Cameco Corporation

2025 Annual Information Form

March 19, 2026

Cameco Corporation

2025 Annual information form

March 19, 2026

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 1

Contents

 

Important information about this document			3
Our business			9
Our values and strategy			14
Operations, projects and investments			29
Uranium – Tier-one operations			30
Uranium – Tier-two operations			80
Uranium – Advanced projects			81
Uranium – Exploration			83
Fuel services			85
Westinghouse Electric Company			88
Other nuclear fuel cycle investments			94
Mineral reserves and resources			95
Our sustainability principles and practices			101
The regulatory environment			104
Risks that can affect our business			114
1 – Strategic risks			115
2 – Financial risks			120
3 – Regulatory and governance risks			126
4 – Operational risks			133
Legal proceedings			141
Investor information			141
Governance			147
Appendix A			152

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 2

Important information about this document

This annual information form (AIF) for the year ended December 31, 2025, provides important information about Cameco Corporation. It describes our history, our markets, our operations and projects, our mineral reserves and resources, our approach to sustainability matters, our regulatory environment, the risks we face in our business and the market for our shares, among other things.

It also incorporates by reference:

 

• our management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2025 (2025 MD&A), which is available on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov) as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 40-F; and   • our audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025 (2025 financial statements), which are also available on SEDAR+ and on EDGAR as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 40-F.		Throughout this document, the terms we, us, our, the company and Cameco mean Cameco Corporation and its subsidiaries.

We have prepared this document to meet the requirements of Canadian securities laws, which are different from what United States (US) securities laws require.

The information contained in this AIF is presented as at December 31, 2025, the last day of our most recently completed financial year, and is based on what we knew as of March 17, 2026, except as otherwise stated.

Reporting currency and financial information

Unless we have specified otherwise, all dollar amounts are in Canadian dollars. Any references to US$ mean US dollars.

The financial information in this AIF has been presented in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Caution about forward-looking information

Our AIF and the documents incorporated by reference include statements and information about our expectations for the future. When we discuss our strategy, plans and future financial and operating performance, or other things that have not yet taken place, we are making statements considered to be forward-looking information or forward-looking statements under Canadian and US securities laws. We refer to them in this AIF as forward-looking information. In particular, the discussions under the headings Market overview and developments, Building a balanced portfolio, and Westinghouse Electric Company in this AIF contain forward-looking information.

Key things to understand about the forward-looking information in this AIF:

 

•

It typically includes words and phrases about the future, such as anticipate, believe, estimate, expect, plan, will, intend, goal, target, forecast, project, strategy and outlook (see examples on page 4).

 

•

It represents our current views and can change significantly.

 

•

It is based on a number of material assumptions, including those we have listed below on pages 7 and 8, which may prove to be incorrect.

 

•

Actual results and events may be significantly different from what we currently expect, due to the risks associated with our business. We list a number of these material risks below. We recommend you also review other parts of this document, including Risks that can affect our business starting on page 114, and our 2025 MD&A, which includes a discussion of other material risks that could cause actual results to differ significantly from our current expectations.

Forward-looking information is designed to help you understand management’s current views of our near- and longer-term prospects, and it may not be appropriate for other purposes. We will not necessarily update this information unless we are required to by Canadian or US securities laws.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 3

Examples of forward-looking information in this AIF

 

• our expectations about 2026 and future global uranium supply, consumption, contracting, demand, geopolitical issues and the market, including the discussion under the headings Market overview and developments and Building a balanced portfolio   • the discussion under the heading Our strategy, including the role of nuclear energy in the world’s shift to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy, our expectation that our strategy will allow us to increase long-term value, our intention to execute our strategy with an emphasis on safety, people and the environment, our ability to address risks and opportunities that we believe may have a significant impact on our ability to add long-term value for our stakeholders, and our expected financial capacity to execute our strategy, invest in new opportunities and self-manage risk   • the discussion of our expectations relating to our 49% interest in Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse), including our investment expanding our participation in the nuclear fuel value chain and providing a platform for further growth and various factors and drivers for Westinghouse’s business segments   • our expectations relating to our Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) transfer pricing dispute, including our confidence that the courts would reject any attempt by CRA to utilize the same or similar positions for other tax years currently in dispute, and our belief that CRA should return the full amount of cash and security that has been paid or otherwise secured by us   • our view that we have the strengths to take advantage of the world’s rising demand for safe, secure, reliable, affordable, and carbon-free energy   • our belief that we have the right strategy to add long-term value, and our ability to do so in a manner that reflects our values   • that we will continue to focus on delivering our products responsibly and addressing the sustainability risks and opportunities that we believe will make our business sustainable and will build long-term value   • our expectations about 2026 and future consumption of conversion services   • our expectations for the future of the nuclear industry and the potential for new enrichment technology, including that nuclear power must be a central part of the solution to the world’s shift to a low-carbon, secure energy economy while helping provide energy security and that our investment in enrichment technology, if successful, will allow us to participate in the entire nuclear fuel value chain   • our expectations relating to care and maintenance costs   • our expectations of executing major supply contracts		• our ability to capitalize on the current backlog of long-term contracting as a proven and reliable supplier with tier-one productive capacity and a record of honouring supply commitments, and to increase value throughout these price cycles   • future plans and expectations for our uranium properties, advanced projects, and fuel services operating sites, including production levels and the suspension of production at certain properties, pace of advancement and expansion capacity, and carbon reduction targets   • estimates of operating and capital costs and mine life for our tier-one uranium operations   • our expectations regarding our licence for Crow Butte   • our ability to successfully negotiate a new collective agreement for the unionized employees at McArthur River   • estimated decommissioning and reclamation costs for uranium properties and fuel services operating sites   • Kazatomprom’s planned production levels for JV Inkai and the timing of deliveries, and our other expectations regarding JV Inkai, including the impact of the new Mineral Extraction Tax (MET) on JV Inkai’s cost structure   • our mineral reserve and resource estimates   • our expectations that the price of uranium, production costs, and recovery rates will allow us to operate or develop a particular site or sites   • estimates of metallurgical recovery and other production parameters for each uranium property   • production estimates at the McArthur River/Key Lake, Cigar Lake and JV Inkai operations, and fuel services   • our discussion of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine   • our views on our ability to align our production with market opportunities and our contract portfolio, and the factors that may affect our cash production costs   • our expectation regarding opportunities to improve operational effectiveness and to reduce our impact on the environment, including through the use of digital and automation technologies   • our expectations about when future reactors will come online   • our efforts to explore emerging opportunities within the nuclear power value chain which contribute to decarbonization, and help provide secure and affordable energy   • our expectations about future demand for small modular reactors (SMR)

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 4

• the discussion under the heading Our Sustainability principles and practices, including our belief that we can be part of the solution to enhance national energy and climate security and our position to deliver significant long-term business value		• our expectation that the US Department of Energy (DOE) will make available a portion of its excess uranium inventory over the next two decades   • our ability to implement and execute our overarching low carbon transition strategy   • our investments allowing us to participate in the entire nuclear fuel value chain; fuel fabrication; reactor maintenance; development of new reactors; and nuclear sustainability services   • our expectations regarding Global Laser Enrichment LLC’s (GLE) path to commercialization

Material risks

 

• actual sales volumes or market prices for any of our products or services are lower than we expect, or cost of sales is higher than we expect, for any reason, including changes in market prices, loss of market share to a competitor, tariffs, trade restrictions or geopolitical issues   • we are adversely affected by changes in currency exchange rates, interest rates, royalty rates, tax rates, tariffs, or inflation   • our production costs are higher than planned, or affected by unexpected factors, or necessary supplies are not available or not available on commercially reasonable terms   • our strategies may change, be unsuccessful or have unanticipated consequences, or we may not be able to achieve anticipated operational flexibility and efficiency   • changing views of governments regarding the pursuit of carbon reduction strategies or that our view on the role of nuclear power in pursuit of those strategies may prove to be inaccurate   • our estimates and forecasts prove to be inaccurate, including production, purchases, deliveries, cash flow, revenue, costs, decommissioning, reclamation expenses, or timing or receipt of future dividends from JV Inkai   • that we may not realize the expected benefits from our investment in Westinghouse or any of our other joint venture investments   • that Westinghouse fails to generate sufficient cash flow to fund its approved annual operating budget or make distributions to the partners   • we are unable to enforce our legal rights under our existing agreements, permits or licences   • we are subject to litigation or arbitration that has an adverse outcome   • that the courts may accept the same, similar or different positions and arguments advanced by CRA to reach decisions that are adverse to us for other tax years currently in dispute   • the possibility of a materially different outcome in disputes with CRA for other tax years		• the risk that we and Westinghouse may not be able to meet sales commitments for any reason   • the risk that Westinghouse may not achieve the expected growth in its business   • the risk to Westinghouse’s business associated with potential production disruptions, including those related to global supply chain disruptions, global economic uncertainty, political volatility, labour relations issues, and operating risks   • the risk that Westinghouse may not be able to implement its business objectives in a manner consistent with its or our sustainability principles and practices and other values   • the risk that Westinghouse’s strategies may change, be unsuccessful, or have unanticipated consequences   • the risk that Westinghouse may be unsuccessful in respect of its new business initiatives, including its participation in the construction of two nuclear reactors at the Dukovany power plant in the Czech Republic, and the realization of the expected benefits of the strategic partnership with the US Government intended to accelerate the deployment of Westinghouse nuclear reactors in the US and globally   • the risk that Westinghouse may fail to comply with nuclear licence and quality assurance requirements at its facilities   • the risk that Westinghouse may lose protections against liability for nuclear damage, including discontinuation of global nuclear liability regimes and indemnities   • the risk that increased trade barriers may adversely impact our business, or the business of any of the joint ventures in which we have invested   • the risk that Westinghouse may default under its credit facilities, impacting adversely Westinghouse’s ability to fund its ongoing operations and to make distributions   • the risk that liabilities at Westinghouse may exceed our estimates and the discovery of unknown or undisclosed liabilities

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 5

• that CRA does not agree that the court rulings for the years that have been resolved in Cameco’s favour should apply to subsequent tax years   • that CRA will not return all or substantially all of the cash and security that has been paid or otherwise secured in a timely manner, or at all   • there are defects in, or challenges to, title to our properties   • our mineral reserve and resource estimates are not reliable, or there are unexpected or challenging geological, hydrological or mining conditions   • we are affected by environmental factors (such as climate change), safety and regulatory risks, including workforce health and safety or increased regulatory burdens or delays   • necessary permits or approvals from government authorities cannot be obtained or maintained   • we are affected by political risks, including developments in US foreign policy, global conflicts, sanctions, or any potential future unrest in Kazakhstan   • we may be affected by crime, corruption, the making of improper payments or the provision of benefits that may violate Canadian or US laws relating to foreign corrupt practices or sanctions   • we are affected by war, terrorism, cyber-attacks, sabotage, blockades, civil unrest, social or political activism, outbreak of illness (such as a pandemic), accident or a deterioration in political support for, or demand for, nuclear energy   • operations are disrupted due to problems with our own or our joint venture partners’, suppliers’ or customers’ facilities, the unavailability or delayed delivery of reagents, equipment, operating parts and supplies critical to production, equipment failure, lack of tailings capacity, labour shortages, labour relations issues, strikes or lockouts, fires, underground floods, cave-ins, ground movements, tailings dam failures, transportation disruptions or accidents, aging infrastructure, or other development and operating risks   • the inability of Westinghouse and the US Government to enter into definitive agreements relating to the strategic partnership between Cameco, Brookfield and the US Government or to effect their future obligations related to the transactions contemplated by the strategic partnership   • the unavailability of US Government funding and support for the transactions contemplated by the strategic partnership, including the ability of the executive branch of the US Government to obtain funding and support via the appropriations process or from other sources		• the risk that occupational health and safety issues may arise at Westinghouse’s operations   • the risk that there may be disputes between us and Brookfield Renewable Partners and its institutional partners (collectively, with Brookfield Asset Management, “Brookfield”) regarding our strategic partnership, or disputes between us and any of our other joint venture partners   • the risk that we may default under the governance agreement with Brookfield, including us losing some or all of our interest in Westinghouse   • disruption or delay in the transportation of our products   • a major accident at a nuclear power plant   • we are impacted by changes in the regulation or public perception of the safety of nuclear power plants, which adversely affect the construction of new plants, the relicensing of existing plants and the demand for uranium   • government laws, regulations, policies or decisions that adversely affect us, including tax and trade laws, tariffs and sanctions, including changes in mining laws or regulations   • our uranium suppliers or purchasers fail to fulfil their commitments   • our McArthur River development, mining or production plans, including the planned transition into two new mine areas within zone 1 and the zone 4 clay area, are delayed or do not succeed for any reason, including unforeseen challenges during the development of these areas   • our Cigar Lake development, mining or production plans are delayed or do not succeed for any reason   • the risk that the planned infrastructure installations and repairs at the Key Lake mill during the extended 2026 maintenance shutdown may not proceed as scheduled, or may encounter unforeseen delays, reducing operational capacity and expected production levels   • JV Inkai’s development, mining or production plans are delayed or do not succeed for any reason or JV Inkai is unable to transport and deliver its production, or its production cost structure is impacted by the new MET more adversely than we expect   • our production plan for our fuel services division is delayed or does not succeed for any reason   • our expectations relating to care and maintenance costs prove to be inaccurate   • we are affected by natural phenomena, such as forest fires, floods or earthquakes as well as shifts in temperature, precipitation, and the impact of more frequent severe weather conditions on our operations as a result of climate change

