both formations is related to the unconformity, although the location of mineralization with respect to the contact varies from location to location within the district. Most of the mineral resources in the Cutler occur within six feet of the unconformity.

Much of the historic mining in the vicinity such as the Bardon, Divide, School Section, Pats, and Service Berry mines are pre-1960 except for the Velvet mine (1979-1984). With the exception of the Velvet and Bardon mines, most of these are in the Chinle formation and were mined prior to 1941. The discovery of mineralization in the Cutler formation was late, therefore the Cutler is largely unexplored. Most of the earlier drilling stopped at the base of the Chinle. Further to the east, the discovery of the Wood deposit was reported by Uranerz in 1987 in T31S, R26E, Section 7. The Bardon, Velvet and Wood areas are oriented along a common trend beginning in the northwest at the Bardon mine and proceeding to the southeast through the Velvet mine to the Wood area along a trend of more than 6 miles. Limited exploration has been conducted between the Velvet mine and Wood area, and the Bardon mine and the Velvet mine, but these areas remain largely unexplored. The reader is cautioned that additional drilling may or may not result in discovery of additional mineral resources on the Velvet-Wood Project.

Local Slick Rock District Geology

The Slick Rock District lies in the Paradox Basin at the southern edge of the salt anticline region also called the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt. The district, which covers approximately 570 square miles of the Colorado Plateau, is underlain by about 13,000 feet of sedimentary strata which lies on metamorphic and igneous rocks of a Precambrian basement. The sedimentary formations range in age from Cambrian to Late Cretaceous. See Figures 7.2.1a and 7.2.1b of the 2026 PEA.

The Slick Rock District is located in the proximal Disappointment Valley syncline. The syncline plunges gently to the southeast and lies between the collapsed Gypsum Valley anticline to the northeast and the Dolores anticline to the southwest. Sedimentary rocks that outcrop in the Slick Rock District range from the Permian Cutler Formation up to the late Cretaceous Mancos Formation with a maximum thickness of approximately 4,700 feet. The Jurassic Morrison Formation is the host of uranium/vanadium deposits in the Slick Rock District. It is widely recognized as an aggrading, terrigeneous clastic, fan-shaped fluvial sequence of sediments. While the precise location of the sediment source is unknown due to erosion, most authors agree that the sediment source area for the fan is the modern-day south-central Utah and north-central Arizona area. The proximal fan is dominated by a high percentage of coarse clastics in braided stream sediments. The energy of the depositional environment decreases distally, as does the grain size of the sediments. The Slick Rock District occupies the medial fan facies. From the apex of the fan, the stream flow was in a northern, northeastern, and eastern direction. In the Slick Rock District, the direction of stream flow was generally to the northeast while local paleo topography controlled the flow direction.

 

S-26

The salt anticlines were the positive topographic highs during Jurassic time that diverted Morrison distributary systems to courses along their flanks. This allowed for thick accumulations of high sandstone/mudstone ratio sediments in valleys that flanked the elongated salt domes of Jurassic time. High sandstone/mudstone ratios increase permeability (the ability of sediments to transmit fluids) and porosity (available void space). Such conditions are favorable for increased fluid flow and may largely control ore formation. The thick accumulation of sediments in major channels occurred along the southern margin of the Gypsum Valley anticline in the Slick Rock District and across Anfield’s Slick Rock Complex area.

Major folds in the Slick Rock District are broad, open, and trend about north 55 degrees west, and are parallel to the collapsed Gypsum Valley salt anticline which bounds the northeast edge of the district. The Dolores anticline lies about ten miles southwest of the Gypsum Valley anticline. The Disappointment syncline lies between the two anticlines. See Figure 7.2.2 of the 2026 PEA.

Within the Slick Rock District area, the Morrison is divided into two Members: the upper Brushy Basin Member and the lower Salt Wash Member. The Salt Wash Member is composed of fluvial sandstone and mudstone averaging about 350 feet thick, and is further divided into three parts: the top and bottom units that are composed of fairly continuous layers of sandstone interbedded with thin layers of mudstone, and a middle unit that is primarily mudstone but contains scattered discontinuous lenses of sandstone. The major host sandstone for uranium and vanadium is the upper unit of the Salt Wash Member.

The Slick Rock District lays in an area where only the Salt Wash and Brushy Basin Members of the Morrison Formation are present. The Morrison Formation attains its maximum thickness in these members and stream-type deposits (lenticular cross-bedded sandstones) have their greatest aggregate thickness and maximum lateral continuity.

As discussed above, the USGS on behalf of the Raw Materials Division of the USAEC, conducted extensive exploration throughout the Uravan Mineral Belt. As early as 1952, the USGS had determined that the following four geologic characteristics were indicative of favorable grounds for a uranium deposit:

 

•

Most mineralized deposits are in or near thicker, central parts of sandstone lenses and, in general, the thickness of the sandstone decreases moving away from the mineralized deposits. Sandstone less than 40 feet thick is generally not favorable for large ore bodies.

 

•

Sandstone in the vicinity of the mineralized deposit is colored light brown, but moving away from the mineralized deposit an increasing proportion of sandstone has a reddish color, which is indicative of unfavorable ground.

 

•

The mudstone in the mineralized sandstone near and immediately below the deposit changes from a red to gray color. The amount of altered mudstone decreases further outward from the deposit.

 

•

Sandstone in the immediate vicinity of the deposit contains more carbonized plant fossils than similar beds further away from the mineralized zone. This suggests that mineralization is localized in the vicinity of abundant carbonaceous material.

Results from USGS’s 1948-1956 drilling indicate that within the Slick Rock Complex area the Salt Wash is greater than 40 feet thick, contains abundant carbonaceous material, is tan to gray in color, and is in contact with a reduced mudstone over a significant portion of the Slick Rock Complex area.

Deposit Type

There has been much discussion and debate regarding ore forming mechanisms in the Slick Rock Complex area, but there is good agreement on several contributing factors:

The Brushy Basin and Salt Wash Members contain significant concentrations of detrital volcanic debris which is strongly suspected as the source of uranium and vanadium.

 

S-27

Compaction and de-watering during burial of these sediments allowed for the transport mechanism along preferential pathways dictated by permeability and porosity within transmissive sand units of the Morrison Formation.

The uranium and vanadium in solution within a transmissive sand unit encountered a reduced environment locally caused by abundant plant remains and evidenced by reduced green mudstone found within the Salt Wash sandstones. This environment favored precipitation of uranium along a solution interface between the uranium in an oxidized alkaline solution and a strongly reduced acidic environment.

The physical expressions of the deposits formed at the solution interface have a variety of shapes and volumes. In the following, Shawe provides an excellent summary of the deposit morphology in the Slick Rock District:

“Two general forms of ore bodies are common in the Morrison Formation in the district, one tabular and the other so-called “roll”. Some deposits consist mainly of tabular ore bodies and others are dominantly roll bodies, although both types display elements of the other, and in many places tabular bodies are continuous with roll bodies. Some deposits have both types significantly developed. The two types were deposited by the same general process and at the same time; differences in their forms were dictated by local differences in the lithology of the host sandstone units that controlled fluid movement”.

In the Slick Rock District, uranium/vanadium deposits of the Morrison are mainly tabular to lenticular and elongate parallel to sedimentary trends. Tabular trends are localized in massive sandstones where clay and mudstone are interstitial, in scattered and streaked gall and pebble accumulations, and are found in discontinuous lenses. Conversely, roll deposits are narrow, elongate, and curve sharply across bedding and appear to be confined to sandstone where clay and mudstone are well indurated within interconnected layers. Mineralization in either case, tabular or roll deposits, averages about 0.25% U₃O₈ and 1.5% V₂O₅ within the mineralized sandstone. The mineralized bodies have an average thickness of 2 to 4 feet and range in size from a few feet wide to several hundred feet wide. These deposits can contain a few tons of ore to several thousand tons in the larger ore bodies.

Details of the forms of roll ore bodies related to lithologic differences and mineral distribution within rolls (calcium-carbonate, titanium oxides, barite, and iron oxides) provide strong evidence that the deposition of the mineralized bodies occurred at an interface between two chemically differing solutions (one that is oxidized and one that is reduced). The interface interpretation was first proposed by Fischer in 1942. Continuity of the roll ore bodies with tabular bodies indicate that the tabular bodies also formed at a solution interface. It is important to note that the term “roll” was coined by local miners to describe the geometry of ore bodies that cut across sedimentary bedding and does not imply similarity to the geochemical process involved in forming the “roll” deposits of Wyoming and South Texas uranium provinces, as illustrated in Figures 8.2.1a and 8.2.1b of the 2026 PEA.

The uranium- and vanadium-bearing minerals occur as fine-grained coatings in detrital grains; they fill pore spaces between the sand grains and replace carbonaceous material and some detrital grains. The primary uranium minerals are uraninite (UO₂) with minor amounts of coffinite (USiO₄OH). Montroseite (VOOH) is the primary vanadium mineral, along with vanadium clays and hydromica. Metal sulfides occur in trace amounts. Secondary minerals: calcium uranyl vanadate (Tyuyamunite) (Ca(UO₂)₂(VO₄)₂ ^. (5-8)H₂O) and potassium uranyl vanadate (Carnotite) (K₂(UO₂)₂(VO₄)₂ ^. 1-3H₂O) occur in shallow oxidized areas and on outcrop. Figure 8.2.2 of the 2026 PEA shows a typical specimen of oxidized uranium/vanadium minerals collected underground in the vicinity of the Burro No. 3 shaft and the scintillometer.

Uravan District Geology

The uranium and vanadium mineralization in the Uravan District is hosted within the Jurassic Morrison Formation. The Morrison Formation is separated into two members: the upper Brushy Basin Member and the

 

S-28

lower Salt Wash Member. The Brushy Basin Member consists of reddish-brown and greenish-gray mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. The Salt Wash Member is the primary host for known mineralization of uranium and vanadium in the district, and is composed of fluvial sandstone and mudstone, averaging 350 feet thick. The Salt Wash Member is further sub-divided into three parts, the upper, middle, and lower units. The upper and lower units are composed of nearly continuous layers of sandstone interbedded with thin layers of mudstone, and the middle unit is primarily mudstone and siltstone, with discontinuous lenses of sandstone. Refer to Figure 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 of the 2026 PEA.

The geologic structure in the Uravan District varies, depending on location. On the eastern flank of Monogram Mesa (JD-6, JD-7, JD-8) there are numerous synthetic and antithetic faults striking NW-SE that drop down mostly to the east, toward the basin center of Paradox Valley. Small horst blocks were also developed between opposing faults. Atop Monogram Mesa and on its western side (JD-9), the bedding is mostly flat to very shallow dipping. Uranium/vanadium mineralization pre-dates the structural history that created the numerous small faults, and in the mineralization at the JD-7 lease, faulting can be observed to cut across mineralized zones.

The surficial geology of the Uravan District is quite variable, depending on topography and location along the flank of Monogram Mesa. Extensive light-red sandy, silty wind-blown, and reworked material mantles the mesa tops. The flanks of the leases near JD-6 and JD-7 are comprised of talus slopes of varying rock types, and landslide deposits predominantly from the Brushy Basin mudstone. In the valley bottom of Paradox Basin, the wind-blown materials are intermixed with disintegrated slope wash deposits.

The uranium and vanadium bearing minerals occur as fine-grained coatings in detrital grains. These minerals fill pore spaces between the grains and replace carbonaceous material and some detrital grains. The primary uranium mineral is uraninite, with minor amounts of coffinite. Montroseite is the primary vanadium mineral, along with vanadium clays and hydromica. Metal sulfides occur in trace amounts. The mineralization typically occurs in the tabular to lenticular bodies within sedimentary bedding but may also cut across sedimentary bedding to form highly irregular shapes (see Figures 8.2.1a and 8.2.1b in the 2026 PEA). The mineralized bodies have an average thickness of 2 to 4-ft, and range in size from a few feet wide to several hundred feet wide. The length of the deposits varies from several feet to hundreds of feet.

Deposit Type

There has been much debate concerning the formation of mineralized deposits in the Uravan District, but there is general agreement in the literature of several contributing factors. The Brushy Basin and Salt Wash Members contain significant concentrations of detrital volcanic materials, which are strongly suspected as the source of uranium and vanadium. Compaction and dewatering of the host sediments during their burial created permeability and porosity conditions in the transmissive sand units of the Morrison Formation forming preferential pathways for groundwater. Uranium and vanadium in solution encountered a reduced environment, locally caused by an abundance of plant remains identified in the reduced green mudstone found within the Salt Wash Member. This environment favored precipitation of uranium along an interface between oxidized alkaline solutions and a strongly reduced acidic environment.

The physical expressions of the deposits formed at the solution interface have a variety of shapes and sizes. In the following excerpt from page 19 of USGS Professional Paper 576-F, D. R. Shawe provides an excellent summary of deposit morphology in the Uravan Mineral Belt, of which the Uravan District is a part. See Figures 8.3.1a and 8.3.1b of the 2026 PEA. The summary is reflective of the mineralized deposits and setting at the Paradox Complex:

“Two general forms of mineralization are common in the Morrison Formation in the district, one tabular, and the other so-called “roll”. Some deposits are tabular and others are dominantly of roll bodies, though both forms display elements of the other. In many places tabular bodies are continuous with roll bodies. Some deposits have both types significantly developed. The two types were deposited by the same general process and at the same time. The differences in their forms were dictated by the local differences in the lithology that controlled fluid movement [in the host sandstone].”

 

S-29

The term “roll” was used locally by miners to describe how the mineralization cuts across sedimentary bedding boundaries. The term does not imply a similar geochemical process involved in forming “roll-front” deposits indicative of Wyoming and south Texas uranium districts.

In the Uravan District, the uranium/vanadium deposits of the Morrison Formation are mainly tabular to lenticular, and elongate parallel to sedimentary trends. Tabular trends are localized in massive sandstones where clay and mudstone are interstitial and found in discontinuous lenses. The roll deposits are typically narrow, elongate, and curve shaped. The roll deposits usually cross bedding planes and appear to be confined to sandstone where clay and mudstone are well indurated. Mineralization in either case, tabular or roll deposits, averages about 0.25% eU₃O₈ and 1.5% V₂O₅ within the host sandstones. The mineralized bodies are typically 2 to 4-feet thick and range in size from a few feet to several hundred feet in width and length.

Exploration

In the late 1940s and through the 1950s, extensive exploration was conducted by the USAEC and private parties throughout the region during the Manhattan Project. These programs consisted of geologic mapping, ground and aerial radiometric surveys, trenching, and rock and sediment sampling. Subsequently exploration has been primarily limited to drilling.

Anfield has not conducted exploration activities other than drilling, as discussed below on any of the properties included in the 2026 PEA.

Drilling

Anfield has acquired drilling data from previous operators across its several prospective mining properties. In addition to the data acquired from previous operators, Anfield recently conducted drilling on the Slick Rock Complex in 2024 and the JD-7 mine in 2025.

Velvet-Wood Project Drilling

A summary of drill data acquired by Anfield at the Velvet-Wood Project from previous operators follows. Anfield has not conducted drilling on the Velvet-Wood Project.

Atlas and MRC conducted extensive rotary and limited core drilling on the Velvet mine area that was included in the acquisition of the property, including the delineation of 4 mineralized areas with drilling on a rough grid approximating 100-foot centers.

The available drill data for the Velvet mine area includes radiometric data from some 173 drill holes completed on the property. From 1985 through 1991, Uranerz completed a total of 120 known historic vertical rotary drill holes in the Wood mine area. There are geophysical logs available for 96 of those historic drill holes. Of the 96 logs, 95 of the historic geophysical logs typically consist of natural gamma, resistivity, spontaneous potential, half foot radiometric grade of uranium measured in weight percent U₃O₈, and vertical deviation data which were matched with a northing and easting collar location and collar elevation from available drill hole maps. All geophysical logging was performed by Century Geophysical Corporation (Century Geophysical) for Uranerz. Industry standard practice for Century Geophysical logging trucks included calibration of the logging trucks routinely at DOE facilities.

Drilling averaged a depth of 1,538 feet and ranged from 1,240 feet to 1,870 feet. All of the holes were surveyed for down-hole deviation, and deviation data was available from the geophysical logs. Drift at the mineralization horizon ranged from 5 feet to over 258 feet and averaged 63 feet to the northeast, or up dip. The dip of the host formation is approximately 8 degrees to the southeast. Drilling was conducted vertically although virtually all drill holes drifted up dip. The average vertical declination was approximately 2.3 degrees from vertical. Because this declination opposed the dip of the formation, the effect of dip on true thickness is diminished. Considering the effect of the actual drill hole declination from vertical, the correction to true thickness would be less. This means that a 10-foot thickness interpreted from the geophysical log would actually be 9.99 feet. At this level, the

 

S-30

data correction would be less than the accuracy of the original data, which is interpreted down to one foot. As a result, no correction is necessary from the log thickness to true thickness.

Additional exploration drilling was conducted by Uranium One in 2008, generally focused between the areas of known mineralization at Velvet and Wood. The drilling showed low grade mineralization but did not encounter significant mineralization. In total, Uranium One completed 43 drill holes at Velvet and 14 drill holes at Wood. Drilling results for the Velvet-Wood Project are summarized in Tables 10.1.1 through 10.1.3 which follow. Locations of all known drill holes are shown on Figure 10.1.1 of the 2026 PEA. Note values are expressed as Grade Thickness (GT), the product of average grade (%eU₃O₈) x thickness (feet).

Table 10.1.1 Historic Drill Results Velvet Area*

 

Barren		Trace < 0.1 GT				Mineralized 0.1–0.25 GT				Mineralized 0.25-0.5 GT				Mineralized > 0.5 GT				TOTAL
6			30				29				24				84				173
3.5%			17.3	%			16.8	%			13.9	%			48.6	%

Table 10.1.2 Historic Drill Results Wood Area*

 

Incomplete		Barren				Trace < 0.1 GT				Mineralized 0.1–0.25 GT				Mineralized 0.25-0.5 GT				Mineralized > 0.5 GT				TOTAL
1			20				40				7				6				21				95
1.1%			21.1	%			42.1	%			7.4	%			6.3	%			22.1	%

*The historic data available for Velvet was limited to data from the previous MRC mineral holdings. The historic data available for Wood was from the previous Uranerz mineral holdings.

Table 10.1.3 2007/2008 Drill Results Velvet-Wood

 

Incomplete		Barren				Trace < 0.1 GT				Mineralized 0.1–0.25 GT				Mineralized 0.25-0.5 GT				Mineralized > 0.5 GT				TOTAL
3			15				20				6				7				6				57
5%			26	%			35	%			11	%			12	%			11	%

Slick Rock Drilling

Anfield possesses drilling data from previous operators for the Slick Rock claim group as well as the SR-13, SR-13A, and SR-11 lease tracts. Anfield completed a verification drilling project at the Slick Rock claim group in 2024.

Slick Rock Claim Group Drill Data

Anfield has obtained radiometric and chemical assays from the USAEC exploration program OFR70-348 for vanadium and uranium values, respectively, from those holes drilled by the USGS on behalf of the Raw Materials Division of the USAEC. Logs for boreholes drilled by USEC and Energy Fuels were obtained by claim acquisition, and the uranium intercept values from the logs for boreholes drilled by Homeland Uranium were available in the public domain.

A total of 312 holes are known to be located within or proximal to the Slick Rock Complex area. Of that total, 27 of these holes had locations but no other data, leaving 285 drill holes upon which to build a database. Of the 285 holes in the database used for resource estimation, 207 were drilled by UCNC, 53 by the USGS, 17 by USEC and 4 each by Energy Fuels and Homeland Uranium. Within the 285 drill holes, data was available on 346 discrete intercepts distributed between 3 stratigraphically distinct zones.

 

S-31

Mineralization at the Slick Rock Complex occurs within three stratigraphic horizons of the Jurassic Morison Formation. Three-dimensional plotting and correlation of the Slick Rock Complex intercepts demonstrated three vertically distinct mineralized zones running along dipping bedding. The A zone is stratigraphically the youngest and highest in the section, followed by the B zone and then the deepest C zone. A summary of drill results follows in Table 10.2.1. An image from the drilling is shown in Figure 10.2.1 of the 2026 PEA. Drill hole locations are shown on Figure 10.2.2 of the 2026 PEA. Representative cross-sectional views of the drill data are shown on Figure 10.2.3 of the 2026 PEA.

Table 10.2.1 Slick Rock Drill Hole Intercepts by Zone

 

		Intercepts in database				Composited Intercepts				Composited Intercepts above 0.02 % eU3O8
Zone A			109				46				13
Zone B			243				143				76
Zone C			7				2				0

SR-13 Lease Tract Drill Data

A database consisting of drill hole locations and intercepts on lease tract SR-13 was obtained by Anfield from the previous operator of the tract, GEMI. A limited number of USAEC drill hole assay values were obtained as part of the open file report detailed in the 2026 PEA.

The SR-13 database contains data for 398 drill holes. Data for 375 drill holes was obtained from the GEMI dataset. Data for 23 of the drill holes was obtained from the USAEC open file report. The 398 drill hole dataset contains 122 drill holes with composite intercept values meeting or exceeding a 0.1 GT cutoff with a minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈. Mineralization at SR-13 is interpreted as one stratigraphic zone that correlates with zone B at the Slick Rock claim group.

Drill hole locations are shown on Figure 10.2.2 of the 2026 PEA. Drill holes are assumed to be vertical.

SR-13A Lease Tract Drilling Data from Previous Operators

A database consisting of drill hole locations and intercepts was obtained by Anfield from the previous operator of the lease tract, Cotter. Original geophysical drill hole logs were obtained from the Cotter office to support the database information. The most recent drill holes in the Cotter dataset were completed in 1997. A limited number of USAEC drill hole assay values were obtained as part of the open file report detailed under the Slick Rock claim group section above.

The SR-13A database contains data for 332 drill holes. Data for 243 drill holes was obtained from the Cotter dataset. The USAEC open file report contained data for 89 drill holes. Of the combined 332 drill hole dataset, 62 drill holes contained composited intercept values meeting or exceeding a 0.1 GT cutoff with a minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈. Mineralization at SR-13 is interpreted as one stratigraphic zone that correlates with zone B at the Slick Rock claim group.

Drill hole locations are shown on Figure 10.2.2 of the 2026 PEA. Drill holes are assumed to be vertical.

SR-11 Lease Tract Drilling Data from Previous Operators

A database consisting of drill hole locations and intercepts was obtained by Anfield from the previous operator of the lease tract, Cotter. Original geophysical drill hole logs were obtained from the Cotter office to support the database information. The most recent drill holes in the Cotter dataset were completed in 1997. A limited number of USAEC drill hole assay values were obtained as part of the open file report detailed under the Slick Rock claim group section above.

 

S-32

The SR-11 database contains collar locations for 741 drill holes. Of those 741 collars, data is available for 605 drill holes. Of the 605 drill holes with data, Cotter possessed geophysical logs for 130 of the holes. Within the 605 drill hole dataset, 320 drill holes contained intercept values meeting a minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈. 219 of those drill holes with intercepts contained a composited intercept value meeting or exceeding a 0.1 GT cutoff.

Drill hole locations are shown on Figure 10.2.2 of the 2026 PEA. Drill holes are assumed to be vertical.

Slick Rock Claim Group Drilling Data from Anfield

Anfield completed a 14-hole, 14,100-foot verification drilling program at its Slick Rock Complex in San Miguel County, Colorado, between September 22 and November 12, 2024. The drilling program utilized standard circulation rotary drilling techniques (air, foam, or mud depending on conditions), with all holes drilled vertically. Downhole deviation was measured and remained minimal, <3 degrees from vertical. Lithological samples were collected at 5-foot intervals and logged by site geological staff. All holes were geophysically logged with a calibrated gamma-ray sonde to determine equivalent uranium (eU₃O₈) grades. All logging was performed by Hawkins CBM Logging using a sonde calibrated at the DOE’s Casper, Wyoming test pits.

Drill hole locations were designed to offset historical drill targets. Gamma-ray logging results confirmed the presence of uranium mineralization with a minimum grade of 0.02% eU₃O₈ in 7 of the 14 holes, with depths and grades generally consistent with the historical dataset. GT values above a minimum 0.1 GT cutoff were encountered in 4 of the drill holes. The drill hole collar locations are shown on Figure 10.2.2 of the 2026 PEA. Representative cross-sectional views of the drill data are provided on Figure 10.2.3 of the 2026 PEA.

The depths and grades of mineralization encountered in this drilling program were consistent with the historical depths and grades of mineralization contained in the historical drilling data. Variance between the historical drill hole intercepts and the verification holes was experienced, with some intercepts yielding greater or lesser values. Variances are to be expected due to the distances between the historical collars and offset holes and the variable downhole drift of the drill holes. The verification holes demonstrated close stratigraphic correlation and a prevalence of mineralization of similar tenor and character to the historical intercepts, placing a high level of confidence in the quality and validity of the historical drill hole data. The drilling results are summarized below:

 

 

S-33

Intercepts are reported at a 0.02 (200 ppm) eU₃O₈% grade cut-off. All grades were calculated from gamma-ray logs measured by an experienced commercial independent logging contractor, Hawkins CBM Logging of Cody, Wyoming. Hawkins CBM’s downhole sonde was calibrated at the DOE’S Casper, Wyoming logging test pits prior to deployment to the field. The calibrated downhole sonde is used to measure natural gamma emission from the rock formation down the borehole. The recorded natural gamma data was used in creating the geophysical well log and calculate “equivalent” (e) grades of U₃O₈.

The drill holes were vertical in orientation and all drill holes were measured for downhole drift with the geophysical probe. Drift values for each drill hole are listed above and in the most extreme cases, the drill hole deviation value was less than 3 degrees from vertical. The geologic units hosting the mineralization are generally flat lying, therefore reported thicknesses are apparent true thicknesses.

Uravan District Drilling

Anfield possesses a large database of drilling data generated by the previous operators of the DOE Lease projects. A confirmation drilling program was completed at the JD-7 lease tract in 2025.

JD Leases Drilling Data from Previous Operators

The main operator of DOE Leases was Cotter, following limited exploration drilling in the 1950s by the USGS on behalf of the USAEC.

All the drilling was vertical and utilized truck-mounted rotary drill rigs. Upon completion the holes were logged with a geophysical tool that recorded spontaneous potential, resistivity, and natural gamma. The holes were also logged to determine the extent and direction of drift during drilling of the hole. Natural gamma logs were calibrated using the standard DOE (Formerly USAEC) calibration facilities in Grand Junction, Colorado. The data used for the estimation of uranium mineral resources is based on the equivalent uranium grade and thickness interpolated from the downhole geophysical logging.

The authors have reviewed the original geophysical logs. They are complete with standard calibration factors. The interpolation of the logs has been verified as discussed below in “Data Verification” and in Section 12 of the 2026 PEA.

Vanadium was sampled and assayed to a limited extent. The estimation of vanadium mineral resources is based on the observed ratios of vanadium to uranium from mining on the project and in the region.

Drill data was available for 2,198 drill holes, totaling approximately 1,250,370 feet drilled.

The drill hole database consists of:

 

•

JD-6 lease; 403 drill holes in total of which 188 were barren.

 

•

JD-7 lease; 705 drill holes in total of which 214 were barren.

 

•

JD-8 lease; 537 drill holes in total of which 245 were barren.

 

•

JD-9 lease; 553 drill holes in total of which 259 were barren.

The locations of the drill holes are shown on Figures 10.3.1 through 10.3.4 of the 2026 PEA for the JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, and JD-9 leases, respectively. Cross sectional representations of the drill data are provided on Figures 10.3.5 to 10.3.9 of the 2026 PEA for the JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, and JD-9 leases, respectively. The authors consider the available drill data suitable for the estimation of mineral resource for the purposes of the 2026 PEA.

Anfield completed a confirmation drilling program at the JD-7 lease tract between September 15 and October 9, 2025. The program consisted of 23 holes totaling 7,564 feet.

 

S-34

Drilling was primarily conducted using air rotary methods, with 149 feet of split barrel coring completed in five holes to recover core through the mineralized zones for chemical assay, vanadium-to-uranium ratio determination, radiometric equilibrium assessment, and metallurgical/mineralogical testing.

The primary objectives of the confirmation drilling were to:

 

•

Verify the presence, depth, and tenor of uranium mineralization against the historical drilling database at the JD-7 mine.

 

•

Support upgrading and increasing confidence in the current mineral resource estimate for uranium and vanadium.

 

•

Provide data to refine the geological model, delineate mineralization boundaries, and assist with future mine planning for the Paradox Complex.

Downhole geophysical logging (gamma ray) was performed on all holes to determine equivalent uranium grades (eU₃O₈) and GT values. A minimum cut-off of 0.02% eU₃O₈ (200 ppm eU₃O₈) with a minimum GT of 0.2 was applied. Elevated uranium mineralization above cut-off was intersected in 15 of the 23 holes, with 11 holes returning GT > 0.5.

Core samples from the mineralized intervals were submitted to Pace Analytical (Sheridan, Wyoming) and Hazen Research Inc. (Golden, Colorado) for chemical uranium and vanadium assays. These results, once received, will be correlated with the downhole gamma logs to assess radiometric equilibrium and validate the vanadium-to-uranium ratio.

The drill hole collar locations are shown on Figure 10.3.2 of the 2026 PEA. Representative cross-sectional views of the drill data are provided on Figure 10.3.6 of the 2026 PEA.

Drill hole results including Depth, Thickness and Grade, as determined by downhole geophysical logging, are shown below. Uranium grade is reported as equivalent weight per cent. For sandstone hosted uranium the GT is commonly used as an indication of the intensity of mineralization. Gamma ray logging results indicate elevated uranium mineralization exceeding the typical minimum cutoff grade of 0.02 %eU₃O₈ (200 ppm) eU₃O₈ and minimum GT of 0.2 in 15 of the 23 drill holes completed. These findings verify the presence of uranium mineralization at depths and locations consistent with the historical drilling dataset for the JD-7 mine.

The drilling results demonstrate robust uranium mineralization across the targeted areas, with eleven holes yielding a GT over 0.5, indicating high-potential zones; six holes showing GT values between 0.1 and 0.5, reflecting moderate mineralization; five holes containing only trace mineralization, and one drill hole containing no mineralization over the 0.02% eU₃O₈ grade cutoff. The lower-strength intercepts are associated with the program’s objective to delineate the outer boundaries of the mineralization, providing valuable data for refining resource models and supporting future mine planning and development at JD-7.

 

S-35

The drilling results are summarized below:

 

 

Split barrel core intervals were obtained from 5 of the 23 drill holes at 5 of the 20 planned drilling locations. These corings will be employed to provide physical samples of mineralized material. Cored intervals were completed using split-barrel core aimed at drilling through the mineralized zones. Four of the five cored locations intercepted mineralization above the minimum grade cutoff.

SM-18 Lease Tract Drilling Data from Previous Operators

A database consisting of drill hole locations and intercepts was obtained by Anfield from the previous operator of the lease tract, Cotter. Original geophysical drill hole logs were obtained from the Cotter office to support the database information. The most recent drill holes in the Cotter dataset were completed in 1997. Several of the drill holes in the Cotter database were completed by DOE Lease operators prior to Cotter.

The SM-18 database contains collar locations for 681 drill holes. Of those 681 collars, data is available for 672 drill holes. Of the 672 drill holes with data, Cotter possessed geophysical logs for 227 of the holes. Within the 672 drill hole dataset, 366 drill holes contained intercept values meeting a minimum grade cutoff of 0.02 % eU₃O₈. 192 of those drill holes with intercepts contained a composited intercept value meeting or exceeding a 0.1 GT cutoff.

Drill hole locations are shown on Figure 10.3.9 of the 2026 PEA. Drill holes are assumed to be vertical.

Sampling

Velvet-Wood Sampling

The Velvet-Wood Project was initially drilled during the 1970s and 1980s with the principal exploration work and drilling completed by Gulf and Uranerz for the Velvet and Wood properties, respectively. The data is considered accurate and reliable for the purposes of completing a mineral resource estimate for the property.

Core drilling completed during the 2007/2008 drilling program was directly supervised by BRS and Uranium One personnel including Douglas Beahm and personnel under his direct supervision. On site personnel

 

S-36

completed lithologic logging of rotary and core samples. Upon completion of drilling, geophysical logs of the drill holes were completed by a commercial provider of such services, Century Geophysical. The loggers were contractually required to provide Uranium One with calibration data and the k-factor for their probes and completed onsite calibration for each hole.

With respect to QA/QC for equivalent uranium measurements (eU₃O₈) by downhole geophysical logging, the DOE maintains standard calibration pits located in Grand Junction, Colorado for use by the US uranium industry for instrument calibration. For Velvet and Wood, the original log files contain a record of the geophysical probes which show the instruments were calibrated at the DOE standard calibration pits located in Grand Junction, Colorado prior to the drilling program. For example, the geophysical logging unit which measured eU₃O₈ for core holes DW14T-08 and SLV-8883T-08, completed on 10/02/2008 and 9/25/2008, respectively were calibrated at the Grand Junction DOE facility on 9/22/2008.

Drill core was placed in protective plastic sleeves at the drill site and packaged into core boxes. Mineralized core was subsequently split for analysis and metallurgical testing with half of the core retained. The core splits were delivered to the testing laboratory and testing facility, Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen Research), by the author, and a chain of custody established. In addition, select core samples were chosen for geotechnical testing. Chemical assays were completed by the following methods:

 

•

Uranium by fluorometric assay.

 

•

Vanadium, molybdenum, arsenic, iron, magnesium, aluminum, calcium, thorium, zinc, copper, nickel, cobalt, and manganese by semi-quantitative x-ray fluorescence (XRF).

 

•

Uranium equivalent (eU3O8) by gamma spectroscopy.

Hazen Research is located at 4601 Indiana Street, Golden, Colorado, USA 80403. Hazen Research has provided analytical services for the uranium mining and processing industries since the early 1960s. An outgrowth of this activity has been the Radiochemistry Laboratory, which specializes in the determination of the long half-life radionuclides of the uranium and thorium decay series and radionuclides produced from nuclear power generation. These isotopes emit alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Hazen Research holds a variety of state and federal certifications to perform radiochemical testing on drinking water from domestic and foreign sources, including NELAC Certification by the State of New York. Typical parameters include gross alpha/beta, gross gamma, radium-226, radium-228, radon in water, thorium, tritium, strontium, cesium, and uranium. In addition, Hazen Analytical Laboratory holds certifications from various state regulatory agencies and from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

It is the authors’ opinion that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures were in keeping with industry practice and are adequate for the purposes of the 2026 PEA.

Slick Rock Sampling

Anfield possesses drilling data from previous operators for the Slick Rock claim group as well as the SR-13, SR-13A, and SR-11 lease tracts. Anfield completed a verification drilling project at the Slick Rock claim group in 2024.

The only chemical assay values are historical and were generated by the USAEC laboratories. Later operators (USEC, UCNC, Homeland Uranium, Energy Fuels, and Uranium Energy) relied on radiometric values and did not perform chemical assays.

Samples were prepared by the USGS on behalf of the Raw Materials Division of the USAEC. USGS geologists conducted diamond drilling and radiometrically logged the holes, described the lithology, and scanned the cores for radiometric anomalies using a Geiger counter. Within Anfield’s Slick Rock Complex area, 51 of the 52 core samples were retrieved with greater than an 80% recovery rate. Only borehole DV-88 was less than 80% at a 65% recovery rate (OFR70-348).

 

S-37

Sample intervals with radiometric anomalies greater than 0.045% eU₃O₈ were shipped to the USAEC labs in Washington, D.C., Denver, CO, or Grand Junction, CO for chemical determination of uranium and vanadium content. The precise chain of custody of these samples is unknown. The USAEC laboratories determined uranium values using fluorometric, colorimetric, volumetric, polargraphic, coulometric, radioactivation, X-ray spectrometric, and nuclear photographic plate techniques. The choice of method is determined by many factors such as the concentration of uranium in the sample, its chemical complexity, the accuracy sought, the speed required, and the availability of the instrumentation. USAEC laboratories determined vanadium content via wet chemical digestion and volumetric determination by using a prescribed method developed by Claude W. Sill, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Salt Lake City, Utah and compiled and edited by R. W. Langridge in USAEC publication, RMO-3001. The certifications held by the USAEC laboratories are unknown.

The samples were collected and processed according to strict protocols developed by the USAEC and other U.S. government agencies. The results are consistent with later industry analyses. The authors believe the determinations of grade are sufficiently accurate and precise to support the estimation of mineral resources.

In 2024, Anfield conducted drilling activities at the Slick Rock Complex to verify the presence of mineralization inferred by historic data. A total of 14 rotary holes were drilled on 14 locations in the central portion of the Slick Rock Complex claims and in proximity to historic drill hole collar coordinates. Lithological samples were collected at 5-foot intervals and logged by site geological staff. All holes were geophysically logged with a calibrated gamma-ray sonde to determine eU₃O₈ grades. All logging was performed by Hawkins CBM Logging using a sonde calibrated at the DOE’S Casper, Wyoming test pits.

Uravan District Sampling

Anfield possesses a large database of drilling data generated by the previous operators of the DOE Lease projects. A confirmation verification drilling program was completed at the JD-7 lease tract in 2025.

In 2025, Anfield conducted drilling activities at the JD-7 project to verify the presence of mineralization indicated by data generated by the historic operator, Cotter. The Cotter database includes drilling conducted both before and after overburden stripping in the JD-7 pit was performed. In 2025, A total of 22 holes were drilled on 20 locations in the JD-7 pit floor and in proximity to historic drill hole collar coordinates. Four holes were core in the anticipated mineralized zones. Only 2 of the core holes had adequate core recovery to be used for evaluation of radiometric equilibrium.

All core intervals were logged in the field by site geologists (BRS staff) and stored in core boxes. After drilling the core was transported BRS’s core storage and logging facility in Riverton, Wyoming. The cores were logged in detail including scanning with a handheld XRF. Based on comparison of the geophysical logs, the sample lithology and XRF scans, sample intervals were selected for laboratory analyses. Samples for lab assay were split vertically with half of the core preserved and half sealed and packaged for shipment to the lab, with Chain of Custody forms used. The samples were assayed at a certified lab, Pace Analytical, in Sheridan, Wyoming by ICP methods.

Assay results and sample rejects were returned to BRS and have been preserved with the exception of samples prepared and sent to Hazen Research for metallurgical testing.