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 6

• following the execution of definitive transaction documents by Westinghouse and the US Government, the determination by the legislative, judicial or executive branches of the US federal or any US state government that any future funding commitments or other aspect of the transactions contemplated by the strategic partnership was or is not in compliance with law		• the risks that generally apply to all our operations and advanced uranium projects that are discussed under the heading Risks that can affect our business in this AIF and under the heading Managing the risks in our 2025 MD&A   • our dependence, in part, on government contracts, which may only be partially funded, subject to termination, heavily regulated and audited.

Material assumptions

 

• our expectations regarding sales and purchase volumes and prices for uranium and fuel services, cost of sales, trade restrictions, inflation, and that counterparties to our sales and purchase agreements will honour their commitments   • our expectations for the nuclear industry, including its growth profile, market conditions, geopolitical issues, and the demand for and supply of uranium   • the continuing pursuit of carbon reduction and energy security strategies by governments and the role of nuclear in the pursuit of those strategies   • the success of our plans and strategies relating to our investment in Westinghouse and our other joint venture investments   • our cost expectations, including production costs and the factors affecting them, operating costs, and capital costs   • our expectations regarding tax payments, tax rates, tariffs, royalty rates, currency exchange rates, interest rates and inflation   • that courts will reach consistent decisions for other tax years that are based upon similar positions and arguments, in our dispute with CRA   • that CRA will not successfully advance different positions and arguments that may lead to different outcomes for other tax years   • our expectation that we will recover all or substantially all of the amounts paid or secured in respect of the CRA dispute to date   • our expectations regarding spot prices and realized prices for uranium   • our decommissioning and reclamation estimates, including the assumptions upon which they are based, are reliable   • our mineral reserve and resource estimates, and the assumptions upon which they are based, are reliable   • our understanding of the geological, hydrological and other conditions at our uranium properties   • Westinghouse’s ability to generate cash flow and fund its approved annual operating budget and make distributions to the partners		• that the construction of new nuclear power plants and the relicensing of existing nuclear power plants will not be adversely affected by changes in regulation or in the public perception of the safety of nuclear power plants   • our ability to continue to supply our products and services in the expected quantities and at the expected times   • our expected production levels for Cigar Lake, McArthur River/Key Lake, JV Inkai and our fuel services operating sites   • plans to transport our products succeed, including the shipment of our share of JV Inkai production to our Blind River refinery   • our ability to mitigate adverse consequences of production shortfalls or delays in the shipment of our share of JV Inkai production to our Blind River refinery   • our ability to compete for additional business opportunities so as to generate additional revenue for us as a result of our investment in Westinghouse   • market conditions and other factors upon which we based our investment in Westinghouse and our related forecasts will be as expected   • Westinghouse’s production, purchases, sales, deliveries, and costs   • Westinghouse’s ability to mitigate adverse consequences of delays in production and construction   • the success of Westinghouse’s plans and strategies including its participation in the construction of two nuclear reactors at the Dukovany power plant in the Czech Republic, and the strategic partnership with the US Government intended to accelerate the deployment of Westinghouse nuclear reactors in the US and globally   • the absence of new and adverse laws, government regulations, policies or decisions in any country where such developments would affect us, including with respect to changes in mining laws or regulations   • that there will not be any significant adverse consequences to Westinghouse’s business resulting from business disruptions, including those relating to supply disruptions, economic or political uncertainty and volatility, labour relation issues, and operating risks   • Westinghouse will comply with the covenants in its credit agreement

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 7

• our Key Lake mill production plans succeed, and that the planned infrastructure installations and repairs at Key Lake during the extended 2026 maintenance shutdown proceed and are completed as scheduled   • the McClean Lake mill is able to process Cigar Lake ore as expected   • our Cigar Lake and McArthur River development, mining and production plans succeed, and the planned transition into two new mine areas within zone 1 and the zone 4 clay area at McArthur River does not encounter unforeseen challenges during the development of these areas   • JV Inkai’s development, mining and production plans succeed, and that JV Inkai will be able to deliver its production, and that its production cost structure is not more adversely impacted by the new MET than we expect   • the ability of JV Inkai to pay dividends, or the timing of their payments   • that care and maintenance costs will be as expected   • our and our contractors’ ability to comply with current and future environmental, safety and other regulatory requirements, and to obtain and maintain required regulatory approvals   • that we will be successful in our efforts to renew our operating licence for Crow Butte   • our operations and those of our joint venture investments are not significantly disrupted as a result of political instability, sanctions, nationalization, developments in US foreign policy, terrorism, sabotage, blockades, civil unrest, breakdown, natural disasters, environmental factors (including climate change), outbreak of illness (such as a pandemic), governmental or political actions, litigation or arbitration proceedings, the unavailability of reagents, equipment, operating parts and supplies critical to production, labour shortages, labour relations issues, strikes or lockouts, underground floods, cave-ins, ground movements, tailings dam failure, lack of tailings capacity, transportation disruptions or accidents, aging infrastructure or other development or operating risks   • that no major accident at a nuclear power plant will occur		• Westinghouse will comply with nuclear licence and quality assurance requirements at its facilities   • Westinghouse maintaining protections against liability for nuclear damage, including continuation of global nuclear liability regimes and indemnities   • the ability of Westinghouse and the US Government to enter into definitive agreements relating to the strategic partnership between Cameco, Brookfield and the US Government and their ability to meet their obligations under them   • the availability of US Government funding and support for the transactions contemplated by the strategic partnership, including the ability of the executive branch of the US Government to obtain funding and support via the appropriations process or from other sources   • the assumption that following the execution of definitive transaction documents by Westinghouse and the US Government, none of the legislative, judicial or executive branches of the US federal or any US state government will determine that any future funding commitments or other aspect of the transactions contemplated by the strategic partnership was or is not in compliance with law

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 8

Our business

 

Our operations span the nuclear fuel cycle from exploration to fuel services, which include uranium production, refining, uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion services and CANDU fuel manufacturing for heavy water reactors. We have further enhanced our ability to meet our customers’ growing demand for reliable and secure nuclear fuel supplies, services and technologies with our investments in Westinghouse, augmenting the core of our business and providing fuel fabrication, design and engineering for light water reactors, and our investment in GLE’s third-generation enrichment technology that, if successful, we expect will allow us to participate in the entire nuclear fuel value chain.		Cameco Corporation 2121 – 11th Street West Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7M 1J3 Telephone: 306.956.6200   This is our head office, registered office and principal place of business.   We are publicly listed on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges, and had a total of 3,082 employees at December 31, 2025.

With extraordinary assets and investments spanning the fuel cycle, a proven operating track record, long-term contract portfolio, strong commitment to sustainability, employee expertise, comprehensive industry knowledge, and a strong balance sheet, the company is pursuing a strategy that it expects will create a platform for strategic growth. We are confident in our ability to increase long-term value by positioning the company as an industry leader at a time when the world’s prioritization of energy security, national security and increasing electrification is driving growth in demand, and when geopolitics are creating concerns about the origin and security of supplies across the fuel cycle.

Business segments

URANIUM

 

Our uranium production capacity is among the world’s largest. In 2025, our tier-one production accounted for 15% of world production. We have controlling ownership of the world’s largest high-grade mineral reserves.   Product   • uranium concentrates (U3O8)   Mineral reserves and resources   Mineral reserves   • approximately 433 million pounds proven and probable   Mineral resources   • approximately 404 million pounds measured and indicated   • approximately 152 million pounds inferred		Tier-one operations   • McArthur River and Key Lake, Saskatchewan   • Cigar Lake, Saskatchewan   • Inkai, Kazakhstan   Tier-two operations   • Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan   • Smith Ranch-Highland, Wyoming   • Crow Butte, Nebraska   Advanced projects   • Millennium, Saskatchewan   • Yeelirrie, Australia   • Kintyre, Australia   Exploration   • focused on North America   • approximately 0.75 million hectares of land

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 9

FUEL SERVICES
We are an integrated uranium fuel supplier, offering refining, conversion, and fuel manufacturing services.   Products   • uranium trioxide (UO3)   • UF6 for light-water reactors (we have about 18% of world primary conversion capacity)   • UO2 for CANDU heavy-water reactors   • fuel bundles, reactor components and monitoring equipment used by CANDU heavy-water reactors		Operations   • Blind River refinery, Ontario (refines uranium concentrates to UO3)   • Port Hope conversion facility, Ontario (converts UO3 to UF6 or UO2)   • Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc. (CFM), Ontario (manufactures fuel bundles and reactor components for CANDU heavy-water reactors)

 

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY
We own a 49% interest in Westinghouse in a strategic partnership with Brookfield.   Products   • Core business – designs and manufactures nuclear fuel supplies and intermediate products and provides fuel cycle services for light water reactors   • New build – designs, develops and procures equipment for new AP1000 nuclear reactors. This business line also includes the design of new small modular reactors.		Operations   • Columbia, South Carolina (fuel fabrication)   • Springfields, United Kingdom (fuel fabrication)   • Västerås, Sweden (fuel fabrication)

For information about the financial performance of our segments for the years ended December 31, 2025, and 2024, see our 2025 MD&A as follows:

 

•

uranium – page 57

 

•

fuel services – page 59

 

•

Westinghouse – page 59

OTHER NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE INVESTMENTS

Enrichment

We have a 49% interest in GLE which is testing third-generation enrichment technology that, if successful, will use lasers to commercially enrich uranium. GLE is the exclusive licensee of the proprietary SILEX laser enrichment technology, that is in the development phase.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 10

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 11

Major developments

 

2023		2024		2025
March   • We sign a major supply contract to provide sufficient volumes of natural uranium hexafluoride, or UF6 (consisting of uranium and conversion services), to meet Ukraine’s full nuclear fuel needs through 2035.   • CRA issues revised assessments for the 2007 through 2013 tax years, which result in a refund of $297 million, consisting of $86 million in cash and $211 million in letters of credit, which are returned in the second quarter. CRA continued to hold $483 million that we had remitted or secured based on prior reassessments CRA had issued in our longstanding tax dispute.   November   • We announce that the acquisition of Westinghouse in a strategic partnership with Brookfield closed on November 7, 2023.		May   • We issue $500 million of debentures, bearing interest at 4.94%, maturing in 2031.   June   • We redeem $500 million of debentures, bearing interest at 4.19%, maturing in June 2024.   December   • 2024 packaged production of 20.3 million pounds (100% basis) of U3O8 sets both a new annual production record for the Key Lake mill, as well as a new world record for annual production from any uranium mill.		October   • We, alongside Brookfield, enter into a strategic partnership with the US Government which is expected to accelerate the global deployment of Westinghouse nuclear reactors in the US. This collaboration provides for the US Government to arrange financing and facilitate the permitting and approvals for new Westinghouse nuclear reactors to be built in the US, with an aggregate investment value of at least US$80 billion.