Data Verification

Velvet-Wood Data Verification

The primary assay data for the Velvet-Wood Project is downhole geophysical log data. A comparison of downhole radiometric geophysical data to chemical core assays was also completed to evaluate radiometric equilibrium conditions.

 

S-38

Ten of the 96 Velvet-Wood Project logs were chosen at random and reviewed for data entry errors. In one instance half foot uranium grade data from a printout was compared to half foot grade data that was scaled from a histogram. The two data sets varied by less than 0.002 %eU₃O₈. This amount of variance is insignificant. No grade data entry errors were found. Five drift data entry errors were corrected. Due to the preliminary amount of drift data entry errors, all drift data entries were checked and corrected if necessary. One hundred percent of the log data entry was reviewed after entry and corrected where necessary. Multiple maps were rectified, and point locations and rectifications were checked for consistency and any data entry errors.

Historic drill data for each drill hole consisting of radiometric data was posted on drill maps including collar elevation, elevation to the bottom of the mineralized intercept, thickness of mineralization, grade of mineralization, and elevation of the bottom of the hole. Data entry was checked and confirmed. Drill hole locations were digitized from the drill maps to create a coordinate listing and then plotted. The resultant drill maps were then checked and confirmed by overlaying with the original maps.

2008 drill data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, and elevation of bottom of hole. New drill hole locations were taken from field surveys using modern survey grade GPS equipment. All historic coordinates were converted to match the Utah State Plane NAD83 coordinate system. This conversion included the re-surveying of a limited number of historic survey monuments and rectification of the historic coordinate system to the Utah State Plane NAD83 coordinate system. With this rectification, historic drill holes could be located in the field with an estimated error of approximately 15 feet. Further field surveys should be completed to increase the accuracy of historic drill hole coordinates.

A comparison was completed of historic drill hole Sum GT data with 2008 Uranium One drill hole Sum GT data for three holes completed which were intended to twin holes SLV-8806, SLV-8803, and DW-14. The closest of the 2008 core holes to historic data was SLV-8806T-08 which is approximately 23 feet to the southeast of SLV-8806 at mineralization. SLV-8806T-08 had an 8.28 GT as compared to SLV-8806 with a 6.12 GT. Drill hole SLV-8803T-08 deviated approximately 25 feet to the west from SLV-8803 at mineralization. SLV-8803T-08 had a 2.08 GT as compared to SLV-8803 which had a 9.36 GT. No deviation data is available for the historic drill hole DW-14 so the distance to the intended twin drill hole is not known at depth. The 2008 drill hole DW-14T-08 did not intercept mineralization above cutoff grade as compared to DW-14 with a 1.65 GT.

Although the GT values of holes SLV-8803T-08 and DW-14T-08 are less than the intended twin holes, the drill holes show mineralization at the same elevation, in the same host rock, and with approximately the same mineralized thicknesses. The drill holes therefore confirm the continuity of the host formation but indicate that variations in grade should be expected, as seen historically at Atlas’ nearby Velvet mine.

Slick Rock Data Verification

Slick Rock Complex

In 2024, Anfield conducted drilling activities on the Slick Rock mining claim portion of the project to verify data generated by the USGS and subsequent operators. A total of 14 holes were drilled in the proximity of historic drill holes.

The drill holes showed mineralization within the same stratigraphic units and a close correlation with expected depths. A variance both in grades and thicknesses was encountered, with many duplicate holes showing either weaker or stronger results. This is likely due to the difficulty in locating the precise location of the historic collars and differences in downhole deviation. The historical drilling does not include deviation data, and all drill holes are assumed to be vertical based on the collar location. The effects of downhole deviation can vary significantly hole to hole and be affected by drill tooling and methods. For the 14 drill holes in 2024, downhole deviation averaged 3.6%, ranging from 11.4—50.9 feet horizontally from the collar location, trending generally West-Northwest, up-dip.

 

S-39

Given the difficulty in replicating the exact conditions of the historic drill holes, the agreement in stratigraphy, mineralization depth, and mineralization tenor sufficiently validates the general quality of the historical data.

In addition to the verification drilling, Anfield conducted ground surveys to check the historical locations of previous drill collars. The historical drilling was conducted between the late 1940s through 2007 by a variety of operators. It is common for evidence of drill sites to disappear over the course of several years, particularly when modern reclamation practices are used. Many of the older sites were more evident that the sites drilled in the early 2000s.

The ground survey team visited 77 historic drill sites across the property. Evidence of drilling ranged from open drill holes and marked standpipes to apparent drill cuttings, driller waste, and small piles of discarded core. In many cases the evidence was subtle, but some showed no definitive signs of past activity. For those non-evident sites, a clean drilling operation, a plugged drill hole below the surface, and decades of vegetative regrowth could have eliminated signs of past drilling activities. Ultimately, 78% of the visited sites were either clearly drilled or showed some evidence of past drilling activity. 22% of the surveyed sites showed no concrete evidence of past drilling activity.

SR-13 Lease Tract

Anfield has not conducted any drilling activities at the SR-13 lease tract to verify data generated by the USGS or subsequent operators. Anfield has obtained radiometric and chemical assays from USAEC’s exploration program OFR70-348 for vanadium and uranium values, respectively, from those holes drilled by the USGS on behalf of the Raw Materials Division of the USAEC. An additional database was obtained from GEMI as part of the purchase arrangement for the property.

Geophysical logs were not available for the SR-13 lease tract dataset. Given the track record of consistency of the results from government and private industry drilling in this district, the authors believe the sample data are sufficiently accurate to generate an Inferred Mineral Resource estimate as described herein and in the 2026 PEA.

SR-13A Lease Tract

A subset of 9 mineralized drill holes, 7 trace mineralized drill holes, and 14 barren drill holes were randomly selected to validate geophysical logs against the digital Cotter database.

The geophysical gamma logs for the selected mineralized and trace mineralized holes were reinterpreted for depths and eU₃O₈% grades on half foot intervals using the K factor and Deadtime information included with the logs. The barren logs were verified to not contain elevated gamma values.

A comparison between the database GT values and interpreted GT values from the geophysical logs is graphed in Figure 12.2.3 of the 2026 PEA.

SR-11 Lease Tract Data Verification

A subset of 32 mineralized drill holes ranging from slightly mineralized with a GT of 0.06 to strongly mineralized with a GT of 4.4 were randomly selected to validate geophysical logs against the digital Cotter database.

The geophysical gamma logs were reinterpreted for depths and eU₃O₈% grades on half foot intervals using the K factor and Deadtime information included with the logs.

A comparison between the database GT values and interpreted GT values from the geophysical logs is graphed in Figure 12.2.4 of the 2026 PEA.

 

S-40

The data shows a good linear relationship with only a single hole considered to be an outlier. Removing this drill hole the linear regression coefficient, R² is 0.96, showing excellent correlation.

Overall, the sum GT of the historic and current data interpretation shows the current interpretation yield approximately 5% higher values. Use of the previous interpretation is thus conservative.

Paradox Complex Data Verification

The primary assay data for the Paradox Complex is downhole geophysical log data, all of which is historical in nature; Anfield has yet to drill on the Paradox Complex. The author has examined the geophysical logs in possession of the Company for the DOE Lease tracts, explored during the 1950s by the USGS on behalf of the USAEC, and later from the 1970s to early 2000s by Cotter. The Company also owns an extensive library of geophysical, geological, and mine permitting and development documents and data that served as a basis for evaluating the Paradox Complex.

Drill Data

The historical data meets the standards employed by the uranium exploration and mining industry in the United States at the time it was collected. Cotter was a significant explorer and developer of uranium deposits in the western United States. The data collected was generated professionally and is considered adequate for the calculation of new mineral resources.

BRS personnel generated a digital database from the original database hardcopy files produced by Cotter. The files included: Drill hole ID, northing and easting coordinates (NAD-27, Colorado South state plane), collar elevation, depth drilled, drift direction and distance (if recorded), total depth drilled, and depth, thickness, and grade %eU₃O₈. In addition to the hard copy database, original downhole geophysical logs were available for a subset of the data. These geophysical logs were reinterpreted and then used to verify the Cotter database.

When posted, vanadium grade % was also entered in the excel file. However, vanadium grade % is very limited in scope in the Cotter database. For the estimates of contained vanadium in the mineral resources, the average ratio of the mined material (vanadium to uranium) from past mineral production at each lease tract, was utilized. Typically, this is a 5:1 to 7:1 ratio, vanadium to uranium, in the Uravan District. For those posted intercepts in the historical database, with both uranium and vanadium grade %, a comparison of their ratios was overall similar to those reported from past production.

Grade and GT Verification

Radiometric equivalent data for the depth, thickness and grade of uranium was available in the original files from the Cotter for each drill hole used in the mineral resource calculation.

The USAEC published information on the calibration standards for geophysical logging and on gamma log interpretation methods. The standard manual log interpretation method was the half-amplitude method. The USAEC and its successor agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), conducted workshops on gamma-ray logging techniques and interpretation as did private companies including Century Geophysical. Mr. Beahm attended the geophysical log interpretation workshop conducted by Century Geophysical. On November 19, 1976, Mr. Beahm received certification in geophysical log interpretation from Century Geophysical after attending their short course.

For verification purposes, 33 drill holes containing 51 mineralized intercepts were selected representing the range of mineralization observed from each of the four JD leases in rough proportion to the numbers of drill holes within each lease. The author re-calculated the mineralized intercepts for each drill hole to verify the original log interpretation. Mineralization in the verification drill holes ranged from a high GT value of 9.10 to a low value of 0.14. Barren holes were examined but not included in the analysis.

 

S-41

Verification by the author confirmed that the drill hole database reasonably reflects the depth, thickness and radiometric equivalent uranium grade from the original geophysical logs. The only discrepancy noted was the omission of isolated mineralized intercepts of lower grade and thickness which were not included in the data. The author concurs with the omission of these intercepts as they would not be included in a mineral resource calculation based on reasonable prospects of economic extraction.

Re-calculation by the author shows the original interpretation of radiometric equivalent uranium grade is approximately 5% less the re-calculated values by linear regression analysis. Thus, use of the original interpolated radiometric equivalent values would be conservative.

Figure 12.3.1 of the 2026 PEA is a comparison of the drill hole database values to those re-calculated by the author using the standard half-amplitude log interpolation method. The linear regression analysis shows a strong correlation (R2 value of 0.98) between the original and current data interpretations.

Drill Hole Locations

Exact drill hole collar locations could not be confirmed on the ground by recent survey as evidence of the exact collar locations have deteriorated or been reclaimed. However, drill hole location data was taken from the Cotter database and verified to be within less than 30 ft of the georectified maps containing corresponding collar data. In the case that a drill hole’s location could not be minimally confirmed, it was removed from the dataset.

Downhole Deviation

All historical drilling on the Paradox Complex was completed vertically. The dip of the formation is relatively flat, 1-3° to the west, except in the fault zone along the eastern flank of Monogram Mesa in the JD-6 and JD-7 leases. Following gamma logging, a deviation tool was lowered down the hole, resulting in a graphical plot showing horizontal distance from vertical and the drift direction at the select intervals recorded. The drift was typically plotted on drill hole location maps as a straight line (e.g., 100 feet at N45°W), when in fact the drift plots can be rather erratic, reflective of the true nature of how the drill bit penetrated the substrata. The author elected to utilize the surface plot of the drill holes to reflect the same usage of Cotter, and direct comparison to the historical drill hole and underground maps.

Each lease tract had varying amounts of drift data collected. A total of 403 drill holes were completed in the JD-6 lease tract, 705 in the JD-7 lease, 537 in the JD-8 lease and 553 in the JD-9 lease tract. Of these totals the JD-6 and JD-8 leases had the highest percentages of drift data gathered covering 95% and 91% of drill holes, respectively. This compares to JD-7 lease at the low end of 8% of total drill holes with drift data and JD-9 having 53%.

The variation in level of drift data collection was dependent upon the depth to mineralization, date range of the holes drilled, and the amount of drift expected by the operating engineer where their assessment would be based upon drilling depth and geology. The leases with the deepest drill holes generally experience the largest drifts. The JD-7 lease drill holes were the shallowest of the data set, having an average depth of 341 feet and the least average linear drift of 1.3 feet. Conversely, drill holes in the JD-6 and JD-8 leases were deeper having average total depths of 745 feet and 634 feet, respectively. As such the average linear drifts of JD-6 and JD-8 were larger at 21.4 feet and 35.2 feet, respectively. See Table 12.3.1 of the 2026 PEA for a summary of drifting data per DOE Lease area.

JD-7 Drilling Data Analysis

In 2025, Anfield conducted drilling activities at the JD-7 project to verify the presence of mineralization indicated by data generated by the historic operator, Cotter. The Cotter database includes drilling conducted both before and after overburden stripping in the JD-7 pit was performed. In 2025, A total of 22 holes were drilled on 20 locations in the JD-7 pit floor and in proximity to historic drill hole collar coordinates. A comparison of historic target GT values and realized values are shown on Figure 12.3.1 of the 2026 PEA.

 

S-42

Following correction of the historic depths account for the overburden removal in the pit where applicable, the 2025 drill holes showed mineralization within the same stratigraphic units as the historic drilling, with a close correlation to expected depths and thicknesses. A variance in grades was encountered. This is likely due to the difficulty in locating the precise location of the historic collars, differences in downhole deviation, and geologic structure. For the purposes of field duplication, all historic drill holes were assumed to be vertical based on the collar location. The effects of downhole deviation can vary significantly hole to hole and be affected by drill tooling and methods. For the 22 drill holes in 2025, downhole deviation averaged 1.4%, ranging from very little deviation up to 20 feet horizontally from the collar location, trending between 54 and 265 degrees, generally southwest to southeast.

In the opinion of the authors, given the difficulty in replicating the exact conditions of the historic drill holes, the agreement in stratigraphy, mineralization depth, thicknesses, and mineralization tenor sufficiently validates the general quality of the historical data for the purposes of the 2026 PEA.

SM-18 Lease Tract Data Verification

43 geophysical logs were randomly selected to validate against the digital Cotter database. 28 of the drill logs corresponded to mineralized drill holes; however, the remaining 15 holes are barren.

The geophysical gamma logs for the selected mineralized and trace mineralized holes were reinterpreted for depths and eU₃O₈% grades on half foot intervals using the K factor and Deadtime information included with the logs. The barren logs were verified to not contain elevated gamma values.

A comparison between the database GT values and interpreted GT values from the geophysical logs is graphed in Figure 12.4.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Velvet-Wood Project Density

Atlas mining production reported a unit weight of 14.5 cubic feet per ton. Eight samples taken from Velvet core holes for geotechnical purposes were analyzed for density among other properties. The densities of the eight samples ranged from 123.1 to 163 pounds per cubic foot and averaged 136.1 pounds per cubic foot. This converts to an average density of 14.7 cubic feet per ton as compared to the historic value of 14.5 cubic feet per ton. In the 2026 PEA, for the purposes of mineral resource calculations, a density factor of 14.5 cubic feet per ton is recommended.

Slick Rock District Density

The 1954 and 1956 USGS reports on “Accuracy of Uranium and Vanadium Estimates” assume a bulk tonnage factor in the Colorado Plateau to be 14 cubic feet per ton. The historic density expressed as a tonnage factor from Burro mine records is 15 cubic feet per ton. As the 15 cubic feet per ton is more conservative in its effect on the overall resource tonnage and pounds of product and is proximal to the Slick Rock District resources, it is the most reasonable estimate of density in the opinion of the authors. Future verification drilling should incorporate a core drilling program to confirm the density factor for future resource estimation.

Uravan District Density

Bulk density data is available for the Uravan District from previous technical reports and studies completed by Cotter, resulting in 14.5 cubic feet per ton (2.21 tonnes per cubic meter) for the mineralized, host sandstone. This was the typical tonnage factor used by the mining companies across the greater Uravan District. The authors recommend a density factor of 14.5 cubic feet per ton (2.21 tonnes per cubic meter) be used for the mineral resource calculations, based on available data and personal mining experience in similar sandstone-hosted deposits.

 

S-43

Downhole Deviation

Virtually all the drilling performed in all resource project areas was drilled vertically.

Downhole deviation data of drill holes was primarily available for the Velvet mine portion of the Velvet-Wood Project and partially available for the Wood portion. In the case of Velvet, where deviation data was available and verifiable, the data was accommodated into drill hole databasing to adjust the location of the GT and T intercepts accordingly. In the cases of the Wood portion of the Velvet-Wood Project, all drilling was modeled as vertical.

Historic data for the Slick Rock District largely predates downhole deviation survey methods. All drilling done by the USAEC would have been performed vertically. More recent drilling performed by Anfield, Cotter and others with available downhole deviations were applied to the data. Otherwise the data was assumed to be vertical.

Drilling in the Uravan District was vertical. As discussed above in “Exploration” and in Section 9 of the 2026 PEA, drill hole deviation data was available for this area and was used in resource modeling.

Radiometric Equilibrium General Information

The dominant data available for evaluation of mineral resources consisted of radiometric geophysical logging data of each drill hole, from which the uranium content was calculated using standard industry methods and calibration. Such calculations of equivalent uranium content from geophysical log data assume that the uranium is in radiometric equilibrium with its daughter products.

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay products are of two general categories: the first being the sub-atomic energy generating product (i.e., alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation) and the second being the atomic isotope. Decay product isotopes are referred to as daughters and occur down what is known as a decay chain. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U-238 for the order of a million years or more, the decay chain will reach equilibrium with the parent isotope; meaning that the daughter isotopes will be in a state of decay in the same quantity as they are being created.

An otherwise equilibrated decay system may be put into a state of disequilibrium when one or more decay products are mobilized and removed from the system because of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughter isotopes. In addition, both the primary isotope of uranium U-238 and its daughters emit different forms of radiation as they decay. The primary field instruments for the indirect measurement of uranium, either surface or down-hole probes, measure gamma radiation. Within the uranium decay chain, the gamma emitting elements are primarily Radium226, Bismuth214, and Uranium238. Of these Radium226 is the dominant source of gamma radiation.

Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated, and uranium is depleted. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU₃O₈ to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1, and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium is separated from its daughters, specifically Radium. This occurs when the uranium mineralization is oxidized, liberating the uranium but leaving the radium in place.

Velvet-Wood Project data from historical core drilling and the 2007/2008 coring program contains 41 individual core samples from 6 core holes. Comparing the core assay U₃O₈ GT values of each of the intervals to their corresponding radiometric equivalent eU₃O₈ GT values provides a DEF range of 0.81 to 1.59 with an average

 

S-44

DEF of 1.33. Although the available data indicates a positive DEF, the authors recommend the use of a DEF factor of 1 for the Velvet-Wood Project based on the limited number of data points and the fact that the core holes offset holes with relatively high thicknesses and grades, rather than a representative sampling of the deposit.

There is very limited data available to the authors from the USGS pertaining to radiometric equilibrium for the Slick Rock Complex. It is the authors’ experience that the Colorado Plateau uranium deposits typically are neutral to slightly positive in their DEF. As such, a DEF of 1 is assumed for the Slick Rock resource estimate. Future verification drilling should incorporate core drilling samples to confirm the DEF for future resource estimation.

For the Uravan District, current drilling from late 2025 included 4 core holes on the JD-7 DOE Lease. Of the 4 core holes two core holes had core recoveries greater than 90% within mineralized zones with grade above 0.02 %eU₃O₈. Core hole JD7-2025-04 had two mineralized zones and core hole JD7-2025-14 had one mineralized zone.

The DEF of the three mineralized zones ranged from slightly negative at 0.945 to positive at 1.128. The overall weighted average showing a positive DEF of 1.05. The authors conclude that with the limited numbers of samples a positive correction of the radiometric grades is not warranted and the use of a DEF of 1 is appropriate for the purposes of the 2026 PEA.

Comparison of equivalent uranium from gamma probe results to assay results follows.

 

•

Hole JD7-2025-0004.

•

Radiometric Data; depth 152-164 feet, average grade 0.734 %eU3O8, GT 8.44.

•

Assay Data; depth 152-163.7 feet average grade 0.780 %U3O8, GT 9.52.

•

DEF: 1.128.

 

•

Hole JD7-2025-0014.

•

Radiometric Data; depth 209-217.5 feet, average grade 0.391 %eU3O8, GT 3.27.

•

Assay Data; depth 208.9-217.7 feet average grade 0.392 %U3O8, GT 3.45.

•

DEF: 1.04.

 

•

Hole JD7-2025-0014.

•

Radiometric Data; depth 220-228 feet, average grade 0.132 %eU3O8, GT 1.06.

•

Assay Data; depth 218.7-230 feet average grade 0.128 %U3O8, GT 1.00.

•

DEF: 0.945.

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

Historically, overall recoveries of uranium were typically in the range of 93 to 98 percent and vanadium recoveries were 70 to 80 percent, depending on mineralogy and the extent to which soluble losses could be minimized during solid/liquid separation. It is very likely that the Shootaring Canyon Mill will be able to achieve at least 96 percent U₃O₈ recovery, especially given the unusually high average feed grades of 0.24 to 0.29% U₃O₈ and the high free acid concentration during leaching. The vanadium plant will have the advantage of state-of-art instrumentation and process control. Recent information summarized below indicates a good probability of about 90% V₂O₅ recovery.

Velvet-Wood Metallurgical Studies

As reported in the 2023 PEA, a considerable amount of metallurgical laboratory testing was conducted during 2007-2008 by Hazen Research, in Golden, Colorado. This work was done for Uranium One, the owner at that time of the Velvet-Wood Project and the Shootaring Canyon Mill. Fresh core samples of uranium-mineralized

 

S-45

material were recovered by drilling at the Velvet mine. This metallurgical program demonstrated that the mineralized material from the Velvet property is amenable to conventional two-stage leaching with dilute sulfuric acid and sodium chlorate as the oxidant. Leaching experiments for 18 Velvet core samples were completed; however, three of the extractions were low due to laboratory errors and difficulties in pH control, as discussed in the summary report. The average of the 15 experiments that were conducted under near-optimum conditions was 96.1 percent uranium extraction. However, the average grade of mineralized samples used in the leaching experiments was only 0.100% U₃O₈, while the run-of-mine diluted average grade is expected to be 0.265% U₃O₈ and the average grade mined from Atlas Mineral’s Velvet mine was 0.46% U₃O₈. Therefore, the samples used in the leach experiments were substantially lower in uranium grade than the estimated grade of the Velvet and Wood mineralization. It is therefore possible that vanadium content and uranium extractions obtained in the tests were also lower than may be obtained with the estimated higher grades for mined material.

The acid consumption for baseline experiments averaged 118 pounds of 98% H₂SO₄ per ton of mill feed. (Note that reagent consumptions in the 2026 PEA are expressed in short tons of mill feed, not metric tonnes.) Carbonate content in the mineralized material has a direct relationship to acid consumption during leaching and may influence uranium extractions either by causing excessive gypsum precipitation or by making pH control difficult. Sodium chlorate (NaClO₃) proved to be an effective oxidant at a consumption of 2 pounds per ton of mill feed. Molybdenum content for all of the core samples that were assayed averaged 99 ppm and molybdenum content in the pregnant leach solution averaged 0.17 grams per liter. Vanadium assay results from Uranium One’s 2007/2008 exploration program showed an overall average of 2.13 to 1 vanadium to uranium ratio, while the historic ratio was 1.39 to 1. On average, vanadium concentrations from this property will be less than 1.00% V₂O₅, whether based on the historic vanadium to uranium ratio, or the ratio from 2008 assays.

No metallurgical testing has been completed on the Wood property. However, given the close proximity to Velvet and the fact that the mineralization lies within the same geologic unit as Velvet, similar metallurgical response is expected. The mineralized core recovered from Wood in 2008 had similar mineralogy to that found in mineralized core recovered from Velvet in 2007, based on geologists’ direct observation of core and drill samples from both projects.

As alternatives to conventional milling, heap and vat leaching were briefly considered. However, the 2026 PEA is confined to agitated leaching, and there are several reasons for this decision:

 

•

Vat leaching economics depend on rapid leaching kinetics that can be obtained in a 4- to 7-day leaching cycle, thereby minimizing the number of vats required. In order to ensure rapid solution percolation, the vat feed must be crushed to minus 0.25 to 0.5 inches, de-slimed, and the slimes separately leached in agitated tanks. Since fine particles dictate the thickener area requirement for a CCD circuit, vat leaching would require essentially the same size CCD system that conventional milling requires, negating most of the cost advantage usually attributable to vats.

 

•

Heap leaching was applied successfully to several uranium ores during the 1960s and 1970s, but extraction of co-product vanadium was not attempted. Satisfactory vanadium extraction requires a higher free acid concentration, causing more severe attack of the gangue minerals and heightening the potential for secondary slimes to impair heap permeability.

 

•

Neither vats nor heaps could reasonably be expected to achieve uranium extractions that can be obtained with milling.

Owing to the need to leach at an elevated free acid concentration to dissolve and complex vanadium, an acid consumption of 112 pounds of 98% H₂SO₄ per ton of leach feed was assumed during that phase of testing.

Slick Rock and Paradox Complex Metallurgical Studies

Pending results from ongoing metallurgical testing at Hazen Research, we are relying partly on the established record of uranium processing by the UCNC in the immediate vicinity of mines that will supply a large fraction of the feed to the Shootaring Canyon Mill.

 

S-46

For example, uranium/vanadium-mineralized material from the Slick Rock District was processed for nearly 26 years by UCNC with acceptable recoveries by conventional milling methods. Uranium recoveries at the processing mill in Uravan, Colorado, were estimated to be 97 to 98%, and vanadium recoveries at the Rifle, Colorado, processing mill were estimated to be 85% according to personal communication with Curt Sealy, formerly with UCNC and Uranium Energy as VP-Strategic Development.

The UCNC mill at Uravan treated 1,000-1,200 tons of ore daily that came from approximately 60 mines within a radius of 30-40 miles in the Uravan Mineral Belt. Most ores were from UCNC mines, but about one quarter of the mill feed was purchased from a variety of small shippers. The 2-stage acid leach was operated under essentially the same conditions as those planned for the Shootaring Canyon Mill. In addition to yellowcake, the Uravan mill made a crude vanadium product that was refined in UCNC’s mill at Rifle, CO.

The Uravan mill averaged 260 pounds of acid per ton of ore treated and used sodium chlorate as the oxidant. The second-stage leach was conducted at a high free acid concentration corresponding to pH 0.5-0.8 and the residue slurry was thickened with overflow solution returning to the first stage as an “acid kill” strategy to consume excess free acid. This is identical to the procedure that will be used at the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The second-stage leach residue slurry was then washed in a string of eight conventional 50-foot diameter wood stave thickeners.

The washing efficiency at UCNC’s Uravan mill exceeded 99 percent, corresponding to a soluble uranium loss of less than 1 percent. This is a critical element of good uranium mill design, as the effort to achieve maximum uranium leaching extraction should not be in vain due to high soluble losses. The current design for the Shootaring Canyon Mill will use modern High-Rate CCD thickeners and the final thickener will be a tall High-Density version of the High-Rate design in order to maximize underflow density (% solids). This will minimize the amount of entrained water in tailings and maximize recycling of that solution to the process water head tank. Also, residual acidity will be conserved.

Since mid-2025 extensive metallurgical testing has been carried out by Hazen Research on samples of uranium/vanadium mineralization from several former underground mines in the Slick Rock District that are now owned by Anfield. To date, samples have been collected from early stockpiles of shot muck, but drilling of fresh core is planned later in 2026. This work has included compositing, mineralogical characterization, and two-stage acid leaching that simulates the Shootaring Canyon Mill’s processing flowsheet.

Most of the preliminary leaching tests have been done in bottle roll apparatus on samples that have been stage-crushed to a nominal product passing size of P₈₀ = 0.5 mm (32-mesh). Leached residues from first-stage and second-stage leaching have been evaluated for their particle settling behavior in order to establish approximate CCD thickener area requirements and flocculant type and dosages. Samples tested to date have been very responsive with uranium and vanadium extractions of 98-99% and 90%, respectively.

The current metallurgical laboratory program has involved mineralized material that may differ from future samples of fresh core in leaching response and residue settling characteristics. This unpredictability was partially remedied by considering tests that were conducted for Energy Fuels by John Litz, who had left Hazen Research and established his own laboratory.

Litz conducted bottle roll leach tests and Kynch-type residue settling tests on samples from 5 mines in the Uravan District that were planned sources of feed for the Piñon Flats mill that was never constructed. One of those mines was the JD-8, which is now owned by Anfield and will supply feed to the Shootaring Canyon Mill. Litz simulated the two-stage leach conditions that will also be used at the Shootaring Canyon Mill, and the current program at Hazen Research employs the same conditions.

Litz reported a net sulfuric acid consumption of 237 lb/ton, which closely matches preliminary Hazen Research results, as well as the historical average for the UCNC mill at Uravan, as mentioned earlier. Uranium and

 

S-47

vanadium extractions obtained in duplicate tests were 98.8/99.4% and 95.8/92.8%, respectively. The estimated settling area requirement was 2.50 ft² per ton/day (tpd) of feed at 20% solids with a terminal density of 61 % solids. Flocculation required 0.023 lb/ton of Percol, a commonly used commercial reagent.

Ongoing Metallurgical Testwork

Metallurgical laboratory testing will continue at Hazen Research as fresh core samples become available. Leaching parameters and uranium/vanadium recoveries will be determined and design criteria for CCD residue washing will be developed. Solvent extraction tests will be completed to establish retention times and to develop remedies for slow phase disengagement if it is observed. Yellow cake will be precipitated and analyzed for potential penalty impurities such as molybdenum. If necessary, an organic washing step in SX will be examined. Similar tests will focus on vanadium metallurgy.

The 2026 PEA and its conclusions are not reliant on improvements to the planned processing methods, nor are any such improvements reflected in cash flow estimates. Nonetheless, we will continue to investigate promising opportunities to reduce operating costs. Two of the dominant expense categories in the current plan are transportation from mine to mill and sulfuric acid. An example of our continuing quest for economic improvements is removal of non-mineralized and minimally radioactive waste rock prior to haulage from the mines (sorting).

Throughout the copper and gold industry, there is great interest in sorting to upgrade feed to processing operations and to reduce reagent requirements. The uranium industry was a leader in upgrading with adoption of radiometric sorting at Cotter’s Schwartzwalder Mine near Golden, Colorado, in 1960. The objectives were (1) to reduce truck haulage costs to the mill at Cañon City, and (2) to reduce milling costs by increasing feed grade. Sorting by scanning truck loads was installed at Anaconda’s Jackpile Mine in 1976 for the same reasons.

With the same objectives in mind, we are investigating sorting, but with different sensing technology in the sorting machine itself. Instead of classic radiometric sensing for uranium alone, we are considering multi-channel XRF, which can simultaneously detect uranium, vanadium, and calcium. Theoretically, this would enable minimal rejection of uranium and vanadium, while reducing acid consumption during leaching.

Recommended Metallurgical Recoveries

Owing to the need to leach at an elevated free acid concentration to dissolve and complex vanadium, the acid consumption attributable to uranium alone is much lower than the additional acid needed to solubilize vanadium mineralization. The current estimates for the purpose of the 2026 PEA are 85 lb/ton acid for uranium extraction plus 204 lb/ton acid needed to increase free acid concentration for maximum practical vanadium extraction. Under these leaching conditions, the authors predict metallurgical recoveries of at least 96% for uranium and 90% for vanadium as a realistic base case.

As a point of comparison, Energy Fuels, operator of the White Mesa, Utah, mill, predicted metallurgical recoveries for uranium and vanadium of 96% and 75%, respectively, from their La Sal, Utah, project. The La Sal project is located less than 20 air miles from the Velvet-Wood Project, and is a similar sandstone-hosted uranium/vanadium deposit.

Risks

Recently, NI 43-101 filings have included estimates of the rapidity of project ramp-up behavior, specifically, the curve describing percent of design feedrate (or product creation rate) versus time since the end of commissioning and the beginning of commercial production. This curve is never vertical! Investors are acutely aware of time value of money, and some want the best estimate the project owner can make about the time when revenue generation will fulfill expectations. Accordingly, we will offer our prediction and underlying justification.

 

S-48

All major industrial projects that depend on economic extraction of natural resources carry an element of risk, and mining is no exception. A preliminary economic assessment is always created with a degree of optimism, but one of the obligations of those developing a mineral mining and processing enterprise is to recognize risks and to minimize them. An important element of that recognition is preparedness through derivation of factual information and thoughtful application of a solid basis for decisions. Risks can be controlled and minimized if this form of self-auditing is followed, but risk is never reduced to zero.

In 1998, Terence P. (Terry) McNulty introduced the concept of estimating risk according to criteria that describe the level of preparedness of a project owner and its contractors. This resulted in a family of four curves, ranging from rapid (Series 1) to very slow (Series 4) rates of achievement of design feed treatment rate. These so-called “McNulty Curves” have since been updated periodically. All publications and presentations are cited in the “References” section of the 2026 PEA. The curves are widely used as a predictive tool by operating mining companies, EPCM contractors, and project financing entities, including Royal Bank of Canada. Over 150 projects have been reported and characterized by McNulty and other authors; about half have been Series 1, while roughly 20 percent have only achieved Series 4.

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is expected to follow a Series 1 curve for the following reasons:

 

•

The uranium/vanadium-mineralized deposits that will provide feed to the Shootaring Canyon Mill are essentially identical to those processed decades ago by a major uranium/vanadium producer using the same flowsheet and processing parameters.

 

•

Recent metallurgical test results are being supplemented by the current laboratory program.

 

•

Current mineralogical characterization is being conducted by Qemscan electron microscopy which provides a more comprehensive understanding of mineral relationships than was available during the “uranium boom” era.

 

•

The Shootaring Canyon Mill was designed conservatively by Mountain States Engineers, a firm that was experienced in uranium mill design.

 

•

The current design upgrade is being done by Precision Systems Engineering (PSE), an engineering firm with extensive experience in designing small processing plants and the designer of the vanadium addition to the Energy Fuels mill at White Mesa, UT.

 

•

The only new equipment will be conventional in design and application, eliminating the “reliability risk” that can be introduced by prototypes.

 

•

Unlike the relatively primitive process monitoring instrumentation and manual control available 50 years ago, the new Shootaring Canyon Mill will use a distributed control strategy with a high level of machine learning that will minimize off-spec operating conditions.

 

•

Both Beahm and McNulty were intimately involved in the uranium industry as mining engineer and metallurgist, respectively during the 1960s and 1970s.

 

•

The Board and senior management of Anfield, the project owner, are fully engaged in decision making.

 

•

Both uranium and vanadium mineral grades will be higher than was typical during the 1950s-1970s.

The financial analysis in the 2026 PEA is based on a treatment schedule that begins with a year of operation on stockpiled material plus limited mine production at an average of about 70 percent of design feedrate, which is consistent with a Series I curve.

However, potential risks remain. In addition to the usual risks of market price, regulatory issues, and adverse public sentiment, it will be challenging to attract and retain productive employees.

 

S-49

Opportunities

Anfield is investigating sorting as a way of potentially eliminating minimally-mineralized waste rock. Experience in South Africa by Rados, the supplier of XRF-based sorting, indicates that the reject may contain as little as 15 ppm U₃O₈. Simultaneous rejection of carbonates could reduce consumption of sulfuric acid, as most of the consumption is due to reactions that convert carbonates to sulfates like gypsum.

Experience in Canada, the US, and overseas with precious metal, copper, and uranium mining has demonstrated that as much as half of the feed to sorters can be rejected. If a significant fraction of the production from Anfield’s mines can be rejected on-site, the trucking and reagent expenses used in the 2026 PEA will be reduced proportionally.

Mineral Resource Estimates

Mineral Resource Estimates Executive Summary

The 2026 PEA summarizes mineral resources for the Lisbon Valley, Slick Rock, and Uravan Districts and all their associated properties with resources. Each mine developed from these discussed resources would share a common facility, the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The total estimated in situ uranium mineral resources are summarized in Table 14.0.1. The associated in situ vanadium mineral resources which will be mined as a co-product are summarized in Table 14.0.2. In addition, Anfield has previously mined uranium stockpiles as summarized in Table 14.0.3.

Unless otherwise specified herein or in the 2026 PEA, the effective date of the resource estimation and cost modeling is May 2, 2026

Table 14.0.1 In situ Uranium Mineral Resource Summary*

 

Area/Classification		GT Cutoff				Pounds x1,000 eU3O8				Tons x1,000				Avg Grade %eU3O8
Lisbon Valley District / Measured and Indicated			0.5				4,324				629				0.34
Slick Rock District / Indicated			0.4				815				247				0.16
Uravan District / Indicated			0.5				4,667				1,061				0.22
TOTAL MEASURED AND INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCE URANIUM			0.4-0.5				9,806				1,937				0.25
Lisbon Valley District / Inferred			0.5				544				80				0.34
Slick Rock District / Inferred			0.4				9,938				2,418				0.21
Uravan / Inferred			0.4				755				179				0.21
TOTAL INFERRED			0.4-0.5				11,237				2,677				0.21

*	Numbers rounded

 

S-50

Table 14.0.2 In situ Vanadium Mineral Resource Summary*

 

Area/Classification		GT cutoff (Based on Uranium)				V:U Ratio				Pounds x1,000 V2O5				Tons X1,000				Avg Grade %V2O5
Lisbon Valley District / Inferred			0.5				1.4				6,826				716				0.48
Slick Rock District / Inferred			0.4				6.0				64,518				2,665				1.21
Uravan / Inferred			0.4-0.5				5.0				27,112				1,239				1.09
TOTAL INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCE VANADIUM			0.4-0.5				1.4-6				98,456				4,620				1.1

*	Numbers rounded

Table 14.0.3 Stockpile Uranium Mineral Resource Summary*

 

Area/Classification

GT Cutoff

Pounds x1,000 eU3O8

Tons x1,000

Avg Grade %eU3O8

Stockpile/Measured Mineral Resource

NA

370

126

0.15

 

*	Numbers rounded

(1)	The effective date of the stockpile mineral resource estimate is March 20, 2015.

(2)

Key assumptions: in the calculation of the stockpile mineral resource include: the sampling grid used was representative, a bulk density of the material of 16.7 tons per cubic yard, the base of the stockpiles is flat and projection of the toe of the stockpile thus reasonably reflects the base of the piles, and the thickness of cover measured during sampling was representative.