How Cameco was formed

Cameco was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act on June 19, 1987.

We were formed when two Crown corporations were privatized and their assets merged:

 

•

Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation (SMDC) (uranium mining and milling operations); and

 

•

Eldorado Nuclear Limited (uranium mining, refining and conversion operations) (now Canada Eldor Inc.).

There are constraints and restrictions on ownership of shares in the capital of Cameco (common shares) set out in our company articles, and a related requirement to maintain offices in Saskatchewan. These are requirements of the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act (Canada), as amended, and The Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation Reorganization Act, as amended, and are described on page 144.

We have made the following amendments to our articles:

 

2002		• increased the maximum share ownership for individual non-residents to 15% from 5%   • increased the limit on voting rights of non-residents to 25% from 20%
2003		• allowed the board to appoint new directors between shareholder meetings as permitted by the Canada Business Corporations Act, subject to certain limitations   • eliminated the requirement for the chair of the board to be ordinarily resident in the province of Saskatchewan

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 12

We have two main subsidiaries:   • Cameco Europe Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland, which we have 100% ownership of through subsidiaries.   • Cameco U.S. Holdings, Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada, in which we have 100% direct ownership.   At January 1, 2026, we do not have any other subsidiaries that are material, either individually or collectively.		For more information   You can find more information about Cameco on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca), EDGAR (www.sec.gov) and on our website (www.cameco.com).   See our most recent management proxy circular for additional information, including how our directors and officers are compensated and any loans to them, principal holders of our securities, and securities authorized for issue under our equity compensation plans. We expect the circular for our May 7, 2026, annual meeting of shareholders to be available on April 2, 2026.   See our 2025 financial statements and 2025 MD&A for additional financial information.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 13

Our values and strategy

We believe we have the right strategy to add long-term value and we will do so in a manner that reflects our values. For over 35 years, we have been delivering our products responsibly. Building on that strong foundation, we remain committed to our efforts to operate in a responsible and sustainable manner, identifying and addressing the risks and opportunities that we believe may have a significant impact on our ability to add long-term value for our stakeholders.

Committed to our values

Our values are discussed below. They define who we are as a company, are at the core of everything we do and help to embed sustainability principles and practices as we execute on our strategy. They are:

 

•

safety and environment;

 

•

people;

 

•

integrity; and

 

•

excellence.

Safety and Environment

The safety of people and protection of the environment are the foundations of our work. All of us share the responsibility of continually improving the safety of our workplace and the quality of our environment.

We are committed to keeping people safe and conducting our business with respect and care for both the local and global environment.

People

We value the contribution of every employee and we treat people fairly by demonstrating our respect for individual dignity, creativity and cultural diversity. By being open and honest, we achieve the strong relationships that we seek.

We are committed to developing and supporting a flexible, skilled, stable and diverse workforce, in an environment that:

 

•

attracts and retains talented people and inspires them to be fully productive and engaged; and

 

•

encourages relationships that build the trust, credibility and support we need to grow our business.

Integrity

Through personal and professional integrity, we lead by example, earn trust, honour our commitments and conduct our business ethically.

We are committed to acting with integrity in every area of our business, wherever we operate.

Excellence

We pursue excellence in all that we do. Through leadership, collaboration and innovation, we strive to achieve our full potential and inspire others to reach theirs.

Our strategy

We are a pure-play investment in the growing demand for nuclear energy, focused on taking advantage of the near-, medium-, and long-term growth occurring in our industry. We provide nuclear fuel and nuclear power products, services, and technologies across the fuel cycle, complemented by our investment in Westinghouse, that support the generation of secure, carbon-free, reliable, and affordable energy. Our strategy is set within the context of what we believe is a transitioning market environment. Increasing populations, a growing focus on electrification and decarbonization, and concerns about energy security and affordability are driving a global focus on tripling nuclear power capacity by 2050, which is expected to durably strengthen the long-term fundamentals for our industry. Nuclear energy must be a central part of the solution to the world’s shift to a low-carbon, secure energy economy. It is an option that can provide the power needed, not only reliably, but also safely and affordably, and in a way that will help achieve climate, energy and national security objectives.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 14

Our strategy is to capture full-cycle value by:

 

•

remaining disciplined in our contracting activity, building a balanced portfolio in accordance with our contracting framework;

 

•

profitably producing from our tier-one assets and aligning our production decisions in all segments of the fuel cycle with contracted demand and customer needs;

 

•

being financially disciplined to allow us to execute our strategy, invest in new opportunities that are expected to add long-term value, and self-manage risk; and

 

•

exploring other emerging opportunities within the nuclear power value chain, which align with our commitment to manage our business responsibly and sustainably, contribute to decarbonization, and help to provide secure and affordable energy.

We continually evaluate investment opportunities within the nuclear fuel value chain that align well with our commitment to not only add long-term value by managing our business responsibly and sustainably, but also allow us to contribute to energy and national security solutions. Expanding our participation in the fuel cycle is expected to complement our tier-one uranium and fuel services assets, creating new revenue opportunities, and it enhances our ability to meet the increasing needs of existing and new customers for secure, reliable nuclear fuel supplies, services and technologies.

We will make an investment decision when an opportunity is available both at the right time and the right price. We strive to pursue corporate development initiatives that will leave us and our stakeholders in a fundamentally stronger position. As such, an investment opportunity is never assessed in isolation. Investments must compete for investment capital with our own internal growth opportunities. They are subject to our capital allocation process described in our 2025 MD&A under Capital Allocation – Disciplined Financial Management, starting on page 29.

We expect our strategy will allow us to increase long-term value, and we will execute it with an emphasis on safety, people and the environment.

For more information on our strategy, see our 2025 MD&A under Our values and strategy, starting on page 22.

Market overview and developments

A market in transition

In 2025, geopolitical uncertainty and heightened concerns about energy security, national security, and climate security continued to improve the demand and supply fundamentals for the nuclear power industry and the fuel cycle that is required to support it. Increasingly, countries and companies around the globe are recognizing the critical role nuclear power is expected to play in providing carbon-free and secure baseload power, which was reaffirmed at the 30^th Conference of Parties (COP30), with the declaration to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 now signed by 33 countries. This continued and growing support has led to a rise in demand as closed reactors are returning to service, reactors are being saved from retirement, life extensions are being sought and approved for existing reactor fleets, and numerous commitments and plans are advancing for the construction of new nuclear generating capacity. In addition, the market for SMRs, including smaller versions of existing technology and advanced technology designs, continues to mature, with companies in energy intensive sectors looking to nuclear to help achieve their decarbonization plans. The potential expansion of the markets and use cases for nuclear energy could add significant demand for additional capacity in the decades to come, with a growing number of agreements being signed and several projects already underway.

While demand for uranium and nuclear fuel continues to increase, future supply is not keeping pace. Heightened supply risk caused by growing geopolitical uncertainty, shrinking secondary supplies and a lack of investment in new capacity over the past decade has motivated utilities to evaluate their near-, mid- and long-term nuclear fuel supply chains. The uncertainty about where nuclear fuel supplies will come from to satisfy growing demand has led to significant long-term contracting activity in recent years. In 2025, about 116 million pounds of uranium was placed under long-term contracts by utilities, with increased activity late in the year. The annual volume remained below replacement rate, potentially increasing the cumulative level of uncovered requirements in the future, when primary supply is expected to be limited, and secondary supply stocks have been drawn down. Uranium spot prices experienced volatility in 2025 and averaged US$73.54 per pound, while the long-term uranium price strengthened throughout 2025, peaking in December at a 14-year high of US$86.50 per pound. The conversion market saw historic highs in term pricing, with a 27% average yearly price increase, while the average spot price increased 4% over that timeframe, and in enrichment, spot and term prices rose over 10% and 6% respectively compared to 2024. We expect continued competition to secure uranium, conversion services and enrichment services under long-term contracts with proven sustainable producers and suppliers who have a diversified portfolio of assets in geopolitically attractive jurisdictions, and on terms that help ensure a reliable supply is available to satisfy demand.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 15

Durable demand growth

The geopolitical uncertainty and a realignment of global energy markets have deepened concerns about climate, energy and national security, highlighting the role of energy policy in balancing three main objectives: providing a reliable and secure baseload profile; providing an affordable, levelized cost profile; and providing a clean emissions profile. The global call to triple nuclear energy capacity is also drawing attention to a broader triple-security challenge: enhancing climate security by accelerating the shift away from carbon-emitting thermal energy; strengthening energy security by expanding access to clean, reliable, and scalable baseload electricity for the roughly one-third of the world’s population still experiencing energy poverty; and supporting national security by diversifying energy systems with dependable, domestically sourced, and geopolitically resilient power generation. There is increasing recognition that nuclear power contributes meaningfully across all three dimensions and has a key role to play in supporting long-term climate, energy, and national security objectives. The growth in demand is not just long-term and in the form of new builds, but medium-term in the form of reactor restarts and life extensions, and near-term with early reactor retirement plans being deferred or cancelled and new markets continuing to emerge. Long-term momentum remains very supportive with the installed base of nuclear capacity and an increasing focus on large-scale new build and the development of SMRs.

Demand and energy policy highlights (2025 unless otherwise noted)

 

•

The World Bank lifted its long-standing ban on nuclear financing in June, marking a major policy shift and opening the door for collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and focusing on financing life extensions and potential new builds in developing countries.

 

•

In November, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2025 highlighted unprecedented global energy security risks amid surging electricity demand from digitalization, industrial growth, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers. After decades of relatively limited growth, the IEA now expects global electricity demand to grow by at least one third by 2035.

 

•

In Japan, Tokyo Electric Power Co. received approval in November from the local prefectural governor to restart units 6 and 7 at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant. The company subsequently restarted unit 6 in February 2026, marking the utility’s first return to nuclear generation since 2011. In January 2026, Japan’s nuclear watchdog halted a 12-year safety review for the Hamaoka nuclear power plant, citing a loss of trust after Chubu Electric Power Co. was suspected of falsifying earthquake resistance data.

 

•

In China, the China Nuclear Energy Authority reported in June that the country is on track to double its current nuclear capacity (operating and under construction) and reach 200 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2040. Additionally, in October, China’s ACP100 SMR completed cold testing, becoming the first land-based SMR to pass IAEA safety review. Non-nuclear turbine testing was completed in December, with commercial operations expected by mid-2026.

 

•

South Korea’s updated 11th Basic Plan, which was released in May 2024 and approved in February, reaffirmed construction of 2.8 GWe from two new large-scale reactors and an additional 700 MWe of SMR capacity, all targeted for completion by 2038.

 

•

In December, India passed legislation that would open the country’s nuclear power sector to private investment, ending a state monopoly and substantially revising nuclear liability provisions that had constrained new build activity. The bill is intended to support a major expansion of India’s nuclear fleet, with the government targeting approximately 100 GWe of installed nuclear capacity by 2047 as part of its broader energy security and decarbonization strategy.

 

•

In France, the French Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Authority announced that Electricité de France (EDF) would be allowed to operate twenty 1.3 GWe reactors beyond their 40-year design life, on the condition of making certain safety upgrades. Additionally, in October, EDF reaffirmed the company aims to finalize detailed construction plans for eight new EPR2 reactors in France by the end of 2026, with the first new unit at Penly 3 scheduled for commissioning in 2038.

 

•

In January 2026, the Swiss government’s Senate committee voted in favor of ending a ban on new nuclear plant licences, advancing the proposal to the full Senate by mid-2026 and pending parliamentary approval.

 

•

In June, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) signed an engineering, procurement and construction contract to build two APR1000 reactors at the Dukovany site in the Czech Republic, marking a diversification from the country’s six operating Russian VVER reactors. This is KHNP’s first nuclear project in Europe and first major overseas project since the Barakah project in the United Arab Emirates.