(3)

The measurement of the stockpile volumes, sampling, and analyses, was completed under the direction of the authors. In the authors’ opinion the determination of the volume, grade and contained pounds of uranium are valid for the purposes of the 2026 PEA and meet the criteria of Measured Mineral Resources.

Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability in accordance with CIM Definition Standards. However, reasonable prospects for future economic extraction were applied to the mineral resource estimates herein through consideration of grade and GT cutoffs as well as mineralization proximity to existing and proposed, conceptual mining.

Readers are cautioned that the 2026 PEA is preliminary in nature and includes a portion of the Inferred Mineral Resources as reported below. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability in accordance with CIM Definition Standards, and as such there is no guarantee the project economics described herein will be achieved. Inferred Mineral Resources are too speculative, geologically, to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the outcomes estimated in the 2026 PEA will be realized. Mineral reserves are not estimated herein. Mineral resource estimates may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant risks, uncertainties and other factors, as more particularly described herein.

A Mineral Resource is defined as a concentration or occurrence of natural, solid, inorganic, or fossilized organic material in or on the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics, and continuity of a mineral resource are known, estimated, or interpreted from specific geologic evidence and knowledge. Mineral resource estimates are classified as Measured, Indicated, or Inferred based on the level of understanding and definition of the mineral resource.

General Methodology

The GT contour method is the principal estimation method employed on all the properties discussed in the 2026 PEA. GT contouring has been used as a common practice for mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates for

 

S-51

similar sandstone-hosted uranium projects. It is the opinion of the authors that the GT contour method, when properly constrained by geologic interpretation, provides an accurate estimation of contained pounds of uranium.

There are minor differences in the application of the GT contouring method between the resource estimate models in each district. These differences are dictated by legacy database infrastructure and specific modeling interpretations between projects, but the overall approach to the GT contouring and the fundamental calculation of resources using the GT contouring method for each project remains the same. Where methodologies diverge from GT contouring as with projected inferred areas at the Velvet-Wood Project or the Old Velvet mine remaining resources, those resources are discussed separately in the 2026 PEA.

When the GT contour method is applied, geologic interpretation of the mineralized host sands is used along with the intercepts that meet the minimum reported grade and thickness criteria to develop a geologic framework to estimate the mineral resources at each project area. Each intercept is evaluated based on its geophysical log expression and location relative to adjacent intercepts. Whenever possible, geophysical logs are used to correlate and project intercepts between drill holes. The mineralized envelope is created by using the top and bottom of each intercept that is within each discernable geologic horizon. Drilling on the Colorado Plateau has been dominated by vertical drilling with limited drift data collected historically. Total downhole drift is applied to all intercepts when that data is available, otherwise the drill hole is assumed to have been vertical with no drift adjustments applied and location error accounted for in radius of influence applied to the intercept during contour modeling.

A minimum reported grade of 0.02% eU₃O₈ was applied to screen the drill data. Uranium grades below 0.02% were not considered in the estimation of mineral resources herein. In some cases where the mineralized horizons are more discreet and continuous a higher minimum grade of 0.05% has been applied in modeling to allow for more certainty in economic prospects and hedge against mining dilution.

Because mineralization in the Colorado Plateau can often cross bedding and can have varying amounts of structural control, the 0.02%-0.05% intercept data set is then split into discrete mineralized horizons based on relative elevation and geologic units. Where continuous mineralization is geologically discernable across project or district scales, these horizons are denoted by alphabetical labeling in a descending order. The order corresponds with depth where A is the highest elevation horizon, B is stratigraphically below A, C below B and so on. These sub-sets of mineral intercepts meeting the 0.02% eU₃O₈ minimum grade are then composited within each horizon using a minimum grade thickness of 0.1 ft %eU₃O₈ GT to begin contour modeling. This minimum is to set the basis for the compositing and modeling extents, limiting the equivalent minimum mining height to no less than 5 ft at 0.02% and 2 ft at 0.05%.

Drill hole intercepts not individually meeting the 0.1 GT cutoff are composited only if they are within a maximum of 10 ft of intercept(s) at or over the 0.1 GT cutoff and their incorporation and dilution of the zone with interstitial material keep the average grade above the minimum reported grade for the project area. Intercepts not meeting these criteria in holes otherwise having mineralization were dropped from the sum GT and sum T composites. Drill holes with intercepts below cutoff and holes with no intercepts meeting the 0.1 GT cutoff were taken into consideration while modeling as trace holes, but not incorporated directly into the model points. Maximum GT limits in data were applied to models on a model-by-model basis to remove invalid and/or unreliable points from the modeling dataset.

Summed GT and thickness data sets for the summed mineralized intercepts of each zone are then contoured using standard ACAD Civil-3D algorithms creating a three-dimensional surface for GT and thickness in each zone. These surfaces were then bounded based upon the geological interpretation of each deposit. Verification of the contour models are performed by inspection against all the available data prior to calculating the resource estimate. From the contoured GT ranges, the contained pounds and tons of material containing uranium are calculated volumetrically. The generation of these contour model volumes was done for all projects in ACAD Civil-3D but in different versions using slightly different techniques based on project-to-project dataset, age and needs.

 

S-52

Following the modeling of the resource at the 0.1 GT cutoff, higher economic cutoffs are then applied, clipping out the model volumes which are non-economic due to average grade, thickness, pod size and/or distance to the main deposit body.

Key Assumptions and Criteria

Data cutoffs and modeling assumptions are critical components of any resource modeling method. Modeling parameters are dictated by several factors including density of drilling data, deposit characteristics and interpreted geologic model. All districts and property resources are contained within the Colorado Plateau. They are each stratigraphically controlled, sand-stone hosted uranium/vanadium deposits of the Colorado Plateau style, as discussed above. This deposit style has been modeled well in the authors’ experience by the GT contouring method and has yielded results which have proven accurate enough to guide mining operations for many decades.

The modeling assumptions and data cutoffs applied to each model are stated by district and resource property in Tables 14.0.4, 14.0.5 and 14.0.6, below.

Table 14.0.4 Lisbon Valley District – Key Assumptions/Parameters by GT Contour Model

 

Modeling Assumption Parameter		GT Contour Resource Model
		Velvet Mine				Wood Mine
Minimum reported grade (% eU3O8)			0.05				0.05
Minimum Nominal Thickness (ft)			4				4
Anisotropy			no				no
Maximum Radius of Influence (ft)			100				100
Radiometric Equilibrium Factor (DEF)			1				1
Bulk Tonnage Factor (cft/st)			14.5				14.5
Minimum Sum GT Resource Model Cutoff			0.5				0.5

Table 14.0.5 Slick Rock District– Key Assumptions/Parameters by GT Contour Model

 

Modeling Assumption Parameter		GT Contour Resource Model
		Slick Rock Claims				SR-13				SR-13A				SR-11
Minimum reported grade (% eU3O8)			0.02				0.02				0.02				0.02
Minimum Nominal Thickness (ft)			4				4				3				4
Anisotropy			no				no				no				no
Maximum Radius of Influence (ft)			400				400				100				100
Radiometric Equilibrium Factor (DEF)			1				1				1				1
Bulk Tonnage Factor (cft/st)			15				15				15				15
Minimum Sum GT Resource Model Cutoff			0.4				0.4				0.4				0.4

Table 14.0.6 Uravan District – Key Assumptions/Parameters by GT Contour Model

 

Modeling Assumption Parameter		GT Contour Resource Model
		JD-6				JD-7				JD-8				JD-9				SM-18
Minimum reported grade (% eU3O8)			0.05				0.05				0.05				0.05				0.02
Minimum Nominal Thickness (ft)			3				4				4				4				4
Anisotropy			yes				yes				yes				yes				no
Maximum Radius of Influence (ft)			100x200				100x200				100x200				100x200				100
Radiometric Equilibrium Factor (DEF)			1				1				1				1				1
Bulk Tonnage Factor (cft/st)			14.5				14.5				14.5				14.5				14.5
Minimum Sum GT Resource Model Cutoff			0.5				0.5				0.5				0.5				0.4

 

S-53

Minimum grade and thickness criteria are used to define mineralized intercepts for resource modeling purposes. These are applied to each individual mineralized intercepts, and then to the sum GT of intercept composites, prior to modeling. Data not meeting these minimum requirements are removed from the modeling data set and have no influence on the contour model other than establishing its boundaries.

As discussed previously, a minimum thickness dictated by mining approach is typically applied at the data preparation level via the use of a minimum reporting grade and grade x thickness limit (GT). Maximum radius of influence is determined by the drilling density, the continuity of the deposit, and the resource classification level. The closer drilling spacing of the Velvet and Wood data allows for a smaller maximum radius of influence and a more certain resource classification (i.e. Indicated and Measured). Meanwhile, projects with larger drill spacing like that at most of the Slick Rock claims result in a decreased certainty and a lower resource classification in the Inferred category.

The bulk tonnage factors and DEF discussed above in “Data Verification” and in Section 12 of the 2026 PEA were used in the calculation of the resource quantities from the sum GT and sum thickness contour model volumes.

The minimum sum GT contour resource model cutoff is the primary cutoff criteria applied to the contour model volume as the initial screening of those portions of the model quantities not meeting the criteria for reasonable economic extraction. In addition, isolated mineralized areas not meeting a minimum of 10,000 lbs of eU₃O₈ resource were dropped from the resource totals as not meeting a minimum expectation of reasonable economic extraction.

Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction and Cutoff Criteria

Based on conceptual mine limits as discussed below in “Mining Methods” and in Section 16 of the 2026 PEA and the average grade, thickness and GT criterion applied to the estimate, it is the authors’ opinion that the mineral resources estimated for the project which include the Velvet-Wood Project, Slick Rock and Paradox Complexes, SR-11 and SM-18 Projects can be reasonably and economically recoverable through underground mining methods including haulage from the mine sites to the Shootaring Canyon Mill for conventional mineral processing and product recovery. Multiple mines will be needed to be operated simultaneously over most of the life of the mill in order to meet the mill tonnage capacity and/or an alternate feed source would be needed.

The project economics as defined in the 2026 PEA and presented below in “Capital and Operating Costs” and “Economic Analysis”, as well as in Section 21 and 22 of the 2026 PEA has a positive NPV and a reasonable internal rate of return based on commodity prices of $100 per pound for uranium oxide and $9 per pound for vanadium pentoxide as discussed in Section 19 of the 2026 PEA.

The minimum GT cutoff criteria defines the lowest volume and quality (thickness and grade) of mineralized material which would break even with respect to marginal operating costs. In practice, the mine would operate at a higher or primary cutoff until the capital for the mine and mill was recovered. Where it is necessary to excavate mineralized material below this primary cutoff and above the minimum cutoff, this material could be stockpiled and the cost of excavation and handling this material would be borne by the primary mined material. Similarly, material below the primary cutoff may be left accessible in the mine. Thus, this marginal mineralized material could later be recovered if it meets haulage and milling costs. Note if the marginal mineralized material were treated as mine waste, the same general cost to excavate and handle this would be incurred with no possible future benefit.

Table 14.0.7 uses the capital and operating costs estimated for the Slick Rock mine as an example to demonstrate that the marginal mineralized material meets marginal forward costs and thus has reasonable prospects of future economic extraction. The 0.4 GT cutoff for Slick Rock was the lowest GT cutoff applied in the 2026 PEA.

 

S-54

Table 14.0.7 GT Cutoff Calculation

 

Slick Rock
OPEX		Marginal Forward Cost $/ton				Fully Loaded Costs $/ton
Mining		$	156.00			$	156.00
Haulage		$	30.77			$	30.77
Mineral Processing		$	50.42			$	50.42
Reclamation Mine						$	3.35
Taxes and Royalties		$	19.07			$	19.07
Total OPEX		$	256.26			$	259.61
CAPEX
Individual mines						$	10.05
$20,350 m USD
Mill $80,800 m USD						$	39.53
2,024 m tons total*
Total CAPEX		$	—			$	49.58
Total Cost per Ton		$	256.26			$	309.19
Value at minimum GT			289.2
Value at average mined grade							607.32
Difference - Value less Cost		$	32.94			$	298.13
Notes:			Grade at .4GT cutoff				Average Grade
4 ft minimum thickness			0.10 % U3O8				0.21 % U3O8
$100 Uranium, 96% recovery
$9 Vanadium, 90% recovery
Minimum GT 0.4 = Grade 0.10 % U3 O8, V:U ratio 6

The cutoff calculation demonstrates that material at the minimum GT can be recovered at a slight profit excluding the CAPEX burden which is borne by the primary mined material.

Mining Methods

Mining Basis

The 2026 PEA is based on a random room and pillar mining method as was previously employed for underground uranium mining throughout the Colorado Plateau. The Velvet mine, the Old Wood mine to the northwest of the Wood resource, the Burro and Ellison mines which are contiguous with the main Slick Rock Complex area, and the DOE Leases (JD-6, JD-7, JD-8, JD-9, SM-18, SR-11, SR-13, and SR-13A) were all operated using a random room and pillar and retreat mining method. The room and pillar mining method is a proven method in both districts and is considered the best mining method by the authors for the projects. The characteristics of the mineral deposits are compatible with this method in that their mineralization is generally tabular with some moderate rolls, low to moderate dip, and good rock strength with respect to both roof and floor. The randomness of the room and pillar extraction is due to the variations in uranium grade and thickness encountered. Typically, mining will follow mineralization through underground long-hole drilling in advance of mining, face sampling, and geologic mapping concurrent with mining. Pillars are left where the mineralization is weaker in terms of concentration and/or thickness; however, in some cases temporary roof support will be necessary. The nature of mineralization lends itself to a high extraction rate but requires selective mining. Portions of the JD-7 lease were also developed as an open pit mine. While both underground and open pit extraction is being considered for the JD-7 lease, the 2026 PEA incorporated underground mining methods and costs.

 

S-55

The conceptual mine layouts for Velvet and Wood are shown on Figures 16.1.1 and 16.1.2 of the 2026 PEA, the conceptual mine layouts for Slick Rock Complex are shown on Figure 16.1.3 of the 2026 PEA, and the typical layout of DOE Leases on Figures 16.1.4 and 16.1.5 of the 2026 PEA. The portions of the mineral resources included within the conceptual mine design and used in the 2026 PEA are summarized on Table 16.1.1 below which follows.

Table 16.1.1 Mineral Resources Included in PEA

 

		Portion of Mineral Resource included in PEA
		Velvet		Wood		Slick Rock*		Uravan		Stockpiles		Total
Tons		429,000		251,000		2,199,000		1,175,000		126,000		4,054,000
Pounds eU3O8		2,714,000		1,924,000		9,533,000		5,285,000		370,000		19,826,000
Grade%eU3O8		0.316		0.383		0.217		0.225		0.147		0.245
Pounds V2O5		3,800,000		2,693,000		58,964,000		25,512,000		nil		90,159,000
Grade%V2O5		0.443		0.537		1.312		1.132				1.11
Percent of Estimated Mineral Resource		93%		99%		88%		97%		100%		94%
Percent Inferred Uranium		19%		0%		92%		14%		0%		53%
Percent Inferred Vanadium		100%		100%		100%		100%		0%		100%

 

*	Includes DOE Lease SR-11

At a minimum, a Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) is required to demonstrate the economic viability of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources and qualify an initial estimate of mineral reserves.

While not all areas with estimated mineral resources within the projects were included in the 2026 PEA, the areas not included may or may not have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The resource areas included in the 2026 PEA are those that are more accessible and/or have better overall economics. However, criteria for reasonable prospects for future economic extraction were applied to all mineral resource areas herein through consideration of grade and GT cutoffs and by screening out areas of isolated mineralization which would not support the cost of conventional mining under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions.

Mining Methods

Mining methods will be very similar for each mine. Mining will be accomplished via random room and pillar mining methods using jacklegs or single boom jumbo drills for face blast holes drilling and 2 to 3 cubic yard Load Haul Dump mining equipment (LHD) used to help maintain clean mucking of mineralized material and of waste. Each mine will have an exploration drill and crew to delineate mineralization ahead of mining. Because of the variable grades, numerous headings are needed to maintain a consistent grade to the mineralized material stockpiles and to achieve the desired tonnage. A minimum mine height of 7 feet is planned. Where mineralization if less than the mine height split shooting will be employed to minimize mining dilution.

Velvet Mine

There is an existing 12’ x 9’ decline from the surface, 3,500’ in length at the Velvet mine. The 2026 PEA is based on re-entry and stabilization of this decline to access the Old Velvet mineralization. Extending from this decline will be an additional 12’ x 9’ decline, 3,300’ in length, that will branch off to access the New Velvet mineralization. Main entries, secondary entries, and development drifts (8’ x 10’) will be driven for the development and access to the New Velvet mineralization. Main entries, once within the mineralized horizon, will follow the edge of the mineral deposit leaving one rib in waste rock and the other within mineralized material. This will provide some mineralized material and minimize waste while driving the mains and will

 

S-56

provide some support along the main entries upon retreat mine. Secondary entries will be driven off the mains on 100’ centers and extended to the edge of mineralization using long-hole drilling and probes to map the mineralized material as development proceeds. Once the development drifts are finished, full face retreat mining will start working at the back and retreat toward the main entries. Selective mining will be conducted in these areas separating mineralized material from waste.

Wood Mine

Several options were considered to access the Wood mine as summarized on Table 16.2.1 of the 2026 PEA. The current permit includes the decline from the New Velvet workings to the Wood mine. As part of the preparation of the 2026 PEA, alternatives to this approach were evaluated. As a result, based on cost and timing considerations, the preferred alternative is to access Wood mine via a shaft independent of the Velvet mine. This approach will require an amendment of the mine permit; however, the current mine permit did allow for the location of mine vents and a mine dewatering system. The change to the current plan would include converting one vent to a production shaft, the design and permitting of surface facilities and stockpiles, and additional site access. These additions are contained within the current mine permit boundary. Any option for a new decline would require property acquisition and would fall outside the current permit boundary.

In the event that mineralization extends either from the Wood or Velvet mines, the mineralization will be defined by underground drilling and the mines extended to exploit any extensions of economic mineralization.

Slick Rock Mine

The Slick Rock mine will use 12-foot diameter main shafts and hoists to access and haul out of the mine workings. There are two proposed shaft and hoist locations. The first main shaft would be located in the east, accessing the resource centered in the A zone. The second main shaft would access the central portion of the B zone. Existing portals and declines from the Burro and Ellison mines will provide access to the north-northwest portion of the B zone and would be connected to the B zone shaft. A total of five 48-inch vent raises would provide for primary ventilation, with one in the eastern A zone and two per B zone developments.

Initial dewatering will use the existing vents from the Burro mine. Dewatering wells will be established near the A and B shafts prior to sinking the shafts. Depending on dewatering rates the shafts could also be used for dewatering.

Shafts will be driven at both zone A and B as depicted on Figure 16.1.3 of the 2026 PEA. The first hoist would be installed in the easternmost area of the deposit in the A zone while the driving of the central B zone shaft concludes. After the first hoist is set, construction of the second hoist in the central area would begin. At the same time, existing declines from the Burro and Ellison mines will be rehabilitated and extended. This will allow access to mineralization on the SR-13 leases and the western side of Area B. The declines will merge and ultimately connect to the shaft allowing for multiple access points and ventilation.

See Figure 16.1.3 of the 2026 PEA for the conceptual mine layout of Slick Rock mine.

DOE Leases

DOE Leases currently include JD-8 and the adjacent JD-6 and JD-9 on leases Monogram Mesa in Montrose County, the adjacent JD-7 lease which was partially developed as an open pit mine, the SM-18 lease in the Uravan District in Montrose County and the SR-11 lease in the Slick Rock District.

Mineralization at JD-8, JD-6, JD-9, SM-18, and SR-13 leases are above the water table, so no dewatering or water treatment is required. Mineralization can generally be accessed via existing mine portals and decline. JD-7 mineralization may be accessible via open pit and/or underground mining methods. Design alternatives are being evaluated on a technical and cost/benefit basis for JD-7. For the purposes of the 2026 PEA, underground methods were assumed as they generally result in a higher per ton mining cost and are thus conservative.

 

S-57

Pre-Production Mine Development

Before the production of the Velvet mine begins, several aspects of the mine must first be running. The mine is currently flooded and will require dewatering. Dewatering is anticipated to take 3 to 6 months at a rate of approximately 250 gpm. The Velvet portal has been reopened and rehabilitation is in progress. As dewatering lowers the water level in the main decline, rehabilitation of the main Old Velvet access will begin. In months three and four, access to and stabilization of the existing Vent A will take place. In month five, a second crew will develop access to the west side for further production of Old Velvet, and in months five through ten the first crew will develop a new decline down to the New Velvet. Once these development activities have been completed, production can begin on the New and Old Velvet mines.

Pre-production mine development for the Wood mine includes driving the main shaft, installation of hoists, dewatering, development work, and up-reaming the mine vent. Additional permitting for the shaft, vents, and the dewatering treatment and discharge facilities will be required.

Slick Rock pre-production mine development will include driving two main shafts, installation of hoists, and possible dewatering of the mineralized zone. After the first hoist is installed, construction of the second shaft and hoist will coincide with the production of the first resource area.

With the exception of the JD-7 lease, pre-production consists of rehabilitating the portal, extending the decline to the mineralized zone, establishing ventilation, refurbishing or replacing surface facilities and infrastructure, establishing mine stockpile and waste areas, and improving existing access roads.

Mine Equipment

Table 16.4.1 of the 2026 PEA provides a typical equipment list for a conventional room and pillar mine applicable to the Velvet-Wood and Slick Rock mine complexes.

Operating Parameters

The random room and pillar mining method will utilize jacklegs and/or single boom jumbo drilling, 2-3 cubic yard LHD face mucking, and 7-10 ton truck haulage with the associated support equipment. Each mining crew will have 3 personnel working on a 10-hour shift. It is estimated that each mining crew will be capable of drilling, blasting, loading, and hauling 60 tons of material per shift. Multiple working faces will be established to accommodate the cycles of mining activities and multiple crews working in tandem. Equipment can be shared between the crews, and 2 to 3 primary ming crews will be working simultaneously supported surface staff and laborers. The mines will operate two shifts for up to 330 days per year. Thus, 2 crews per shift, 2 shifts per day will be capable of producing 240 tons per day (TPD) or some 79,200 tons per year (TPY). This total tonnage is a combination of ore and waste. Ore production is dependent on the waste ratio, which is typically 1:1 or less depending on the thickness of mineralization.

Table 16.4.2 of the 2026 PEA summarizes the estimated mine productivity.

Mine Production Schedule

The mine production schedule is based on two primary mining crews for each mine complex, for a total of four mining crews per mine. The production schedule is based on the existing tonnage capacity at the mill of 750 TPD or a maximum of 250,000 TPY. The current plan is to increase that capacity 30% to 1,000 TPY as the mines reach full capacity in year 3. The expansion has been provided for in the license amendment. Additional capital including the addition of 2 leach and 2 CCD tanks with appurtenances is planned for year 3. These additions can be made without modifying or expanding the leach or CCD areas of the mill.

 

S-58

The mine production schedule shown on Table 16.5.1 of the 2026 PEA shows the existing stockpiles as the initial mill feed. The intent is to use the stockpiled material for the startup of the uranium circuit. There is some vanadium in the stockpiled material, but it may not be recovered and is not included in the plan, as construction of the vanadium circuit will follow the uranium circuit. The mill stockpiles are within the mill license area and require no further permitting. The Patty Ann stockpiles are located in the Lisbon Valley and would require permitting. However, removal of the Patty Ann stockpiles would not result in significant new disturbance, and their removal would also have the benefit of cleaning up and reclaiming the site.

Production from mining will begin with contemporaneous operation of the Velvet and Wood mines. The Velvet-Wood mine complex has been permitted with the State of Utah and the BLM. Anfield has re-opened the Velvet mine portal. The current permit included a decline between the Velvet and Wood mines to access the Wood mine. The plan herein is to construct a shaft at the Wood mine to provide earlier access to mineralization. This will require a permit amendment as previously discussed. The decline connection may ultimately be established between the Velvet and Wood if additional mineralization is discovered by underground drilling extending between them. Following the establishment of mine production from Velvet and Wood, mine shafts will be constructed at Slick Rock A and B with additional access to Slick Rock B via the existing Burro and/or Ellison declines.

Mine production is planned from Wood for years 1-4, Velvet for years 1-7, and Slick Rock for years 1-14. Beginning in year 5 additional mines are planned for the DOE Leases located at the Paradox, Uravan, and Slick Rock mine complexes. The combination of the DOE Leases are planned to provide a portion of the mill feed for years 5-14.

Risks Related to the Mine Production Schedule

Scheduling risks related to the initial mill feed from the existing stockpiles and the Velvet and Wood mines is considered low by the authors. The mine permit is in place for the Velvet and Wood mines. Existing stockpiles are available as previously discussed.

There is a risk that the planned schedule for the Slick Rock mines could be delayed for technical reasons or by delays in permitting. While this risk exists, the impact of a one-year delay in the current plan would reduce the estimated NPV by $36 million USD pre-tax, if the planned production was not offset by other captive mines or toll milling arrangements.

There is a risk that the DOE Leases may not be renewed in 2030 and/or the royalty burden on the leases may not be reduced as discussed below in “Capital and Operating Costs” and in Section 21of the 2026 PEA. Under the worst case this could reduce the NPV by $209 million USD pre-tax. However, production from the DOE Leases is not currently planned until 2032, allowing sufficient time for Anfield to offset this loss from other captive mines or toll milling arrangements.

Mine Labor

Qualified mine labor is available in the region. Table 16.6.1 of the 2026 PEA summarizes the personnel requirements by classification needed to meet the production estimates as summarized in Table 16.5.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Mine Support and Utilities

Mine facilities located on the surface would include a mine office, warehouse, and workshop, change room and dry facility, a lined storage area for mined products, storage for explosives, and various appurtenances. Utilities would include electrical power, a water supply, and a wastewater disposal system. Water would be supplied via treated mine wastewater and stored in a stock tank. Potable water will be trucked in as needed.

 

S-59

Mine Ventilation

A specific ventilation plan will be developed for each mine including the main fan and raise locations that should, with appropriate controls, enable the mine to meet applicable Mine Safety Health and Administration (MSHA) ventilation requirements. The primary contaminants of concern for the ventilation system include radon, diesel particulate matter (DPM), diesel exhaust gases (CO, CO₂, NOx, and SOx), blasting fumes, and silica dust. Once the mine is operational, a sampling program should be instituted to identify and quantify the airway contaminants.

The 2026 PEA includes capital and operating cost allowances for mine ventilation reflecting typical expected conditions and requirements.

Transportation

The 2026 PEA includes capital and operating cost allowances for the transportation of mined product to the Shootaring Canyon Mill from the mines located in Utah and Colorado which are 180 miles or more distant from the Shootaring Canyon Mill. For the purposes of the 2026 PEA, Anfield plans to own and operate the transportation system. Contracting the transportation could also be considered. In the 2026 PEA, transportation costs are considered a direct operating expense.

Trucking laws vary from state to state. In this case, Colorado will allow a maximum gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds. By contrast, if appropriately permitted, Utah will allow a maximum gross weight of 129,000 pounds. When the weight of the equipment is considered, this results in the company being able to haul approximately 25 tons of ore in Colorado and up to 38 tons of ore in Utah on each truckload. This is accomplished by different equipment, with different capital and operating costs.

At full operating capacity, the Shootaring Canyon Mill is expected to process 1,000 tons of ore per day. This means that the Shootaring Canyon Mill will require as few as 27 and as many as 40 truckloads per day to operate at full capacity. Given the distances between the Shootaring Canyon Mill and the mines, each truck will only be able to deliver one load per day to the Shootaring Canyon Mill. To maximize efficiency and to minimize capital expenditure, the trucks will operate 7 days per week. The monthly equipment costs have been reduced to per day costs for purposes of the 2026 PEA.

All loads will be considered by relevant authorities to be hazardous material. As such, all trucks and trailers must be appropriately placarded. Each driver will be required to have a hazmat endorsement on his or her commercial driver’s license. The Company’s operating authority, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), must allow for the transport of hazardous materials, and the Company will need to have appropriate insurance coverage.

The costs set forth assume new equipment to ensure that each piece meets the required specifications. At full capacity, the operation will require 30-50 truck/trailer combinations.

The following cost analysis considers haul from Colorado under Colorado regulations and weight limits, haul from Utah under Utah regulations and weight limits, and a combined approach wherein the mine product is transported to a Utah site and then the material reloaded onto a higher capacity Utah truck for transport to the Shootaring Canyon Mill.

Assumptions

Colorado will only allow a maximum weight of 80,000 pounds. Standard tractors that would be capable of hauling any semi-truck load will be utilized. The trucks will be day cabs with 3 total axles (2 drive axles and one steer axle). This would allow a payload of 25 tons per truck. Utah will allow a maximum gross weight of 129,000 pounds. The increased capacity would include one additional load bearing axle. This would allow a payload of 38 tons per truck.

 

S-60

Estimated costs include:

 

•

Equipment purchase.

 

•

Insurance.

 

•

Labor including Hazmat qualified driver.

 

•

Fuel and lubricants.

 

•

Tires and wear parts.

 

•

Maintenance.

One way haulage distance:

 

•

Velvet and Wood mines, 177 miles.

 

•

DOE Leases Uravan and Paradox mines, 238 miles.

 

•

Slick Rock mines, 200 miles.

Cost Per Summaries:

 

•

Velvet/Wood

 

•

Trip cost per mile, Utah loads, $1.06/mile or total trip cost $375.24.

 

•

Fixed costs for Utah trucks are $630.34 per day.

 

•

Total cost of each Utah trip is $1,005.58.

 

•

At 37 tons per load, the cost is $27.18 per ton.

 

•

DOE Leases or Slick Rock mines

 

•

Worst case is 238 miles from the JD-8 mine.

 

•

Trip cost per mile, Colorado loads, $0.72 or total trip cost $342.72.

 

•

Fixed costs for Colorado trucks are $567.77 per day.

 

•

Total cost of each Colorado trip is $910.49.

 

•

At 25 tons per load, the cost is $36.42 per ton.

 

•

Combine Colorado/Utah

 

•

In this scenario material would be transported 70 miles from the Colorado mines to the Velvet mine using Colorado legal tractor/trailer combinations.

 

•

The detour to the Velvet mine would add approximately 10 miles each way to the total trip making the round trip 496 miles.

 

•

140 miles are attributable to Colorado trucks, and 356 attributable to Utah trucks.

 

•

This means that 39% of the load is hauled at the Colorado rate per ton and 61% at the Utah rate per ton.

 

•

Proportioned rate per ton for combined loads is $30.77.

Administrative, maintenance, and facilities staff will be required to supervise and organize such things as dispatch, maintenance, purchasing, HR and DOT compliance. It is estimated that 4-5 office staff members will be required, and 2-3 full-time mechanics.

 

S-61

Recovery Methods

Summary

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is an existing facility which was constructed circa 1980-1981 and operated sporadically until 1982. As discussed below in “Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Social or Community Impact” and in Section 20 of the 2026 PEA, the Shootaring Canyon Mill has the Radioactive Materials License which has been amended. Although the Shootaring Canyon Mill has been on a care and maintenance program, various components have been salvaged and sold, including the CCD thickeners and pumps and related equipment. In addition, some of the equipment units, such as the diesel generators, are outdated and are not useable. Nonetheless, the main process building and ancillary structures were well-designed and are generally in very good condition.

Capital and operating/maintenance cost estimates for mineral processing at the Shootaring Canyon Mill reflect a few changes to the original conventional grinding and agitated leaching circuit, followed by yellowcake precipitation, drying, and drum filling. The original wood-stave leach tanks will be replaced with steel tanks lined with an acid- and abrasion-resistant elastomer. Most equipment, e.g., leach tank agitators and most pumps, will be fitted with variable-frequency adjustable-speed drives to accommodate ranges of flowrates and solids loadings in slurries. New CCD thickeners will be installed and studies are underway to assess the optimum type and number of CCD thickeners. Furthermore, a vanadium processing and refining facility will be constructed. Vanadium recovery begins with leaching at a higher free acid concentration (pH 0.5 to 0.8 versus 1.5 to 2.0) to ensure satisfactory extraction of vanadium. Vanadium recovery from uranium solvent extraction raffinate requires a new building near the existing process building. The new CCD circuit will also be outside and near the main process building.

The Shootaring Canyon Mill was among the last 2 or 3 conventional mills built before the collapse of the uranium industry. Its design benefited from two decades of revolutionary changes, such as solvent extraction, and many evolutionary improvements based on an accumulation of industry-wide experience in operation and maintenance of dozens of mills.

Figure 17.2.1 of the 2026 PEA depicts the original flowsheet and describes, with a few exceptions, the future uranium processing flowsheet.

Vanadium Recovery Circuit

A facility for the recovery of vanadium is included in the mineral processing CAPEX and OPEX estimates in the 2026 PEA. The depleted aqueous solution from uranium solvent extraction, the uranium raffinate, will serve as the feed for vanadium production. The vanadium concentration and refining process will use essentially the same unit operations as the uranium plant up to the point of precipitation, so only a brief description will be given below. Schematics of the vanadium process are presented in Figure 17.2.1 of the 2026 PEA.

A simplified block flow diagram is presented as Figures 17.3.1a and 17.3.1b of the 2026 PEA. Some elements of the flowsheet may change during detailed engineering when equipment alternatives will be considered in the interests of increased metallurgical efficiency, improved health and safety for personnel, and reduced operating costs.

Estimated Personnel Requirements for Uranium and Vanadium Production

Construction of the vanadium facility will begin after start-up of the uranium section. Although uranium and vanadium production will eventually be concurrent, it is convenient to divide the personnel requirements as follows, see Table 17.4.1 of the 2026 PEA. Note that the uranium section will immediately require a number of management and administrative staff who will take on extra responsibilities after the onset of vanadium production. The entire operation will run 24 hours daily and 7 days weekly, but actual numbers of hourly personnel may change, depending on future decisions, such as 8-hour versus 12-hour shifts. There may be a single weekly dayshift shutdown for planned maintenance.

 

S-62

Project Infrastructure

Velvet-Wood Project

Existing Infrastructure

The existing infrastructure is shown in Figure 18.1.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Power and Utilities

Electrical power will be provided at least initially by onsite generators. Velvet was served by line power in the past but the powerline was removed. Line power is not currently available at Wood.

Water

Non-potable water is available from wells at the Velvet mine. For Wood, detailed investigation of potential water sources has not been completed. As mineral processing will be accomplished offsite, the only water demand will be for industrial and potable use at the mine site and as such the demand is modest. The preferred alternative for process water is to utilize water developed from the dewatering of the mine, estimated for cost purposes at 200 gpm, which in turn would reduce costs related to water treatment and discharge. This water may not be suitable as a potable water source for the office and dry facility. Potable water sources could be developed from local ground or surface water sources and/or hauled into the site.

Surface Facilities

Temporary surface facilities have been erected at the Velvet mine. No surface facilities are present at the Wood mine. For operations mine support facilities will consist of an office, mine shop and warehouse, and a dry facility.

Slick Rock Complex

Existing Infrastructure

The existing infrastructure is shown in Figure 18.2.1 of the 2026 PEA.

Power and Utilities

For the Slick Rock Complex area, gas pipelines crossing the project area are shown on the USGS base map. Electrical powerlines follow the major access roads, Figure 18.2.1 of the 2026 PEA. Slick Rock Complex is an unincorporated locality. Residents have utility and phone service. Utility service was also once provided to the Burro and other mines in the area.

Water

For the Slick Rock Complex, detailed investigation of potential water sources has not been completed. As mineral processing will be accomplished offsite, the only water demand will be for industrial and potable use at the mine site, and as such the demand is modest. The preferred alternative for process water is to utilize water developed from the dewatering of the mine, estimated for cost purposes at 200 gpm, which in turn would reduce costs related to water treatment and discharge. This water may not be suitable as a potable water source for the office and dry facility. Potable water sources could be developed from local ground or surface water sources and/or hauled into the site.

Surface Facilities

For the Slick Rock Complex no current facilities currently exist. For operations, mine support facilities will consist of an office, mine shop and warehouse, and a dry facility.

 

S-63

SR-11 Project

Existing Infrastructure

Currently SR-11 has access roads, a septic system and a water tank on site. See Figure 18.2.2 of the 2026 PEA.

Power and Utilities

No line power is available at the SR-11 Project. Power was previously supplied by diesel generators.

Water

For the SR-11 Project, detailed investigation of potential water sources has not been completed. As mineral processing will be accomplished offsite the only water demand will be for industrial and potable use at the mine site and as such the demand is modest.

Surface Facilities

For the SR-11 Project, no surface facilities currently exist. For development mine support facilities will consist of an office, mine shop and warehouse, and a dry facility. Utilities would include a water supply, and a wastewater disposal system. A septic system would be permitted and constructed for wastewater if the old one is no longer serviceable. A septic system and a water treatment structure. Refer to Figure 18.3.1 of the 2026 PEA for JD-8 infrastructure.

Paradox Complex

Existing Infrastructure

All of the DOE Leases in the Paradox Complex have existing infrastructure remaining from when they were active mines. They all have access roads. JD-6 has only access roads. JD-7 has two shop buildings, a compressor house, a water tank and a water treatment building. There is a compressor house, a pipe shed and a trailer at JD-8. JD-9 has a shop, a septic system and a water treatment structure. Refer to Figure 18.3.1 of the 2026 PEA for JD-8 infrastructure.

Power and Utilities

Line power is available at the Paradox Complex sites from San Miguel Power.

Water

For the Paradox Complex, detailed investigation of potential water sources has not been completed. As mineral processing will be accomplished offsite, the only water demand will be for industrial and potable use at the mine site and as such the demand is modest.

Surface Facilities

For the Paradox Complex mine support facilities vary by site but will generally consist of an office, mine shop and warehouse, and a dry facility. Utilities would include electrical power (existing at sites), a water supply, and a wastewater disposal system. Septic systems would be permitted and constructed for wastewater.

SM-18 Project

Existing Infrastructure

Currently there is a supply trailer, a water tank, and access roads on site. See Figure 18.3.2 of the 2026 PEA.

 

S-64

Power and Utilities

Electrical powerlines follow Highway 141 and there is a transformer on site.