 

•

In the United Kingdom (UK), the construction of Sizewell C’s two EPR reactors, totaling 3.2 GWe of capacity, received a final investment decision for the GBP38 billion project in which the UK government will be the largest shareholder.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 16

•

Poland’s former President Andrzej Duda signed legislation providing US$15.6 billion in financing for three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the Lubiatowo Kopalino site. With construction slated for 2028, the first unit is expected to be operational in 2036, followed by the remaining two units in 2039.

 

•

In September, Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation Director General Alexei Likhachev announced at the IAEA General Conference that Russia intends to construct 38 additional nuclear power units across large, medium and small reactor designs, roughly doubling nuclear capacity in Russia.

 

•

In the US, the DOE announced in March the US$900 million solicitation in support of SMR deployment that was made under the Biden administration will be re-issued. In December, the DOE selected Tennessee Valley Authority and Holtec International (Holtec) to advance early deployment of Generation III+ light-water SMRs in the US. This included up to US$400 million federal cost-shared funding for each project to progress near-term projects in Tennessee and Michigan, support supply chain development, and help position SMRs for broader deployment.

 

•

In May, the US President signed four executive orders to reshape the federal government’s role in nuclear energy by coordinating agency efforts, accelerating advanced reactor deployment, and strengthening US global leadership. The orders aim to quadruple US nuclear capacity to 400 GWe by 2050 through Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reform, deploying advanced nuclear reactor technologies, reinvigorating the nuclear industrial base, and restructuring nuclear research and development at the DOE. Additionally, in June, the US Budget Bill proposed revisions to the Inflation Reduction Act but preserved key nuclear tax credits that support existing and restarted reactors while reducing incentives for solar, wind, and hydrogen.

 

•

Constellation Energy (Constellation) signed a milestone 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Meta in June to supply 1.1 GWe starting in mid-2027. As a result, Constellation’s Clinton Clean Energy Center, which had been slated to potentially close after 2027 due to the loss of the zero-emissions credit program, is expected to operate through 2047. Additionally, Constellation’s restart of Unit 1 at the Crane Clean Energy Centre under a 20-year PPA with Microsoft is progressing towards restart as early as 2027.

 

•

Holtec reported in August that its Palisades nuclear plant formally shifted from decommissioning to operational status, making it the first US commercial reactor to do so.

 

•

In June, Talen Energy (Talen) and Amazon announced a major expansion to their existing agreement to have Talen supply up to 1.9 GWe of nuclear power through at least 2042. Alongside this agreement, Talen and Amazon plan to explore future SMRs in Pennsylvania.

 

•

In October, Cameco and Brookfield announced a strategic partnership with the US Government to accelerate deployment of Westinghouse nuclear reactors. The agreement is contingent on a final investment decision and definitive agreements for new reactor construction totaling at least US$80 billion, after which, the US Government will receive a participation interest that, once vested, entitles it to 20% of any cash distributions above US$17.5 billion from Westinghouse.

 

•

In October, NextEra Energy announced two key agreements with Google to boost US nuclear capacity, including restarting Iowa’s Duane Arnold plant, the third US reactor to resume operations after being shut down. The 615 MWe BWR is expected to support Google’s expanding cloud and AI operations in the state.

 

•

The Illinois General Assembly passed the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act (Senate Bill 25) in October, lifting the state’s multi-decade moratorium on new nuclear construction.

 

•

In December, South Carolina utility Santee Cooper’s Board of Directors approved a memorandum of understanding with Brookfield to proceed with a formal feasibility study on completing construction of VC Summer units 2 and 3, two partially built Westinghouse AP1000 units. The study seeks to recover value from a previously abandoned US$9 billion investment, potentially delivering 2.2 GWe of capacity-related financial relief to Santee Cooper customers through future power offtake agreements.

 

•

In January 2026, Meta announced agreements with Vistra Corp., TerraPower LLC, and Oklo Inc. to support up to 6.6 GWe of new and existing nuclear energy capacity by 2035 in support of Meta’s data centers, including the Prometheus supercluster in Ohio.

 

•

In January 2026, New York State Governor Hochul announced the state plans to pursue an additional four GWe of nuclear generating capacity, adding to the previous one GWe goal.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 17

•

The Ontario government approved four GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 SMRs at Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Darlington site in May at an estimated cost of $20.9 billion, marking Canada’s first nuclear expansion in over 30 years. The first unit is scheduled for completion by the end of 2030, positioning it as North America’s first commercial SMR. Additionally, in October, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney designated the Darlington New Nuclear Project as a federal priority, while he and Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced a $3 billion federal-provincial investment in the project. In November, OPG also received provincial approval to refurbish the four CANDU pressurized heavy water reactors at the Pickering B plant, enabling the facility to operate for up to 38 additional years. Finally, in February 2026, OPG completed the refurbishment of Darlington Unit 4, the fourth and final reactor at the Darlington site, months ahead of schedule and approximately $150 million under budget.

According to the IAEA, there are currently 436 operable nuclear reactors and 66 reactors under construction, globally. Several nations are appreciating the energy security and carbon-free energy benefits of nuclear power and have reaffirmed their commitment with plans underway to support existing reactor units and review of policies to encourage more nuclear generation. Non-nuclear countries continue to emerge as candidates for new nuclear capacity. In some countries where nuclear phase-out policies have been in place, policy reversals and decisions to continue reactor operations and/or consider adding more nuclear capacity are under consideration. With a number of reactor construction projects recently approved and many more planned, demand for uranium continues to improve. There is growing recognition of the role nuclear must play in providing safe, affordable, carbon-free baseload electricity to achieve a low-carbon economy, with geopolitical uncertainty causing numerous utilities to move away from Russian energy supplies and seek reliable nuclear fuel suppliers whose values are aligned with their own, or whose origin of supply better protects them from potential interruptions.

 

 

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 18

Supply uncertainty

Geopolitical uncertainty, energy security, and national security remained the most notable factors impacting security of supply in 2025. Driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the mine suspension in Niger in 2024, and supply chain challenges, particularly in Kazakhstan, many governments and utilities are re-examining procurement strategies that rely on nuclear fuel supplies from higher risk jurisdictions. In addition, sanctions on Russia and import/export restrictions added to the delivery risks for nuclear fuel supplies coming out of Central Asia. Several idled uranium mines restarted operations in 2025 in support of increased demand, though delays and higher-than-expected production costs were a common theme. Despite the positive price trend in 2025, the deepening geopolitical uncertainty, sanctions and trade policy restrictions, and years of underinvestment in new uranium and fuel cycle service capacities, risk has shifted from producers to utilities.

Supply and trade policy highlights (2025 unless otherwise noted)

 

•

In April, the White House issued an executive order titled “Ensuring National Security and Economic Resilience through Section 232 Actions on Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products,” directing the Administration to assess and address national security risks arising from US reliance on foreign sources of processed critical minerals, explicitly including uranium. This was followed in January 2026 by a Section 232 presidential proclamation instructing the US Government to begin negotiations with partner countries to secure reliable supply chains for processed critical minerals, including uranium, while reserving authority to impose tariffs or minimum import price floors if negotiations fail. Separately, in April, the US President issued a reciprocal tariff executive order imposing new tariffs on a broad range of imports; however, natural uranium, UF6, and enriched uranium were exempt due to their compliance with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and a subsequent September executive order further excluded uranium and other critical minerals from country-based global tariffs, preserving the uninterrupted flow of nuclear fuel imports into the US market.

 

•

As of February 2, 2026, the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (SPUT) has raised a total of approximately US$1.2 billion and acquired approximately 11.8 million pounds of U3O8 since the beginning of 2025, increasing its cumulative purchases to approximately 59.7 million pounds of U3O8 since inception for a total position of over 78 million pounds. These raises enabled continued purchases of physical uranium, contributing to increased spot market demand and exerting upward pressure on uranium pricing.

 

•

In February 2026, Kazatomprom (KAP) announced its 2026 guidance range of 27,500 to 29,000 tonnes of U3O8 (approximately 71 million to 75 million pounds of U3O8), noting the actual output will still depend on sulphuric acid availability. The 2026 range represents a further reduction from the planned 2026 production volume KAP had provided in its Competent Persons Report released in August, in which the company had lowered its production forecast from 37,777 tonnes (85 million pounds of U3O8) to 29,697 tonnes (77 million pounds of U3O8).

 

•

In December, KAP announced amendments to Kazakhstan’s Subsoil and Subsoil Use Code that grant the company priority rights to obtain exploration licenses in prospective uranium areas, reserve mineralized blocks, and limit other non-uranium subsoil users’ ability to obtain production rights where uranium is discovered. Under the revised framework, production rights may only be transferred to entities in which KAP holds more than a 75% interest, with existing agreements remaining unaffected and additional exploration at producing uranium deposits is reserved exclusively for KAP or entities in which it holds at least a 90% interest.

 

•

In June, Niger announced plans to nationalize the SOMAÏR mine, previously operated as a joint venture between Orano and the Office National des Ressources Minières du Niger. Later in the year, the country’s military government moved to sell stockpiled uranium from SOMAÏR on the international market despite ongoing arbitration and external restrictions. The disputed inventory, estimated at 1,150–1,500 tonnes of U3O8 (3.0–3.9 million pounds of U3O8), was subject to a September ruling by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, prohibiting its sale or transfer.

 

•

Boss Energy reported in December that it completed a formal review of the Honeymoon uranium project and initiated a new feasibility study, formally withdrawing its 2021 feasibility study, citing materially outdated assumptions and cost estimates. It is reviewing revised cost, production, and development parameters for 2027 onwards. Boss Energy confirmed that it remains on track to deliver 1.6 million pounds of U3O8 in 2026.

 

•

Throughout 2025, several new uranium projects progressed toward production. Lotus Resources restarted operations at the Kayelekera project in Malawi with the project designed for a 10-year mine life and annual production capacity of 2.4 million pounds of U3O8. Orano Canada and Denison Mines also commenced production at the McClean North deposit using the proprietary Surface Access Borehole Resource Extraction (SABRE) mining method with planned 2025 production of approximately 0.8 million pounds of U3O8.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 19

•

In October, GLE announced the conclusion of an independent, third-party validation that GLE had achieved Technology Readiness Level 6 (TRL-6) following the completion of its large-scale enrichment demonstration program. GLE is now focusing on detailed design in order to demonstrate full-scale prototype system performance under relevant conditions (TRL-7).

 

•

In October, Urenco Group (Urenco) announced an expansion of its uranium enrichment capacity at the Almelo facility in the Netherlands, doubling its previously planned buildout to approximately 1.5 million separative work units (SWU) of additional capacity by 2030. Urenco has now committed to approximately 2.5 million SWU of new uranium enrichment capacity globally, including new centrifuge cascades already operating in the US. Urenco USA also received NRC approval to begin producing low-enriched uranium plus (LEU+), enriched up to 10% U-235, to support advanced reactor fuel supply.

 

•

In January 2026, the US DOE announced US$2.7 billion in task order awards to strengthen domestic enrichment services and reduce reliance on Russian material with Centrus Energy, an Orano subsidiary, and General Matter each receiving US$900 million. The DOE also awarded US$28 million to GLE to advance next generation SILEX laser-based enrichment technology.

Long-term contracting creates full-cycle value for proven productive assets

Like other commodities, demand for uranium is cyclical. However, unlike other commodities, uranium is not traded in meaningful quantities on a commodity exchange. The uranium market is principally based on bilaterally negotiated long-term contracts covering the annual run-rate requirements of nuclear power plants, with a small spot market to serve discretionary demand. History demonstrates that in general, when prices are rising and high, uranium is perceived as scarce, and more contracting activity takes place with proven and reliable suppliers. The higher demand discovered during this phase drives investment in higher-cost sources of production, which due to lengthy development timelines, tend to miss the contracting cycle and ramp up after demand has already been captured by proven producers. When prices are declining and low, there is no perceived urgency to contract, and contracting activity and investment in new supply dramatically decreases. After years of low prices, and a lack of investment in supply, and as the uncommitted material available in the spot market begins to thin, security-of-supply tends to overtake price concerns. Utilities typically re-enter the long-term contracting market to ensure they have a reliable future supply of uranium to fuel their reactors.