Water

For the SM-18 Project, detailed investigation of potential water sources has not been completed. As mineral processing will be accomplished offsite the only water demand will be for industrial and potable use at the mine site and as such the demand is modest.

Surface Facilities

For the SM-18 Project, mine support facilities will consist of an office, mine shop, and warehouse, and a dry facility. Utilities would include electrical power (existing at site), a water supply, and a wastewater disposal system. A septic system would be permitted and constructed for wastewater.

Shootaring Canyon Mill

Existing Infrastructure

The existing Shootaring Canyon Mill facilities include the main mill building, shop and warehouse, office and security buildings, a non-potable water system for processing and fire suppression, a septic system, and the entire facility is fenced. The existing facilities are shown on Figure 17.3.2 of the 2026 PEA.

Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Social or Community Impact

A range of permits and licenses would be needed for the mining and various mineral processing options considered in the 2026 PEA. Similarly, a variety of additional environmental studies would be required. Agencies with jurisdiction include:

 

•

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Radiation Control (DRC), source material licensing.

 

•

UDEQ Divisions of Air Quality (DAQ), Water Quality (WQD), mill and mines.

 

•

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR) Division of Oil Gas and Mining (DOGM), Velvet-Wood mine and drilling permits.

 

•

Utah State Engineers Office (SEO) water rights.

 

•

SEO and UDNR tailings dam permit and monitor well permits.

 

•

BLM Plan of Operations and Notice of Intent, mining and drilling.

 

•

DRMS, Colorado mine and drilling permits.

 

•

Local county permits depending on project specifics.

Regulatory Status

Major actions in progress or needed (see Table 20.1.1 and Table 20.1.2 of the 2026 PEA) include:

 

•

Reactivation of the Shootaring Canyon Mill

 

•

The Shootaring Canyon Mill and its existing Radioactive Materials License is being maintained along with all additional permits and licenses and required environmental monitoring programs.

 

•

The Shootaring Canyon Mill has the existing Radioactive Materials License. The Radioactive Materials License was originally issued by the USNRC. When Utah became an agreement state

 

S-65

they assumed regulatory jurisdiction over the Radioactive Materials License through the DWMRC. Anfield submitted a license renewal application to convert the existing Radioactive Materials License from care-and-maintenance to operational status on April 5, 2024. Anfield has been conducting bi-monthly meetings with DWMRC during the license renewal process. DWMRC completed their initial review of the license amendment and provided their RAIs. Anfield completed response to all RAIs in April 2026 and they are under review by DWMRC. As additional questions arise they are discussed at the bi-monthly meetings. It is anticipated that the licensing process including a public comment period will be completed by Q4 2026.

 

•

Velvet-Wood Project

 

•

The Velvet-Wood Project mines have been permitted through the state of Utah and BLM. The mine portal at Velvet has been opened and work is progressing to rehabilitate the decline. The new permit in Number M0370040 and the current bond is $539,000.00 USD.

 

•

Amendment of the permit for the addition of a production shaft at Wood will be required.

 

•

Permits are in place for ground water treatment and discharge subject to final pre-construction approval of the treatment facility.

 

•

The current site construction is authorized as temporary construction by DAQ. The air quality permit for mine operations by DAQ is in progress.

 

•

Slick Rock District

 

•

A new Large Mine Permit and Plan of Operations is required issued by DRMS and BLM, respectively.

 

•

The mine permit requires inclusion of all other State and local permits.

 

•

Uravan District, Uravan and Paradox Mine Complexes

 

•

A new Large Mine Permit and Plan of Operations is required to be issued by DRMS and BLM, respectively.

 

•

The mine permit has been submitted for the JD-8 mine and has been accepted as complete. Review and public comment are currently ongoing.

 

•

Permits common to all operations.

 

•

Air quality permits.

 

•

Water quality permits, storm water discharge (construction and operations).

 

•

Monitor well permits.

 

•

Water rights for consumptive use.

 

•

Federal Mine Safety for mines and mills are regulated under the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

Current Status

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is located on private land. The Shootaring Canyon Mill is an existing facility which was constructed in 1980 and operated sporadically until 1982. The Radioactive Materials License has been maintained but will require a major amendment for operations. The tailings dam is in place, however individual lined tailings disposal cells would need to be permitted and constructed within the overall containment facility. The Shootaring Canyon Mill has the Radioactive Materials License (RML; UT0900480) that is administrated by the UDEQ-DWMRC. The Shootaring Canyon Mill is currently in the license renewal process as forementioned.

 

S-66

The Velvet-Wood Project mines are located on BLM and State of Utah lands. The Velvet mine has been permitted and the portal and existing decline re-opened. The mine has an active MSHA number and work is underway to rehabilitate the mine.

The Slick Rock mine has an active drilling permit or NOI from DRMS and BLM. Verification drilling was completed in 2024. Background ground water wells were completed in 2025. NEPA studies were completed for the NOI but will require updating for mine permitting.

Anfield holds 21 active DOE mine leases as described above. Eight of these leases are included in the 2026 PEA. Each of these leases have mine reclamation permits which require overprinting with new mine permits for operations. The JD-8 mine in the Paradox Complex was selected as the first of the leases to permit. As forementioned, the JD-8 permit is complete and awaiting final comments and approval. The JD-8 mine also has an active MSHA mine number. Within the Paradox Complex, an NOI is active for the JD-7 mine and delineation drilling was completed at the JD-7 in 2025.

Social and Community impact

The Shootaring Canyon Mill is isolated in the far eastern portion of Garfield County, Utah. There would be essentially no viewshed impacts to the community from the different processing options, and the net socioeconomic impacts would be positive through increased employment and tax revenue with minimal long-term adverse impact on local civil infrastructure, housing, and services. Despite expected local support there is a risk of opposition from various Non-Government Organizations (NGOs).

The Velvet-Wood, Slick Rock, Uravan and Paradox mines are brownfield sites within the Colorado Plateau, which has a long history of uranium and vanadium mining. The surrounding communities have a long history of working with and for the region’s mining and mineral resource industry, and their support for the projects has been strong. Despite expected local support, opposition from various NGOs should be anticipated for the Slick Rock mines.

No potential social or community related requirements, negotiations, and/or agreements are known to the authors with respect to local communities and/or agencies. No outstanding environmental liabilities other than the bonded reclamation obligations on the DOE Leases previously discussed are known to the authors.

According to the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies, 2025, Utah ranks twelfth of sixty-eight ranked jurisdictions with respect to the policy perception index. Within the US, Utah ranks behind Nevada in the policy perception index. Colorado is ranked twenty sixth. The Policy Perception Index provides a comprehensive assessment of the attractiveness of mining policies in a jurisdiction, and can serve as a report card to governments on how attractive their policies are from the point of view of an exploration manager.

Capital and Operating Costs

Project cost estimates are based on conventional random room and pillar underground mine operations. Mined material would be hauled by truck to the Shootaring Canyon Mill. The Shootaring Canyon Mill would be fully refurbished and would process mined material for both uranium and vanadium recovery.

All costs are estimated in constant 2026 US Dollars. Operating (OPEX) and Capital (CAPEX) costs reflect estimated operating costs going forward including all pre-production costs, permitting costs, mine costs, and reclamation and closure costs for of the mine and mineral processing facility. CAPEX does not include sunk costs or acquisition costs.

Anfield has re-opened the Velvet mine and operates a surface aggregate quarry near the Velvet mine in Lisbon Valley. Anfield has current CAPEX and OPEX costs for various equipment, surface facilities and infrastructure,

 

S-67

has refurbished company owned equipment, and has contracted for purchase of additional mining equipment. Where available, actual CAPEX and OPEX costs have been used. Where actual costs are not known the estimate is based on current InfoMine^™ Mining Cost Service data.

Shootaring Canyon Mill CAPEX includes refurbishment of the Shootaring Canyon Mill’s uranium circuit and the addition of a new vanadium circuit. The major items for refurbishment of the existing uranium circuit include removal and replacement of the leach tanks, replacement of the CCD circuit, and repair and upgrading of the electrical system including generators. The vanadium circuit will be a new build. The firm of PSE of Salt Lake City, Utah has been retained as the design engineer supported by Dr. Terry McNulty, an extractive metallurgist with over 60 years’ experience and the author of the 2026 PEA.

The original design capacity of the Shootaring Canyon Mill is 750 TPD or a nominal 250 thousand TPY. Initial refurbishment of the Shootaring Canyon Mill is intended provide a 750 TPD capacity. The current plan is to increase that capacity 30% to 1,000 TPD as the mines reach full capacity in year 3. The expansion has been provided for in the license amendment. Additional capital including the addition of 2 leach and 2 CCD tanks with appurtenances is planned for year 3. These additions can be made without modifying or expanding the leach or CCD areas of the Shootaring Canyon Mill.

The Shootaring Canyon Mill tailings area including the primary dam was constructed in the early 1980’s and has been inspected and maintained since that time. The tailings facility lacks a synthetic liner and leak detection system. The existing tailings pond area allows for multiple tailings cells. The initial tailing cell is approximately 38 acres. An additional tailings cell will be needed as early as year 8. Additional capital including licensing is planned for year 7. The installed cost of the tailings liner system has been estimated based on vendor quotes.

Mine CAPEX will vary by specific mine layout and design requirements. The 2026 PEA includes 8 mines with 3-4 operating at any given time. All the mines use similar underground mining equipment. Most of the mines have existing mine portal entries with declines. At least 3 of the planned mines will require shaft and hoist systems. Mine ventilation requirements are similar for all mines. For the purposes of the 2026 PEA, generic mine CAPEX was estimated for a typical decline mine and a typical shaft mine.

A contingency of 10% has been added to the mine CAPEX and a contingency of 20% added to the Shootaring Canyon Mill CAPEX.

Mine OPEX estimates were based on continual operations of two 10-hour shifts per production day and productivity was based on 330 days per year or 90% utilization. Salary and labor rates for technical and managerial staff and mine workers are based on current rates within Anfield and its subsidiaries. Transportation of mined product to the Shootaring Canyon Mill was based specific cost for company owned and operated trucking with current vendor quotes and in-house wages.

Shootaring Canyon Mill OPEX assumes operation of the Shootaring Canyon Mill 24 hours per day, 7 days per week schedule with allowances for downtime and scheduled maintenance. Salary and mill labor requirements and costs have been estimated for the uranium and vanadium facilities separately and any common elements assigned to the uranium costs. Consumable items and reagents, including the primary lixiviants, sulfuric acid and sodium chlorate, usage rates were derived from current and past metallurgical test work performed by Hazen Research and others. Prices for most chemicals are based on vendor quotes FOB at the Shootaring Canyon Mill.

Estimated CAPEX is summarized on Table 21.1.1 below. CAPEX estimates include:

 

•

Permitting (Outside Services).

 

•

Mine facilities and equipment.

 

•

Mill facilities and equipment.

 

•

Mill tailings liner system and appurtenances.

 

S-68

Estimated OPEX is summarized on Table 21.1.2 below. OPEX estimates include:

 

•

Direct mining costs.

 

•

Haulage and handling costs related to the delivery of mined product to the Shootaring Canyon Mill.

 

•

Direct mineral processing costs.

 

•

Reclamation and bonding costs.

 

•

Royalties and taxes.

Royalties

Royalties on all properties other than the DOE Leases range from nil to a maximum of 8%. However, it was announced on May 27, 2025, that the state of Utah had reduced the royalty for the Tony M in Garfield County from 8% to 3% to promote development. It is reasonable to assume that the same grace may be afforded to Anfield, potentially resulting in all royalties other than the DOE Leases being 4% or less.

The current royalties on DOE Leases are approximately 15% to DOE and 15% to Cotter resulting in 30% or more total burden (refer to Table 6.1.1 of the 2026 PEA). DOE is a Fair Market Value royalty and Cotter is a Gross Value royalty. These leases, which were executed in 2020 as 10-year agreements, are scheduled to expire in 2030. However, there is precedence where “Recognizing that the former lessees had a vested interest in their respective lease tracts, DOE granted the lessees access to the lease tracts to maintain their existing operations”.

The Company expects to renegotiate the royalty terms as part of the DOE Lease renewal process. In support of these negotiations, Anfield intends to reference comparable royalty rates applicable to uranium production on state lands in the region, specifically Wyoming’s 4% royalty rate on state uranium leases and Utah’s 8% royalty rate on state mineral leases which was recently dropped to 3% for one operator. In addition, the Company will seek a further reduction in the royalty rate to account for the incremental transportation distances and associated costs from the Colorado-based DOE Lease properties to regional processing facilities, including the Company’s Shootaring Canyon Mill in Utah. These transportation costs reduce netback values and market competitiveness relative to projects located closer to in-state mills, thereby providing additional justification for adjusted royalty terms that better reflect the project’s economic realities.

The Company also expects to renegotiate royalty terms with Cotter. There are some questions whether upon renewal or reissuance of the leases, the Cotter royalties would remain valid but in good faith Anfield intends to renegotiate the rates on a similar basis as with DOE negotiations.

In the 2026 PEA, the mine production schedule on the DOE Leases is delayed until after 2030 to account for the risks relating to renewal and high royalty rates which make the DOE Leases less attractive on a cost basis than other available options for mine production.

As a result of the foregoing, the Company and the authors recommend, for the purpose of the 2026 PEA, setting the post-2030 royalty on each DOE Lease to 4% to each party for a total of 8%.

There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to secure reduced royalty rates with the DOE or Cotter as contemplated herein or at all. The impact of the risks related to royalties and/or non-renewal of the leases can be assessed as follows:

 

•

Assuming negations only result in a reduction to 8% for both parties and a total of 16%, NPV would be reduced by approximately $30 million USD.

 

•

Assuming royalties were little changed, the NPV would be reduced by approximately $77 million USD.

 

S-69

•

If the leases were not renewed or the properties not mined due to the high royalties, the NPV would be reduced by approximately $209 million USD.

 

•

However, production from the DOE Leases is not currently planned until 2032 allowing sufficient time for Anfield to offset this loss from other captive mines or toll milling arrangements.

Table 21.1.3 below compares the OPEX and CAPEX cost per ton to the gross value of the recovered uranium and vanadium.

Table 21.1.1 CAPEX Summary

 

Capital Expenditures: $ x 1,000		Initial				Ongoing
Permitting and Licensing		$	1,500				2,000
Mine CAPEX (Velvet-Wood and Slick Rock)
Mine Facilities and Equipment			15,000				28,100
Contingency 10%			1,500				2,810
Shootaring Mill CAPEX
Uranium Mill Refurbishment			25,900				4,000
Vanadium Mill			28,800				0
Tailings			12,000				15,000
Contingency 20%			13,340				3,800
Working Capital			One Time			$	6,000
Replacement Mine Equipment LOM			Annual			$	9,000
Replacement Plant Equipment LOM			Annual				10,500
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES		$	98,040			$	81,210

Table 21.1.2 OPEX Per Ton Summary

 

Direct Mine Costs:		Per Ton
Weighted Average Direct Mine Cost Per Ton Product:		$	123.80
Weighted Average Haulage/Handling Costs per Ton:		$	31.76
Weighted Average Direct Processing Costs Per Ton U&V:		$	108.77
Other Direct Costs:
Reclamation Bond & Bonding per ton		$	8.48
Royalties per ton		$	37.25
Severance and Taxes per ton		$	16.80
Weighted Average ALL Direct Operating Costs Per Ton		$	326.76

Table 21.1.3 OPEX and CAPEX Summary

 

Weighted Average ALL Direct OPEX (rounded)			Per Ton Processed			$	327.00
CAPEX Cost Per Ton (rounded)			Per Ton Processed			$	43.00
Total Cost			Per Ton Processed			$	370.00
Gross Value:
Uranium ($100/lb) ~5 Pounds per Ton Vanadium ($9/lb) ~22 Pounds per ton			Per Ton Processed			$	698.00

 

S-70

Economic Analysis

Summary

Readers are cautioned that the 2026 PEA is preliminary in nature and includes a portion of the Inferred Mineral Resources as reported herein and in the 2026 PEA. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability in accordance with CIM Definition Standards, and as such there is no guarantee the project economics described herein will be achieved. Inferred Mineral Resources are too speculative, geologically, to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the outcomes estimated in the 2026 PEA will be realized. Mineral reserves are not estimated herein. Mineral resource estimates may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant risks, uncertainties and other factors, as more particularly described herein.

For the purposes of the 2026 PEA, the Shootaring Canyon Mill would be initially refurbished to its original 750 TPD capacity and ramped up to a capacity of 1,000 TPD by the end of year 3 to its planned license renewal capacity. A separate vanadium recovery circuit would be added following the uranium refurbishment and depending on vanadium market conditions. The 2026 PEA considers initial mine feed from the existing Velvet mine decline, a new shaft at the Wood mine, and two production shafts at Slick Rock Complex. When the mineral resources are mined out at the Wood mine, additional mines will be added from DOE Leases in the Slick Rock, Uravan and Paradox mine complexes. Given the selective nature of the mining and the geometry of mineralization, 3-4 producing mines are needed to meet the mill tonnage capacity. Additional mill feed could be sourced as captive feed from other Anfield mineral resource holdings in the Colorado Plateau or from mineral resource holdings of others under toll milling agreements.

The financial evaluations that follow represent constant 2026 US dollars. All costs are forward-looking and do not include any previous project expenditures or sunk costs. Operating costs include all direct taxes and royalties. IRR and NPV are presented, both pre-tax and post-tax scenarios accounting for State of Utah/Colorado Income Tax and US Federal Income Tax. Estimation of US corporate income tax is complex, as income tax relates to the overall income and expenses of the reporting entity, not a specific project. This analysis reflects the taxes that would be due if the projects were stand-alone and subject to State of Utah, State of Colorado, and U.S. income tax. Due to the favorable regular tax depletion deduction, most mining companies’ effective tax rate is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) rate. The AMT rate is 20%. The Shootaring Canyon Mill is located in Utah which has a 5% corporate state income tax. Note the corporate tax rate in Colorado is slightly less than Utah at 4.4%. Anfield has Loss Carry Forward from the Shootaring Canyon Mill incurred since its acquisition in 2015, which may substantially offset the estimated tax burden, however, this was not applied in the following analysis.

Table 22.1.1 below summarizes the estimated internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) for the base case at a commodity price of $100/pound uranium oxide, a commodity price of $9/pound for vanadium oxide, and a discount rate of 8%.

Table 22.1.1 Base Case Economic Criterion ($ x 1,000)

 

Pre-Income Tax				Post-Income Tax
IRR 106%		NPV @ 8% *$606,000		IRR 97%		NPV @8% *$533,000

 

*	Rounded to million USD

The 2026 PEA base case commodity price for uranium and vanadium is $100/lb and $9/lb, respectively. Reducing these commodity prices by 45% to $55/lb and $5/lb, for uranium and vanadium respectively, results in a near breakeven condition.

The payback period for initial capital investment is less than 3 years.

 

S-71

Sensitivity to Price

Table 22.4.1 below summarizes the NPV (NPV $ x1,000) and IRR before and after income tax over a 10% fluctuation of commodity prices and a range of discount rates.

Table 22.4.1 Sensitivity to Commodity Price and Discount Rate

 

 

Changing the commodity prices for uranium and vanadium equally by 10% varies the NPV @8% approximately +/- $136 million USD Pre-Tax, and approximately +/- $117 million USD Post-Tax. In both the pre-tax and post-tax scenarios IRR varies by approximately +/- 20% with a +/- 10% variation in price.

To further illustrate the sensitivity to commodity price, Figure 22.4.1 shows the variation in pre-tax NPV with uranium price fixed and vanadium price variable and Figure 22.4.2 shows the variation in pre-tax NPV with vanadium price fixed and uranium price variable.

The figures illustrate that the projects are more sensitive to fluctuations in uranium price than it is to fluctuations in vanadium price.

Figure 22.4.1 Sensitivity to Uranium Price

 

 

 

S-72

Figure 22.4.2 Sensitivity to Vanadium Price

 

 

Sensitivity to Other Factors

Table 22.4.2 below summarizes the % pre-tax variations in IRR and NPV based on a 10% variance in the base case relative to process recovery, CAPEX, and OPEX.

The factors to which the project have the greatest sensitivity are metal recovery (either losses in mining of milling) followed by OPEX and CAPEX.

Table 22.4.2 Sensitivity to Other Factors

 

+/- 10 Percent Change		+/- Change in NPV* @8% Discount Pre-Tax $x1,000				+/- Change in IRR Pre-Tax Percent				+/- Change in NPV* @8% Discount Post-Tax $x1,000				+/- Change in IRR Post-Tax Percent
Recovery (U & V)			137,000				22				117,000				19
Grade (U & V)			107,000				18				92,000				18
CAPEX			15,000				12				11,000				11
OPEX			75,000				10				62,000				9

NPV rounded to nearest $1 million USD

 

S-73

Cash Flow Model

The cash flow model for the base case is provided in Table 22.5.1 which follows.

 

Interpretations and Conclusions

The 2026 PEA summarizes the conceptual plans for refurbishing the Shootaring Canyon Mill (hub) and tributary mines (spokes).

Mineral resources included in the 2026 PEA include the Velvet-Wood mine complex, the Slick Rock mine complex, the Uravan and Paradox Mine complexes, and the existing stockpiles of mined material. The total estimated is situ uranium mineral resources are summarized in Table 14.0.1. The associated in situ vanadium mineral resource which will be mined as a co-product are summarized in Table 14.0.2. In addition to these in situ mineral resources, Anfield controls mineralized stockpiles at the Shootaring Canyon Mill and in the Lisbon Valley near the Velvet-Wood Project mines, which are summarized in Table 14.0.3.

Economic Analysis

See “Capital Operating Costs” and “Economic Analysis” above for the authors’ interpretations and conclusions in respect of the 2026 PEA.

Summary of Risks

General Risks

It is the authors’ opinion that the technical risks associated are low for the following reasons:

 

•

Portions of each of the mine complexes included in the 2026 PEA have been successfully mined in the past.

 

•

Uranium has been successfully extracted from mined material via conventional milling.

 

•

The Shootaring Canyon Mill has the Radioactive Materials License which is well into the renewal process for refurbishment and operation.

 

S-74

•

The Velvet-Wood Project has all major permits and has the potential to be the most profitable of the mine complexes included in the 2026 PEA.

The projects do have some risks similar in nature to other mining projects in general and uranium mining projects specially, i.e., risks common to mining projects including:

 

•

Future commodity demand and pricing.

 

•

Environmental and political acceptance of the project.

 

•

Variance in capital and operating costs.

 

•

Mine and mineral processing recovery and dilution.

 

•

Continuity of mineralization with respect to thickness and grade may vary.

 

•

Mining claims are subject to the Mining Law of 1872. Changes in the mining law could affect the mineral tenure.

 

•

There is a risk that underground conditions at any or all of the mines included in the 2026 PEA may limit access to mineral resources.

Permitting and Licensing Risks

There are risks associated with any such permitting actions which could affect project schedule and costs. The Velvet-Wood, Slick Rock, Uravan, and Paradox mines are brownfield sites within the Colorado Plateau which has a long history of uranium and vanadium mining. The Shootaring Canyon Mill is an existing facility with the existing Radioactive Materials License. Environmental studies under the NEPA have been completed for all of the mine sites included in the 2026 PEA. For the Velvet-Wood Project mines, the BLM Plan of Operations and Utah mine permit were approved under an environmental assessment (EA). It is possible that permitting other mines included in the 2026 PEA may require additional environmental studies, additional permits, and/or an environmental impact statement resulting in delays and additional costs.

The surrounding communities have a long history of working with and for the region’s mining and mineral resource industry, and their support for these projects has been strong. Despite expected local support, recent mineral development in the area has received opposition from various NGOs and this should be anticipated in some cases. This is expected to be a specific risk for the Slick Rock mine in San Miguel County, Colorado.

San Miguel County promulgated their own mining regulations earlier this year. The Company expects these regulations to be challenged on a preemptory basis at the state level by the Colorado Mining Association (CMA) and by the US Department of Interior (DOI). Portions of the Slick Rock mineral holdings, leases and claims, are adjacent to a proposed conservation area. In draft legislation, leases and claims within the proposed conservation district were excluded as prior existing rights.

There is a risk that the planned schedule for the Slick Rock mines could be delayed for technical reasons or by delays in permitting. While this risk exists, the impact of a one-year delay in the current plan would reduce the estimated NPV by $36 million USD pre-tax, if the planned production was not offset by other captive mines or toll milling arrangements.

DOE Leases

There is a risk that the DOE Leases may not be renewed in 2030 as previously discussed and/or the royalty burden on the leases reduced, as discussed above in “Capital and Operating Costs” and in Section 21 of the 2026 PEA.

 

S-75

Past precedence with the renewal of DOE Leases as discussed above is to renew the leases with the current lessee if they are meeting their obligations under the lease and in recognition of the fact the lessee has a vested interest and investment in the leases. This was the case for the 2020-2030 10-year renewal.

The Company expects to renegotiate the royalty terms as part of the DOE Lease renewal process. The Company also expects to renegotiate royalty terms with Cotter. In the 2026 PEA, the production schedule on the DOE Leases is delayed until after 2030 to account for the risks relating to renewal and high royalty rates, which make the DOE Leases less attractive on a cost basis than other available options for mine production.

For the purpose of the 2026 PEA, it was assumed that the post-2030 royalty on the DOE Leases could be reduced by 4% to each party for a total of 8%.

There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to secure reduced royalty rates with the DOE or Cotter as contemplated herein or at all. The impact of the risks related to royalties and/or non-renewal of the leases can be assessed as follows.

 

•

Assuming negotiations only result in a reduction to 8% for both parties and a total of 16%, NPV would be reduced by approximately $30 million USD.

 

•

Assuming royalties were little changed, the NPV would be reduced by approximately $77 million USD.

 

•

There is a risk that the DOE Leases may not be renewed in 2030 and/or the royalty burden on the leases may not be reduced as discussed above in “Capital and Operating Costs” and in Section 21 of the 2026 PEA. Under the worst case this could reduce the NPV by $209 million USD pre-tax.

 

•

However, production from the DOE Leases is not currently planned until 2032 allowing sufficient time for Anfield to offset this loss from other captive mines or toll milling arrangements.

Vanadium Price

Should the vanadium price not reach the price used in the 2026 PEA by the decision point for CAPEX investment for the vanadium plant, the effect on the project economics can be moderated by delaying construction and operation of the vanadium circuit. To do this and not lose the vanadium, it would be necessary to construct a lined temporary storage pond for the vanadium feed stream from the uranium plant within the tailings area. A 5-acre pond could be constructed for approximately $1 million USD and would be adequate for 2 or more years of storage of raw vanadium concentrate storage. A sensitivity analysis of delaying the vanadium production and revenue of approximately $75 million USD for 2 years, offset by delaying project costs including $28 million USD CAPEX and $23 million USD in OPEX, showed little change in the NPV for the project provided the vanadium is recovered in the following 4 years.

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

Recommendations

The following recommendations relate to potential improvement and/or advancement of the projects and to further define the in situ mineral resources. The following recommendations are for the Velvet, Wood and Slick Rock mines as they are the earliest mines in the production schedule. The recommendations are independent of one another and may be conducted contemporaneously.

 

S-76

Mines

The Velvet mine area and resources are well delineated in the west and fairly well delineated in the east. The eastern portion of the Velvet mine resource will need to be drilled from the underground workings during any future development to classify resources into the Measured and/or reserve categories ahead of mining extraction operations. The Wood resource area is less well delineated and will require additional surface and/or underground drilling to better define and quantify the resource prior to development. Costs for the recommended program totaling $1,580,000 USD are summarized in Table 26.0.1.

The Slick Rock mineral resource estimate is dominantly classified as Inferred due to the drill hole spacing. The 2024 verification drilling at Slick Rock did increase the total estimated mineral resource and elevate approximately 8% of the mineral resource to an Indicated Mineral Resource classification. Slick Rock will require additional surface drilling to better define and quantify the resource prior to development. Under the current NOI, up to 100 drill holes could be added without reaching the 5-acre disturbance limit which requires a BLM plan of operations. Costs for the recommended program totaling $4,640,000 USD are summarized in Table 26.0.2.

Table 26.0.1 Wood Exploration Drilling Cost Estimate

 

Item		Cost (USD)
15 rotary dill holes for verification and delineation. Total estimated cost per hole with geophysical logging and well site geologist, $32,000.		$	480,000
4 Diamond Core intervals from selected rotary drill holes 100 feet per hole for assay, metallurgical testing, and geotechnical testing. Estimate $100 per foot of core.		$	40,000
3 Groundwater wells for determination of background water quality, water level, and dewatering parameters. Total estimated cost per hole with geophysical logging, well site geologist, casing, pumps and hydrological testing. $170,000 pr well.		$	510,000
Lab analysis of core and water samples.		$	100,000
Resource estimate and mine design update and mine permit amendment.		$	300,000
Metallurgical and geotechnical testing of core samples.		$	100,000
Site access and reclamation		$	50,000
Total		$	1,580,000

 

S-77

Table 26.0.2 Slick Rock Phase 2 Exploration Drilling Cost Estimate

 

Item		Cost (USD)
Amendment of NOI		$	80,000
90 rotary dill holes for verification and delineation. Total estimated cost per hole with geophysical logging and well site geologist, $32,000.		$	2,880,000
10 Diamond Core intervals from selected rotary drill holes 100 feet per hole for assay, metallurgical testing, and geotechnical testing. Estimate $100 per foot of core.		$	100,000
4 Groundwater wells, Area A, for determination of background water quality, water level, and dewatering parameters. Total estimated cost per hole with geophysical logging, well site geologist, casing, pumps and hydrological testing. $170,000 per well.		$	680,000
Lab analysis of core and water samples.		$	250,000
Metallurgical and geotechnical testing of core samples.		$	200,000
Resource estimate and mine design		$	400,000
Site access construction and reclamation.		$	50,000
Total		$	4,640,000

DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES BEING DISTRIBUTED

Common Shares

The Company is authorized to issue an unlimited number of Common Shares. As of July 29, 2026, there were 18,234,976 Common Shares issued and outstanding.

The Offered Shares have all of the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions of other Common Shares of the Company. All rights and restrictions in respect of the Common Shares are set out in the Company’s constating documents and the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “BCBCA”) and its regulations. The Common Shares have no pre-emptive, subscription, redemption or conversion rights. Neither the BCBCA nor the constating documents of the Company impose restrictions on the transfer of Common Shares on the register of the Company, provided that the Company receives the certificate representing the Common Shares to be transferred together with a duly endorsed instrument of transfer and payment of any fees and taxes which may be prescribed by the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”) from time to time. There are no sinking fund provisions in relation to the Common Shares and the Common Shares are not liable to further calls or assessment by the Company. The BCBCA and the Company’s constating documents provide that the rights and restrictions attached to any class of shares may not be modified, amended or varied unless consented to by special resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the votes cast in person or by proxy by holders of shares of that class.

The holders of the Common Shares are entitled to: (i) notice of and to attend any meetings of shareholders and shall have one vote per Common Share at any meeting of shareholders of the Company; (ii) dividends, if as and when declared by the Board; and (iii) upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, on a pro rata basis, the net assets of the Company after payment of debts and other liabilities, in each case subject to the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attaching to any other series or class of shares ranking senior in priority.

The Company has applied to list the Offered Shares, including any Offered Shares issuable upon exercise of the Over-Allotment Option, on the TSXV. Listing is subject to the Company fulfilling all of the requirements of the TSXV.

 

S-78

It is expected that the Offered Shares will be issued and deposited in electronic form with CDS, DTC or as otherwise agreed between the Company and the Underwriters on the Closing Date. No certificate evidencing the Offered Shares will be issued to purchasers and registration will be made in the depository service of CDS, DTC or as otherwise agreed between the Company and the Underwriters. Such purchasers of the Offered Shares will receive only a customer confirmation from the Underwriters or other registered dealer who is a CDS or DTC participant and from or through whom a beneficial interest in the Offered Shares is purchased. See “Plan of Distribution”.

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION

Other than as disclosed under the section entitled “Prior Sales” below, there have not been any material changes in the share and loan capital of the Company, on a consolidated basis, since the date of the Interim Financial Statements. As of July 29, 2026, there were 18,234,976 Common Shares issued and outstanding.

The following table summarizes the Company’s consolidated capitalization as of March 31, 2026, both actual and on an as-adjusted basis to give effect to the Offering (assuming full exercise of the Over-Allotment Option). This table is presented and should be read in conjunction with the Interim Financial Statements and Interim MD&A, which are incorporated by reference in this Prospectus Supplement.

 

As at March 31, 2026
		Actual (expressed in Canadian dollars except share amount)				After Giving Effect to the Offering (1)(2) (expressed in Canadian dollars except share amount)
Loan Capital		C$	12,471,402			C$
Equity
Common Shares		C$	18,184,976 143,617,949			C$
Equity Reserve		C$	1,350,436			C$
Stock Option Reserve		C$	9,360,839			C$
Warrant Reserve		C$	7,605,901			C$
Foreign Exchange Reserve		C$	3,151,078			C$
Deficit		C$	(110,401,031	)		C$
Total Shareholders’ Equity		C$	54,685,172			C$
Total Capitalization		C$	94,533,009			C$

Notes:

 

(1)	Assumes the Over-Allotment Option is exercised in full, excluding the Underwriters’ Fee and related costs of the Offering.

(2)	Based on the daily exchange rate for the conversion of United States dollars into Canadian dollars, expressed in Canadian dollars, as quoted by the Bank of Canada, of US$1.00 = C$1.4083.

 

S-79

USE OF PROCEEDS

The estimated net proceeds received by the Company from the Offering (assuming no exercise of the Over-Allotment Option) will be approximately US$   (determined after deducting the Underwriters’ Fee of US$   (assuming no sales to “President’s List” purchasers) and estimated expenses of the Offering of US$   ). If the Underwriters elect to exercise the Over-Allotment Option in full, the estimated net proceeds received by the Company from the Offering will be US$   (determined after deducting the Underwriters’ Fee of US$   (assuming no sales to “President’s List” purchasers) and estimated expenses of the Offering of $   ). The Company intends to use the net proceeds from the Offering to advance the Company’s uranium and vanadium assets in the United States, namely the Paradox Complex, the Velvet-Wood Project, the Slick Rock Complex and the Shootaring Canyon Mill, and for working capital and general corporate purposes. The Company may, from time to time, issue securities (including equity and debt securities) other than pursuant to this Prospectus Supplement.

Business Objectives and Milestones

The Company expects to accomplish the following business objectives and milestones using the net proceeds of the Offering:

 

Business Objective		Milestone(s) that must occur for Business Objective to be Accomplished		Anticipated Timing to Achieve Business Objective		Estimated Cost
Production at the Velvet-Wood Project		Completion of the construction of the mine at the Velvet-Wood Project.		Q4, 2026		US$
Commencement of the refurbishment of the Shootaring Canyon Mill		Receipt of the Radioactive Materials License approval from the State of Utah.		Q4, 2026		US$
Production at the Paradox Complex		1. Approval of a plan of operations by Federal and State agencies. 2. Rehabilitation and construction of the mines at the Paradox Complex.		Q2, 2027		US$
Preparation for construction at the Slick Rock Complex		1. Approval of a plan of operations by Federal and State agencies. 2. Rehabilitation of the mine at the Slick Rock Complex.		Q1, 2027		US$

While the Company believes that it has the skills and resources necessary to accomplish these business objectives, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to do so within the timelines indicated above, or at all. With the net proceeds from the Offering and current cash on hand, the Company expects to have sufficient funds to complete the operations and business objectives described above. However, if the net proceeds of the Offering are insufficient to achieve the business objectives stated above, the Company expects to finance any shortfall to reach such business objectives and milestones through additional financings, if required. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”. Any shortfall in expected net proceeds from the Offering, including, without limitation, could result in delays in achieving the business objectives and milestones stated herein.

Although the timing of completing the business objectives above is uncertain and there are a number of factors that remain out of the control of the Company, the Company’s present intention is to utilize the proceeds from the Offering in respect of the above business objectives within twelve months from the closing of the Offering.

 

S-80

Net Proceeds of the Offering

As at June 30, 2026 the Company had a working capital deficit of approximately $107,825. The Company is in the exploration and development stage and has had negative cash flows from operating activities and is dependent upon equity and debt financing to maintain its current operations. The Company anticipates that negative operating cash flows will continue as long as it remains in an exploration and development stage. In addition to the use of net proceeds as described herein, to the extent that the Company has negative operating cash flow in future periods, the Company may need to use some of the net proceeds from the Offering to fund such negative operating cash flow. See “Risk Factors”.

The net proceeds from the Offering are expected to be used to advance the Company’s uranium and vanadium assets in the United States, namely the Paradox Complex, the Velvet-Wood Project, the Slick Rock Complex and the Shootaring Canyon Mill, and for working capital and general corporate purposes.

 

Use of Proceeds		Approximate Amount ($) Assuming No Exercise of the Over- Allotment Option				Approximate Amount ($) Assuming Exercise of the Over- Allotment Option
Velvet-Wood Project
Rehabilitation and construction		$				$
Paradox Complex
Approval of plan of operations		$				$
Rehabilitation and construction		$				$
Slick Rock Complex
Approval of plan of operations		$				$
Rehabilitation and construction		$				$
Shootaring Canyon Mill
Approval of Radioactive Materials License		$				$
General Corporate Purposes		$				$
Working Capital		$				$
Total		$				$

The Company generates no operating revenue from the exploration and development activities on its property interests and has negative cash flow from operating activities. To the extent that the Company has negative cash flows in future periods, it may need to deploy a portion of net proceeds from the Offering to fund such negative cash flow.

While the Company currently anticipates that it will use the net proceeds of the Offering as set forth above, the Company may re-allocate the net proceeds of the Offering from time to time, giving consideration to its strategy relative to the market, development and changes in the industry and regulatory landscape, as well as other conditions relevant at the applicable time. Overall, management of the Company will have broad discretion concerning the use of the net proceeds of the Offering, as well as the timing of their expenditure, and pending their use, the Company may invest the net proceeds of the Offering in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value. See “Risk Factors” in this Prospectus Supplement and the Shelf Prospectus.

Until applied, the net proceeds will be held as cash balances in the Company’s bank account or invested in certificates of deposit and other instruments issued by banks or obligations of, or guaranteed by, the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America or any respective province or state thereof. Unallocated funds from the Offering will be added to the working capital of the Company and will be expended at the discretion of management.

 

S-81