 

UxC reports that over the last five years approximately 589 million pounds U₃O₈ equivalent have been contracted in the long-term market, while approximately 815 million pounds U₃O₈ equivalent have been consumed in reactors. We therefore remain confident that utilities have an increasing level of uncovered requirements.

We believe the current backlog of long-term contracting presents a substantial opportunity for proven and reliable suppliers with tier-one productive capacity and a record of honouring supply commitments. As a low-cost producer, we manage our operations to increase value throughout these price cycles.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 20

In our industry, customers do not come to the market right before they need to load nuclear fuel into their reactors. To operate a reactor that could run for more than 60 years, natural uranium and the downstream services have to be purchased years in advance, allowing time for a number of processing steps before a finished fuel bundle arrives at the power plant. At present, we believe there is a significant amount of uranium that needs to be contracted to keep reactors running into the next decade.

UxC estimates that cumulative uncovered requirements are about 3.1 billion pounds to the end of 2045. With the lack of investment over the past decade, there is growing uncertainty about where uranium will come from to satisfy growing demand, and utilities are becoming increasingly concerned about the availability of material to meet their long-term needs. In addition, secondary supplies have diminished, and the material available in the spot market has thinned as producers and financial funds continue to purchase material. Furthermore, geopolitical uncertainty is causing some utilities to seek nuclear fuel suppliers whose values are aligned with their own or whose origin of supply better protects them from potential interruptions, including from transportation challenges or the possible imposition of formal sanctions.

We will continue to take the actions we believe are necessary to position the company for long-term success. Therefore, we will continue to align our production decisions with our customers’ needs under our contract portfolio. We will undertake contracting activity which is intended to ensure we have adequate protection while maintaining exposure to the benefits that come from having uncommitted, low-cost supply to place into a strengthening market.

Building a balanced portfolio

The purpose of our contracting framework is to deliver value. Our approach is to secure a solid base of earnings and cash flow by maintaining a balanced contract portfolio that optimizes our realized price.

Contracting decisions in all segments of our business need to consider the nuclear fuel market structure, the nature of our competitors, and the current market environment. Most run-rate fuel requirements in our industry are procured under long-term contracts. The spot market is thinly traded, where utilities tend to buy small, discretionary volumes. This market structure is reflective of the baseload nature of nuclear power and the relatively small proportion of the overall operating costs the fuel represents compared to other sources of baseload electricity. Additionally, over two thirds of the fuel supply typically comes from state-owned entities, some of whom have production volume strategies or ambitions to serve state nuclear power programs with low-cost fuel supplies, or from diversified mining companies that produce uranium as a by-product. We evaluate our strategy in the context of our market environment and continue to adjust our actions in accordance with our contracting framework:

 

•

First, we build a long-term contract portfolio by layering in volumes over time. We will compete for customer demand in the market where we think we can obtain value and, in general, as part of longer-term contracts. Our contracting decisions factor in who the customer is, our desire for regional diversification, the product form, logistical factors, and our broader corporate strategy. Contracting opportunities may come in various forms and will be additive to our current committed sales.

 

•

Based on our portfolio of long-term contracts, we decide how to best source material to satisfy that demand, planning our production in accordance with our contract portfolio and other available sources of supply. We do not plan our production from our tier-one assets to sell in the spot market.

 

•

We do not intend to build an inventory of excess uranium. Excess inventory contributes to the sense that uranium is abundant and creates an overhang on the market, and it ties up working capital on our balance sheet.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 21

•

Depending on the timing, volume, and certainty of our planned production, purchase commitments, and inventory levels, we may be active buyers in the uranium market as an alternate source of short-, medium- or long-term supply. We generally plan for our annual delivery commitments to slightly exceed the annual supply we expect from our production and long-term purchase commitments, and may undertake spot market purchases to meet our delivery commitments. In general, if we choose to purchase material to meet demand, we expect the cost of that material will be more than offset by the volume of commitments in our sales portfolio that are exposed to market prices over the long term. We may also utilize flexible product loan arrangements to cover short-term supply variability and optimize our overall inventory position.

Ultimately, our goal is to protect and extend the value of our contract portfolio on terms that recognize the value of our assets, including future development projects, and achieve pricing mechanisms that provide adequate protection when prices go down and exposure to rising prices. We believe using this framework will allow us to create long-term value. Our focus will continue to be on ensuring we have the financial capacity to execute our strategy and self-manage risk.

Long-term contracting

Uranium is not traded in meaningful quantities on a commodity exchange. Utilities have historically bought the majority of their uranium and fuel services products under long-term contracts that are bilaterally negotiated with suppliers. The spot market is discretionary and typically used for small one-time volumes, not to satisfy annual demand. We sell uranium and fuel products and services directly to nuclear utilities around the world as uranium concentrates, UO₂ and UF₆, conversion services, or fuel fabrication and reactor components for CANDU heavy water reactors. We have a solid portfolio of long-term sales contracts that reflects our reputation as a proven, reliable supplier of geographically stable supply, and the long-term relationships we have built with our customers.

In general, we are active in the market when it is beneficial for us and in support of our long-term contract portfolio. We undertake activity in the spot and term markets prudently, looking at the prices and other business factors to decide whether it is appropriate to participate in the spot or term market. Not only is this activity a source of profit, but it also gives us insight into underlying market fundamentals.

We deliver the majority of our uranium under long-term contracts each year, some of which are tied to market-related pricing mechanisms quoted at the time of delivery. Therefore, our net earnings and operating cash flows are generally affected by changes in the uranium price. Market prices are influenced by the fundamentals of supply and demand, market access and trade policy issues, geopolitical events, disruptions in planned supply and demand, and other market factors.

The objectives of our contracting strategy are to:

 

•

optimize realized price by balancing exposure to future market prices while providing some certainty for our future earnings and cash flow;

 

•

retain the flexibility to invest in our assets in step with the ongoing market transition; and

 

•

maintain a disciplined approach that optimizes the value of our in-ground inventory, based on our view that prevailing industry expectations likely overestimate future supply and underestimate future demand.

We have a portfolio of long-term contracts, each bilaterally negotiated with customers, that have a mix of base-escalated pricing and market-related pricing mechanisms, including provisions that provide exposure to rising market prices while also protecting us when the market price is declining. This is a balanced and flexible approach that allows us to adapt to market conditions, put a floor on our average realized price and deliver the best value over the long term.

This approach has allowed our realized price to outperform the market during periods of weak uranium demand, and we expect it will enable us to realize increases linked to higher market prices in the future.

Base-escalated contracts for uranium: use a pricing mechanism based on a term-price indicator at the time the contract is accepted and escalated to the time of each delivery over the term of the contract.

Market-related contracts for uranium: are different from base-escalated contracts in that the pricing mechanism may be based on either the spot price or the long-term price, and that price is generally set a month or more prior to delivery rather than at the time the contract is accepted. These contracts may provide discounts and typically include floor prices and/or ceiling prices, which are established at the time of contract acceptance and usually escalate over the term of the contract.

Fuel services contracts: the majority of our fuel services contracts use a base-escalated mechanism per kgU and reflect the market at the time the contract is accepted.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 22

Optimizing our contract portfolio

We work with our customers to optimize the value of our contract portfolio. With respect to new contracting activity, there is often a lag from when contracting discussions begin and when contracts are executed. With a value-driven strategy and numerous contracting opportunities in our uranium segment, we continue to be strategically patient in considering the commercial terms we are willing to accept. We layer in contracts over time, with higher commitments in the near term and declining over time in anticipation of utilities growing uncovered requirements. Demand may come in the form of off-market negotiations or through on-market requests for proposals. We remain confident that we can add acceptable new sales commitments to our portfolio of long-term contracts to underpin the ongoing operation of our productive capacity and capture long-term value.

Given our view that additional long-term supply will need to be incented to meet the growing demand for safe, reliable, carbon-free nuclear energy, our preference today is to sign long-term contracts with market-related pricing mechanisms. However, we believe our customers expect prices to rise and prefer to lock in today’s prices, with a fixed-price mechanism. Our goal is to balance all these factors, along with our desire for customer and regional diversification, with product form, and logistical factors to ensure we have adequate protection and will have exposure to rising market prices under our contract portfolio, while maintaining the benefits that come from having low-cost supply to deliver into a strengthening market.

At times, we may also look for opportunities to optimize the value of our portfolio. In cases where there is a changing policy, operating, or economic environment, including the introduction of new taxes or tariffs in certain jurisdictions, we manage risk accordingly. We have taken actions such as positioning material ahead of expected deliveries, revising our contract terms to protect us from unexpected future implementation of taxes or tariffs, and adjusting our contracts to minimize potential negative impacts while maintaining strong customer relationships, and we will continue to consider additional mitigation in the future.

Contract portfolio status

We have executed contracts to sell about 230 million pounds of U₃O₈ with 39 customers worldwide in our uranium segment, and about 83 million kilograms as UF₆ conversion with 33 customers worldwide in our fuel services segment. We sell uranium and fuel services products to nuclear utilities in 16 countries.

Economic dependence

Customers – U₃O₈:

Five customers account for 56% of commitments

 

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 23

Customers – UF₆ conversion:

Five customers account for 53% of commitments

 

Managing our contract commitments

We allow sales volumes to vary year-to-year depending on:

 

•

the level of sales commitments in our long-term contract portfolio;

 

•

market opportunities; and

 

•

our sources of supply.

To meet our delivery commitments and to mitigate risk, we have access to a number of sources of supply, which includes uranium obtained from:

 

•

our productive capacity;

 

•

purchases under our JV Inkai agreement, under long-term agreements and in the spot market;

 

•

our inventory in excess of our working requirements; and

 

•

product loans.

Our supply discipline

As spot is not the fundamental market, true value is built under a long-term contract portfolio and is measured over the full commodity cycle. Therefore, we align our uranium production decisions with our contract commitments and market opportunities to avoid carrying excess inventory or having to sell into a spot market where there is typically no fundamental demand from end-users to absorb additional supply. In accordance with market conditions and our contract portfolio, we evaluate the optimal mix of our production and purchases, in order to satisfy our contractual commitments, maintain an appropriate working inventory and realize the best return over the entire commodity cycle.

Today, we believe the uranium market is in transition, driven by the growing demand for nuclear energy and the increasing recognition that it is essential for energy security, national security, and climate security. However, as the transition continues, we will not act in advance of market demand. Our production decisions will continue to be aligned with market opportunities and our ability to secure the appropriate long-term contract homes for our unencumbered, in-ground inventory. We expect to maintain supply discipline by placing our uranium under long-term contracts and investing in our best margin assets to meet those commitments.

Our production plans for McArthur River/Key Lake and Cigar Lake are expected to generate strong financial performance by allowing us to source the majority of our committed sales from the lower cost produced pounds. We are investing in capital projects to help ensure the reliability and sustainability of our existing operations, and to replace aging infrastructure in order to maintain capacity at current production levels and to position us for future production flexibility, although no decision on future production levels has been made. In addition, with conversion demand elevated, we have been successful in securing long-term sales commitments that will support optimizing production at Port Hope, which is expected to further improve its contribution to our financial results. However, we remain in supply discipline. Our Rabbit Lake and US In Situ Recovery (ISR) assets remain in a safe state of care and maintenance, and we expect to continue to adjust our production in accordance with our contract portfolio. This will remain our production plan until we see further improvements in the term uranium market and contracting progress, once again demonstrating that we are a responsible fuel supplier.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 24

Managing our costs

Production costs

In order to operate efficiently and cost-effectively, we manage operating costs and improve plant reliability by prudently investing in production infrastructure, new technology, and business process improvements. Like all mining companies, our uranium segment is affected by the cost of inputs such as labour and fuel.

 

 

*	Production supplies include reagents, fuel and other items. Contracted services include utilities and camp costs, air charters, mining and maintenance contractors and security and ground freight.

The annual cash cost of production reflects the operating cost of mining and milling our share of the Cigar Lake, McArthur River, and Key Lake operations. The annual cost of production will reflect a combined cost of all our operating uranium assets. See 2025 financial results by segment – Uranium starting on page 57 of the 2025 MD&A for more information. In 2026, our cash production costs may continue to be affected by inflation, the availability of personnel with the necessary skills and experience, supply chain challenges impacting the availability of materials and reagents, and continued work to maintain the long-term reliability of our assets.

Operating costs in our fuel services segment are mainly fixed. In 2025, labour and contracted services in fuel services accounted for about 60% of the total. The largest variable operating cost is for anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, followed by zirconium, and energy (natural gas and electricity).

We continue to look to adopt innovative and advanced digital and automation technologies to improve efficiency and operational flexibility and to further reduce costs.

Care and maintenance costs

In 2026, we expect to incur between $62 million and $67 million in care and maintenance costs related to the suspension of production at our Rabbit Lake mine and mill, and our US operations. Production at these operations is higher-cost and the timing of a restart is uncertain. We continue to evaluate our options in order to minimize these costs.

Purchases and inventory costs

Our costs are also affected by the purchases of uranium and conversion services we make under long-term contracts and on the spot market.

To meet our delivery commitments, we make use of our mined production, inventories, purchases of our share of material from Inkai, purchases under long-term contracts, purchases we make on the spot market and product loans. In 2026, we expect the price for the majority of our purchases will be quoted at the time of delivery.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 25

The cost of purchased material may be higher or lower than our other sources of supply, depending on market conditions. The cost of purchased material affects our cost of sales, which is determined by calculating the average of all of our sources of supply, including opening inventory, production, and purchases, and adding royalties, selling costs, and care and maintenance costs. Our cost of sales could be impacted if we do not achieve our annual production plan, or if we are unable to source uranium as planned, and we are required to purchase uranium at prices that differ from our cost of inventory. In addition, our cost of sales is impacted by our outstanding product loans which are revalued each period based on our weighted average carrying cost of inventory.

Potential tariff impact

While we currently do not anticipate the direct impact of a tariff in the US to be material on our 2026 financial results, there continues to be uncertainty around the exact details of how these tariffs may be applied or if they will be applied to uranium products. See Optimizing our contract portfolio starting on page 23 for more information.

Financial impact

The growing demand for nuclear power due to its safety, carbon-free energy, reliability, security and affordability attributes has contributed to increased demand for nuclear fuel products and services. As a result, we have seen significant price increases across the nuclear fuel value chain, which reflect the need for capacity increases to satisfy the projected growth.

The deliberate and disciplined actions we took to curtail production and streamline operations over the past decade came with costs like care and maintenance costs, operational readiness costs, and purchase costs higher than our production costs. However, we considered these costs as investments in our future.

Today, thanks to our investments, and with our continued ability to secure new long-term sales commitments, we believe we are well-positioned for growth. Our core growth is expected to come from our existing mining and fuel services assets. We believe we have sufficient productive capacity, including the ability to expand our existing assets. We do not have to build greenfield capacity to pursue new opportunities, a position we have not enjoyed in previous price cycles.

And, with our 49% interest in Westinghouse, we expect to be able to expand our growth profile by extending our reach in the nuclear fuel cycle at a time when there are tremendous tailwinds for the nuclear power industry. We are extending our reach with an investment in assets like ours, that are strategic, proven, licensed and permitted, are located in geopolitically favourable jurisdictions, and we expect will be able to grow from their existing footprint. These assets are also expected to provide new opportunities for our existing suite of uranium and fuel services assets.

We believe our actions and investments have helped to position the company to self-manage risk, generate strong financial performance, and allow us to execute on our strategy while rewarding our stakeholders for their continued patience and support of our strategy to build long-term value.

Supply sources

Uranium supply sources include primary production (production from mines that are currently in commercial operation) and secondary supply sources (excess inventories, uranium made available from defense stockpiles and the decommissioning of nuclear weapons, re-enriched depleted uranium tails, and used reactor fuel that has been reprocessed).

Primary production

While the uranium production industry is international in scope, there are only a small number of companies operating in relatively few countries. In addition, there are barriers to entry and bringing on and ramping up production can take a significant number of years. During the low-price environment that persisted for about a decade following 2011, a number of projects were cancelled or delayed, and some production was discontinued. Current prices and contracting activity are supporting the restart of some assets, however, the market has yet to incentivise the investment in new supply necessary to meet the anticipated growth in uranium requirements.

We estimate world mine production in 2025 was about 164 million pounds U₃O₈, up from 160 million pounds in 2024:

 

•

Over 82% of estimated world production was sourced from four countries: Kazakhstan (40%), Canada (21%), Namibia (13%) and Australia (8%).

 

•

About 76% of estimated world production was attributable to five producers. Cameco accounted for approximately 15% (24 million pounds) of estimated world production.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 26

Secondary sources

There are a number of secondary sources, but most of these sources are finite and will not meet long-term needs:

 

•

The US Government has historically made some of its inventories available to the market, although in smaller and predictable quantities.

 

•

The Russian government also holds substantial volumes of nuclear fuel inventory largely in the form of depleted uranium, but overall, their contribution to secondary supplies has reduced significantly since the end of the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement between the Russian and United States governments.

 

•

Utilities, mostly in Europe and some in Japan and Russia, use reprocessed uranium and plutonium from used reactor fuel.

 

•

Re-enriched depleted uranium tails and uranium from underfeeding are also generated when there is excess enrichment capacity.

Uranium from US inventories

Historically, the DOE was one of the primary sources of secondary supplies in the uranium market. This role has been significantly reduced since the suspension of the barter program of its natural UF₆ inventory. The DOE’s current primary contribution to secondary supplies is HEU downblending. The vast majority of the DOE’s inventory is large volumes of depleted uranium (DU).

In 2018, the DOE announced it was suspending its practice of bartering its excess uranium through the end of 2019. This barter suspension has since been extended on an annual basis. The DOE has indicated a commitment to continue the suspension of the UF₆ barter program. There is currently no available timetable to dispose of the remaining natural UF₆ in the DOE’s excess inventory, estimated at less than 9 million pounds.

The DOE’s DU inventory may become available to the market over the next two decades, although a significant portion of the inventory requires either further processing or the development of commercial arrangements before it can be brought to market.

Trade restraints and policies

The importation of Russian uranium into the US market is regulated by the amended USEC Privatization Act and by the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Action against Russian Uranium Products (RSA), which together impose annual quotas on imports of Russian uranium. These quotas were set at the equivalent of 20% of annual US reactor demand and expired at the end of 2020. An amendment to the RSA was signed that extends the agreement from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2040, and provides a clear set of rules around access to the US nuclear energy sector by Russian nuclear fuel suppliers. Since 1992, the importation of Russian uranium products in the US has been subject to a quota under the RSA. The amendment reduces the average overall quota and introduces caps, which will reduce the amount of Russian uranium, conversion and enrichment supplied to the US over the long-term. The amendment also includes important new provisions to ensure that all Russian origin uranium must be counted against the quota even if it is imported after further processing in other countries.

The US restrictions do not affect the sale of Russian uranium to other countries. A significant portion of world uranium demand is from utilities in countries that are not affected by the US restrictions. Utilities in some countries, however, adopt policies that limit the amount of Russian uranium they will buy. The Euratom Supply Agency in Europe must approve all uranium related contracts for members of the European Union (EU) and limits the use of certain nuclear fuel supplies from any one source to maintain security of supply, although these limits do not apply to uranium sold separately from enriched uranium product.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, many jurisdictions have imposed strict economic sanctions against Russia, including Canada, the US, the EU, the UK, and others. The Canadian government cancelled existing export permits to Russia and ceased issuing new permits for controlled exports to Russia, subject to limited exceptions. The US Government enacted the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act on May 13, 2024, which banned imports of uranium from Russia as of August 11, 2024, unless the Secretary of Energy grants a waiver to allow such imports. These waivers expire on January 1, 2028, and no new Russian imports would be permitted thereafter. Future related actions by the US administration remain uncertain; however, trade sanctions and Russian export restraints of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to the US will further impact the flow of nuclear fuel supplies coming in and out of Russia, including supplies shipped through Russian ports. The global nuclear industry currently relies on Russia for approximately 14% of its supply of uranium concentrates, 21% of conversion supply, and 42% of enrichment capacity.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 27

In January 2026, the DOE announced US$2.7 billion in task-order awards to strengthen domestic uranium enrichment services and reduce reliance on Russian material, with American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (a subsidiary of Centrus Energy Corp.) and General Matter, Inc. awarded funding to develop high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) enrichment capacity, and Orano Federal Services, LLC (a subsidiary of Orano S.A.) awarded funding to expand LEU enrichment capacity, each with awards of up to US$900 million. The DOE also awarded US$28 million to GLE to advance next generation SILEX laser-based enrichment technology.

Beginning in 2024, actions by the current US administration increased geopolitical and trade uncertainty, as evolving Canada–US tariff measures and related retaliatory actions created volatility and reduced visibility across the bilateral trade environment and nuclear fuel supply chains.

In April 2025, the White House issued an executive order titled “Ensuring National Security and Economic Resilience through Section 232 Actions on Processed Critical Minerals and Derivative Products,” directing the Administration to assess and address national security risks arising from US reliance on foreign sources of processed critical minerals, explicitly including uranium. This was followed in January 2026 by a Section 232 presidential proclamation instructing the US Government to begin negotiations with partner countries to secure reliable supply chains for processed critical minerals, including uranium, while reserving authority to impose tariffs or minimum import price floors if negotiations fail. Separately, in April, the US President issued a reciprocal tariff executive order imposing new tariffs on a broad range of imports; however, natural uranium, UF₆, and enriched uranium were exempt due to their compliance with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and a subsequent September executive order further excluded uranium and other critical minerals from country-based global tariffs, preserving the uninterrupted flow of nuclear fuel imports into the US market. The CUSMA is scheduled for its first mandatory joint review in mid-2026.

As ongoing tariff actions between Canada and the US continue to evolve, uncertainty remains on whether additional tariffs or other restrictive trade measures or countermeasures will be implemented and, if so, their scope, magnitude, duration, and applicability to uranium or conversion sales. Such measures could include, among others, increased tariffs on Canadian energy exports, export restrictions on certain commodities (including Canadian energy products), limitations on cross-border supply chains, or the introduction of additional regulatory barriers to trade.

Conversion services

We have about 18% of world UF₆ primary conversion capacity and supply UO₂ for Canadian-made CANDU reactors. For conversion services, we compete with a small number of primary commercial suppliers to meet global demand. In addition, at times we compete with secondary supplies that come to market as UF₆ and are described above.

Changes to contracts

A description of the aspects of our business that we reasonably expect to be affected in the current financial year by renegotiation or termination of contracts or sub-contracts, and the likely effect, is included in Operations, projects and investments beginning on page 29 and Risks that can affect our business beginning on page 114.

Environmental Protection

A description of the financial and operational effects of environmental protection requirements on our capital expenditures, profit or loss and competitive position of Cameco in the current financial year and the expected effect in future years is contained in Decommissioning and financial assurances on pages 39 and 52 in respect of McArthur River, Key Lake and Cigar Lake, Decommissioning on page 69 in respect of Inkai, Estimating decommissioning and environmental remediation costs on page 93 in respect of Westinghouse, Nuclear waste management and decommissioning on page 112 relating to Cameco generally, and Risks that can affect our business on page 114.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 28

Operations, projects and investments

Uranium

 

Tier-one operations
McArthur River mine/Key Lake mill			30
Cigar Lake			44
Inkai			58
Tier-two operations
Rabbit Lake			80
US ISR Operations			80
Advanced projects
Millennium			81
Yeelirrie			82
Kintyre			82
Exploration			83

Fuel services

 

Refining, conversion and fuel manufacturing
Blind River Refinery			86
Port Hope Conversion Services			86
Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc.			87

Westinghouse

 

Core business			90
New build			91

Other nuclear fuel cycle investments

 

GLE			94

Uranium production

 

Cameco’s share (million lb U3O8)		2024				2025				2026 Plan
McArthur River/Key Lake			14.2	1			10.5	1			10.0 to 11.5
Cigar Lake			9.2	2			10.4	2			9.5 to 10.0
Rabbit Lake			—	3			—	3			—	3
US ISR Operations			—	3			0.1	3			—	3
Total			23.4				21.0				19.5 to 21.5

 

1

In 2024, record production was achieved due to improved performance of the Key Lake mill. Total packaged production from McArthur River and Key Lake in 2025 was 15.1 million pounds (10.5 million pounds our share), exceeding the revised outlook disclosed on August 28, 2025. Planned production was not achieved due to a shortfall in mine production at McArthur River. The McArthur River mine was unable to fully mitigate the impacts of the delayed development and ground freezing in new mining zones. The mine’s performance was also impacted by availability of equipment and certain workforce skills.

2

In 2024, production did not meet expectations due to challenges at Orano’s McClean Lake mill caused by ore quality variances and unplanned maintenance issues. Total packaged production from Cigar Lake in 2025 was 19.1 million pounds U3O8 (10.4 million pounds our share) compared to 16.9 million pounds U3O8 (9.2 million pounds our share) in 2024. The operation exceeded our forecast of 18 million pounds (100% basis) as a result of higher productivity and our ability to temporarily adjust annual mine production to make up for past annual production shortfalls, as permitted under our CNSC licence and provincial approval.

3	The Rabbit Lake operation remains in a state of care and maintenance, and we are no longer developing new wellfields at US ISR operations.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 29

Due to equity accounting, our share of production from Inkai is shown as a purchase. JV Inkai’s 2026 planned production target is 10.4 million pounds U₃O₈ (100% basis). See Uranium – Tier-one operations- Inkai beginning on page 58 for more information.

Uranium – Tier-one operations

McArthur River mine / Key Lake mill

 

		2025 Production (our share)   10.5M lb   2026 Production Outlook (our share)   10.0-11.5 lb1   Estimated Reserves (our share)   241.9M lb   Estimated Mine Life   2044

McArthur River is the world’s largest, high-grade uranium mine, and Key Lake is the world’s largest uranium mill. We are the operator of both the mine and the mill.

McArthur River is considered a material uranium property for us. There is a technical report dated March 29, 2019 (effective December 31, 2018) that can be downloaded from SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) or from EDGAR (www.sec.gov).

 

Location		Saskatchewan, Canada
Ownership		McArthur River – 69.805% Key Lake – 83.33%
Mine type		Underground
Mining methods		Blasthole stoping and raiseboring
End product		Uranium concentrate
Certification		ISO 14001 certified
Estimated reserves		241.9 million pounds (proven and probable), average grade U3O8: 6.48%
Estimated resources		4.7 million pounds (measured and indicated), average grade U3O8: 2.25% 1.7 million pounds (inferred), average grade U3O8: 2.81%
Licensed capacity		Mine and mill: 25.0 million pounds per year
Licence term		Through October 2043
Total packaged production:       2000 to 2025		373.2 million pounds (McArthur River/Key Lake) (100% basis)
1983 to 2002		209.8 million pounds (Key Lake) (100% basis)
2025 production		10.5 million pounds (15.1 million pounds on 100% basis)
2026 production outlook		10.0-11.5 million pounds (14-16.5 million pounds on 100% basis)1
Estimated decommissioning cost		$51.4 million – McArthur River (100% basis) $276.7 million – Key Lake (100% basis)

All values shown, including reserves and resources, represent our share only, unless indicated.

 

1	Production ranges, our share, have been rounded to the nearest half-million.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 30

Business structure

 

McArthur River is owned by a joint venture (MRJV) between two companies:		Key Lake is owned by a joint venture between the same two companies:
• Cameco – 69.805% (operator)		• Cameco – 83.333% (operator)
• Orano – 30.195%		• Orano – 16.667%

History

 

1976		• Canadian Kelvin Resources Ltd. and Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. form an exploration joint venture, which includes the lands that the McArthur River mine is situated on
1977		• SMDC, one of our predecessor companies, acquires a 50% interest
1980		• McArthur River joint venture is formed   • SMDC becomes the operator   • Active surface exploration begins   • Between 1980 and 1988, SMDC reduces its interest to 43.991%
1988		• Eldorado Resources Limited merges with SMDC to form Cameco   • We become the operator   • Deposit discovered by surface drilling
1988-1992		• Surface drilling reveals significant mineralization of potentially economic uranium grades, in a 1,700 metre zone at depths of between 500 to 640 metres
1992		• We increase our interest to 53.991%
1993		• Underground exploration program receives government approval – program consists of shaft sinking (completed in 1994) and underground development and drilling
1995		• We increase our interest to 55.844%
1997-1998		• Federal authorities issue construction licences for McArthur River after reviewing the environmental impact statement, holding public hearings, and receiving approvals from the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan
1998		• We acquire all of the shares of Uranerz Exploration and Mining Ltd. (UEM), increasing our interest to 83.766%   • We sell half of the shares of UEM to Orano, reducing our interest to 69.805%, and increasing Orano’s to 30.195%
1999		• Federal authorities issue the operating licence and provincial authorities give operating approval, and mining begins in December
2003		• Production is temporarily suspended in April because of a water inflow • Mining resumes in July
2009		• UEM distributes equally to its shareholders:   • its 27.922% interest in the McArthur River joint venture, giving us a 69.805% direct interest, and Orano a 30.195% direct interest   • its 33.333% interest in the Key Lake joint venture, giving us an 83.33% direct interest, and Orano a 16.667% direct interest
2013		• Federal authorities grant a 10-year renewal of the McArthur River and Key Lake operating licences
2014		• After a two-week labour disruption, we enter into a four-year collective agreement with unionized employees at McArthur River and Key Lake operations. World record annual mine production set at McArthur River.
2017		• We announce our plan to temporarily suspend production at McArthur River and Key Lake in 2018
2018		• We announce the suspension of production at McArthur River and Key Lake for an indeterminate duration
2022		• We announce plans to transition McArthur River and Key Lake from care and maintenance to planned production of 15 million pounds per year (100% basis) by 2024

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 31

2023		• We updated our production plans for McArthur River and Key Lake to achieve production of 18 million pounds per year (100% basis) starting in 2024   • In October 2023, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) granted 20-year renewals to the licences for both McArthur River and Key Lake
2024		• World record for annual packaged production set at Key Lake due to improvements and optimization of the Key Lake mill and the availability of sufficient ore feed supplemented by broken ore inventory. Production from the mine was impacted by availability of mobile equipment, certain workforce skills and an unplanned shutdown to accommodate ventilation repairs in shaft 2
2025		• Planned packaged production at Key Lake was not achieved due to a shortfall in mine production at McArthur River due to delayed development and ground freezing in new mine areas. The mine’s performance was also impacted by availability of equipment and certain workforce skills

Technical report

 

This description is based on the project’s technical report: McArthur River Operation, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada, dated March 29, 2019 (effective December 31, 2018). The report was prepared for us in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101), by or under the supervision of Linda Bray, P. Eng., Gregory M. Murdock, P. Eng., and Alain D. Renaud, P. Geo. The following description has been prepared under the supervision of Biman Bharadwaj, P. Eng., Daley McIntyre, P. Eng., Gregory M. Murdock, P. Eng., and Alain D. Renaud, P. Geo. They are all qualified persons within the meaning of NI 43-101 but are not independent of us.		For information about uranium sales see pages 22 to 25, environmental matters see Our sustainability principles and practices and The regulatory environment starting on pages 101 and 104, and taxes see page 109.   For a description of royalties payable to the province of Saskatchewan on the sale of uranium extracted from orebodies within the province, see page 111.   For a description of risks that might affect access, title or the right or ability to perform work on the property, see Regulatory and governance risks starting at page 126.
The conclusions, projections and estimates included in this description are subject to the qualifications, assumptions and exclusions set out in the technical report. We recommend you read the technical report in its entirety to fully understand the project. You can download a copy from SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) or from EDGAR (www.sec.gov).

About the McArthur River property

Location

The McArthur River mine site is located near Toby Lake, approximately 620 kilometres north of Saskatoon. The mine site is in close proximity to other uranium production operations: the Key Lake mill is 80 kilometres southwest by road and the Cigar Lake mine is 46 kilometres northeast by air.

Access

Access to the property is by an all-weather gravel road and by air. Supplies are transported by truck from Saskatoon and elsewhere. There is a 1.6-kilometre unpaved airstrip and an air terminal one kilometre east of the mine site, on the surface lease.

Saskatoon, a major population centre south of the McArthur River property, has highway, rail and air links to the rest of North America.

Leases

Surface lease

The MRJV acquired the right to use and occupy the lands necessary to mine the deposit under a surface lease agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. The lease covers 1,425 hectares and expires in May 2043.

We are required to report annually on the status of the environment, land development and progress on northern employment and business development.

Mineral lease

We have the right to mine the deposit under ML 5516, granted to us by the province of Saskatchewan. The lease covers 1,380 hectares and expires in March 2034. We have the right to renew the lease for further 10-year terms.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 32

Mineral claims

A mineral claim gives us the right to explore for minerals and to apply for a mineral lease. There are 28 mineral claims, totaling 86,367 hectares, adjoining the mineral lease and surrounding the deposit. The mineral claims are in good standing until 2028, or later.

Environment, social and community factors

The climate is typical of the continental sub-arctic region of northern Saskatchewan. Summers are short and cool even though daily temperatures can sometimes reach above 30°C. The mean daily temperature for the coldest month is below -20°C, and winter daily temperatures can reach below -40°C.

The deposit is 40 kilometres inside the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan. The topography and environment are typical of the taiga forested lands in the Athabasca Basin.

We are committed to building long-lasting and trusting relationships with the communities in which we operate. For more information, see Our Sustainability principles and practices at page 101.

No communities are in the immediate vicinity of McArthur River. The community of Wollaston Lake is approximately 120 kilometres by air to the east of the mine site. The community of Pinehouse is approximately 300 kilometres south of the mine by road.

Athabasca Basin community resident employees and contractors fly to the mine site from designated pick-up points. Other employees and contractors fly to the mine from Saskatoon with pick-up points in Prince Albert and La Ronge.

Geological setting

The deposit is in the southeastern portion of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan, within the southwest part of the Churchill structural province of the Canadian Shield. The deposit is located at or near the unconformity contact between the Athabasca Group sandstones and underlying metasedimentary rocks of the Wollaston Domain.

The deposit is similar to other Athabasca Basin deposits but is distinguished by its very high grade and overall size. Unlike Cigar Lake, there is no development of extensive hydrothermal clay alteration in the sandstone above the uranium mineralization and the deposit is relatively simple geochemically with negligible amounts of other metals.

McArthur River’s geological setting is similar to the Cigar Lake deposit in that the sandstone that overlies the deposit and basement rocks contains large volumes of water at significant pressure.

Mineralization

McArthur River’s mineralization is structurally controlled by a northeast-southwest trending reverse fault (the P2 fault), which dips 40-65 degrees to the southeast and has thrust a wedge of basement rock into the overlying sandstone with a vertical displacement ranging between 60 and 80 metres.

The deposit consists of nine mineralized areas with delineated mineral resources and/or reserves: Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 South, A, B, McA North 1 and McA North 2. These and three under-explored mineralized showings, known as McA North 3, McA North 4 and McA South 1, as well as other mineralized occurrences have been identified over a strike length of approximately 2,700 metres.

The main part of the mineralization, generally at the upper part of the basement wedge, averages 12.7 metres in width and has a vertical extent ranging between 50 metres and 120 metres.

The deposit has two distinct styles of mineralization:

 

•

high-grade mineralization at the unconformity near the P2 reverse fault and within both sandstone and basement rocks; and

 

•

fracture controlled and vein like mineralization that occurs in the sandstone away from the unconformity and within the basement quartzite.

The high-grade mineralization along the unconformity constitutes most of the mineralization within the McArthur River deposit. Mineralization occurs across a zone of strongly altered basement rocks and sandstone across both the unconformity and the P2 structure. Mineralization is generally within 15 metres of the basement/sandstone contact with the exception of Zone 2.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 33

Uranium oxide in the form of uraninite and pitchblende (+/- coffinite) occurs as disseminated grains in aggregates ranging in size from millimetres to decimetres, and as massive mineralization up to several metres thick.

Geochemically, the deposit does not contain any significant quantities of the elements nickel, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc, molybdenum, and arsenic that are present in other unconformity related Athabasca uranium deposits although locally elevated quantities of these elements have been observed in Zone B.

Deposit type

McArthur River is an unconformity-associated uranium deposit. Deposits of this type are believed to have formed through an oxidation-reduction reaction at a contact where oxygenated fluids met with reducing fluids. The geological model was confirmed by surface drilling, underground drilling, development, and production activities.

About the McArthur River operation

McArthur River is a fully developed property with sufficient surface rights to meet current mining operation needs. We began construction and development of the McArthur River mine in 1997 and completed it on schedule. Mining began in December 1999 and commercial production on November 1, 2000.

In February 2018, we began a planned 10-month production suspension. In response to market conditions, in July 2018, we extended the suspension for an indefinite duration. In February 2022, we announced and began the transition from care and maintenance back into production.

We have successfully packaged approximately 373.2 million pounds (100% basis) since we began mining in 1999.

The mineral reserves at McArthur River are contained within seven zones: Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 South, A and B. There are currently two active mining zones (Zone 2 and 4), one with development significantly advanced (Zone 1), and one in the mid stages of development (Zone 4 South).

Zone 2 has been actively mined since production began in 1999. The ore zone was initially divided into three freeze panels. As the freeze wall was expanded, the inner connecting freeze walls were decommissioned to recover the inaccessible uranium around the active freeze pipes. Mining of Zone 2 is almost complete. About 3.5 million pounds of mineral reserves remain secured behind a freeze wall, and we expect to recover them using a combination of raisebore and blasthole stope mining.

Zone 4 has been actively mined since 2010. The zone was divided into four freeze panels, and like in Zone 2, as the freeze wall was expanded, the inner connecting freeze walls were decommissioned. Zone 4 has 73.0 million pounds of mineral reserves secured behind freeze walls, and it will be the main source of production for the next several years. Raisebore and blasthole stope mining will be used to recover the mineral reserves.

Zone 1 is the next planned mine area to be brought into production. Freeze hole drilling was completed in 2023 and brine distribution construction and commissioning was completed in 2024. Freeze wall formation around the zone was successfully achieved in November 2025, securing 48.1 million pounds of reserves behind frozen ground. Development and construction of the drill and extraction chambers inside the freeze wall is currently in progress. We expect production mining from this area to begin in 2026. Blasthole stope mining is planned as the main extraction method in Zone 1.

Zone 4 South development began in 2015 and is in the mid development stage. Freeze drilling, brine distribution and freeze wall activation on the upper levels is near completion and is expected to be complete in 2026. Development of the lower freeze drifts remains in progress and is also expected to be completed in 2026. Freeze drilling on the lower levels is expected to begin mid-2026. Freeze plant and heat exchanger expansion is in progress to support the mining of this zone.

Continued underground exploration activities are planned in 2026.

Permits

We need three key permits to operate the McArthur River mine:

 

•

Uranium Mine Operating Licence – renewed in 2023 and expires in October 2043 (from the CNSC);

 

•

Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities – renewed in 2022 and expires on June 30, 2028 (from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (SMOE)); and

 

•

Water Rights Licence and Approval to Operate Works – amended in 2011 and valid for an undefined term (from the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority).

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 34

The CNSC licence conditions handbook allows McArthur River to produce up to 25.0 million pounds (100% basis) per year.

Infrastructure

Surface facilities are 550 metres above sea level. The site includes:

 

• an underground mine with three shafts: one full service shaft and two ventilation shafts   • 1.6-kilometre gravel airstrip and air terminal   • waste rock stockpiles   • water containment ponds and treatment plant   • a freshwater pump house   • a powerhouse   • electrical substations		• backup electrical generators   • a warehouse   • freeze plants   • a concrete batch plant   • an administration and maintenance shop building   • a permanent residence and recreation facilities   • an ore slurry load out facility

Water, power and heat

Toby Lake, which is nearby and easy to access, has enough water to satisfy all surface water requirements. Collection of groundwater that naturally enters our shafts is sufficient to meet all underground process water requirements and supplements the surface industrial water supply. The site is connected to the provincial power grid, and it has backup generators in case there is an interruption in grid power.

McArthur River operates throughout the year despite cold winter conditions. During the winter, we heat the fresh air necessary to ventilate the underground workings using propane-fired burners.

Employees

Employees are recruited with preference given to residents of northern Saskatchewan.

The collective agreement with United Steelworkers Local 8914 ended on December 31, 2025. Negotiations for a new agreement have commenced. As in past negotiations, work continues under the terms of the expired agreement.

Mining

The McArthur River deposit presents unique challenges that are not typical of traditional hard or soft rock mines. These challenges are the result of mining in or near high pressure ground water in challenging ground conditions with significant radiation concerns due to the high-grade uranium ore. We take significant steps and precautions to reduce the risks. Mine designs and mining methods are selected based on their ability to mitigate hydrological, radiological, and geotechnical risks. Operational experience gained since the start of production has resulted in a significant reduction in risk. However, there is no guarantee that our efforts to mitigate risk will be successful.

Mining methods and techniques

All the mineralized areas discovered to date at McArthur River are in, or partially in, water-bearing ground with significant pressure at mining depths.

There are three approved mining methods at McArthur River: raisebore mining, blasthole stope mining and boxhole mining. However, only raisebore and blasthole stope mining remain in use. Before we begin mining an area, we freeze the ground around it by circulating chilled brine through freeze holes to form an impermeable frozen barrier.

Blasthole stope mining

Blasthole stope mining began in 2011 and is the main extraction method planned for future production. It is planned in areas where blastholes can be accurately drilled and small stable stopes excavated without jeopardizing the freeze wall integrity. The use of this method has allowed the site to improve operating costs by increasing overall extraction efficiency by reducing underground development, concrete consumption, mineralized waste generation and improving extraction cycle time.

Raisebore mining

Raisebore mining is an innovative non-entry approach that we adapted to meet the unique challenges at McArthur River, and it has been used since mining began in 1999. This method is favourable for mining the weaker rock mass areas of the deposit and is suitable for massive high-grade zones where there is access both above and below the ore zone.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 35

Initial processing

McArthur River produces two product streams, high grade slurry and low-grade mineralized rock. Both product streams are shipped to the Key Lake mill to produce uranium ore concentrate.

The high-grade material is ground and thickened into a slurry underground and then pumped to surface. The material is then thickened and blended for grade control and shipped to Key Lake in slurry totes using haul trucks.

The low-grade mineralized material is hoisted to surface and shipped as a dry product to Key Lake using covered haul trucks. Once at Key Lake, the material is ground, thickened and blended with the high-grade slurry to a nominal 5% U₃O₈ mill feed grade. It is then processed into uranium ore concentrate and packaged in drums for further processing offsite.

Tailings

McArthur River does not have a tailings management facility (TMF) as it ships all mineralized material to Key Lake for milling and processing.

Waste rock

The waste rock piles are confined to a small footprint on the surface lease and managed in contained facilities. These are separated into three categories:

 

•

clean waste (includes mine development waste, crushed waste, and various piles for concrete aggregate and backfill);

 

•

low-grade mineralized material that is temporarily stored on lined pads until trucked to Key Lake; and

 

•

waste with acid-generating potential – temporarily stored on lined pads – for concrete aggregate.

Water inflow incidents

There have been two notable water inflow incidents at the McArthur River mine. These two inflows have strongly influenced our mine design, inflow risk mitigation and inflow preparedness:

Bay 12 Inflow: Production was suspended on April 6, 2003, as increased water inflow due to a rock fall in a new development area (Bay 12 located just above the 530-metre level) began to flood the lower portions of the mine, including the underground grinding circuit area. Additional dewatering capacity was installed, and the flooded areas were dewatered and repaired. We resumed mining in July 2003 and sealed off the excess water inflow in July 2004.

590-7820N Inflow: In November 2008, there was a small water inflow in the lower Zone 4 development area on the 590-metre level. It did not impact production but did delay local development for approximately one year. In January 2010, the inflow was sealed off and local development was resumed.

Pumping capacity and treatment limits

Our standard for this mine is to secure pumping capacity of at least one and a half times the estimated maximum sustained inflow. We review our dewatering system and requirements at least once a year and before we begin work on any new zone. As our mine plan is advanced, our dewatering system will be expanded to handle water from the new mine areas. We believe we have sufficient pumping, water treatment and surface storage capacity to handle the estimated maximum sustained inflow.

Production

The production plan is designed to process all current McArthur River mineral reserves plus low-grade mineralized waste from development and Key Lake low-grade stockpiled mineralization remaining from the Deilmann and Gaertner pits. In addition, a small amount of recycled product from Blind River and Port Hope facilities is planned to be processed. The following is a general summary of the production plan over the expected life of asset on a 100% basis for these mineral reserves, mineralized material, and product:

 

Target annual production		• 18 million pounds U3O8
Average mine production		• 200 to 400 tonnes of ore per day, varying with grade
Total mill feed		• 3,265,000 tonnes of mineralized feed (including 2,627,000 tonnes of McArthur material)
Average mill feed grade		• 4.85% U3O8
Total mill production		• 346.6 million pounds of U3O8 packaged based on total planned mill feed and an average recovery of 99.2%

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 36

Production Update

Packaged production in 2025 was impacted by a shortfall in mine production at McArthur River. The McArthur River mine was unable to fully mitigate the impacts of the delayed development and ground freezing in new mining areas. The mine’s performance was also impacted by availability of equipment and certain workforce skills. This resulted in constrained mill feed and a six-week unplanned mill shutdown in the fall of 2025, which limited the mill’s ability to consistently operate at planned rates and ultimately impacted the achievement of initial production targets.

The Key Lake mill saw notable improvements in its operational performance in 2025, with the site becoming more familiar and experienced with new equipment and control system upgrades. In addition, the systematic understanding of process bottlenecks and efforts to remove or decrease their impacts allowed Key Lake to optimize the mill throughput rates.

We plan to produce from 14 million to 16.5 million pounds (100% basis) in 2026 (our share is approximately 10.0 million to 11.5 million pounds). The production rate is currently constrained by limited ore feed supply as a result of delays in new mining areas at McArthur River. In 2026, we expect to bring zone 1 into production, which will notably improve the number of mining fronts available. In addition, we will continue to advance zone 4 south development while adding to our workforce and replacing mobile equipment. We also plan to continue with our underground exploration activities in 2026. There are several operational risks that could impact the 2026 production plan, including the transition to new mine areas, the availability of personnel with the necessary skills and experience, aging infrastructure, and the potential impact of supply chain challenges on the availability of materials, reagents and equipment that carry with them the risks of not achieving our production plans. In addition, there is a risk of a delayed restart or reduced productivity at Key Lake mill following its annual maintenance shutdown, as the planned installation and commissioning of new infrastructure and repairs to major existing infrastructure during the outage could lead to integration or ramp-up challenges that impact planned production levels.

Licensed annual production capacity

The McArthur River mine and Key Lake mill are both licensed to produce up to 25 million pounds (100% basis) per year. To achieve annual production at the licensed capacity, additional investment will be required.

We are addressing aging infrastructure and potential bottlenecks at Key Lake and the advancement of freezing at McArthur River to ensure reliability and sustainability. While these projects are required to support and maintain capacity at current production levels, they have been classified as growth because they also position us for future production flexibility, including to its licensed annual capacity of 25 million pounds, although no decision on future production levels has been made. We will plan our production in line with market opportunities and our contract portfolio, demonstrating that we continue to be a responsible, long-term supplier of uranium fuel.

Key Lake mill

Location and access

The Key Lake mill is located in northern Saskatchewan, 570 kilometres north of Saskatoon. The site is 9 kilometres long and 5 kilometres wide and is connected to McArthur River by an 80-kilometre all-weather road. There is a 1.6-kilometre unpaved airstrip and an air terminal on the east edge of the site.

Permits

We need two key permits to operate the Key Lake mill:

 

•

Uranium Mill Operating Licence – renewed in October 2023 and expires in October 2043 (from the CNSC); and

 

•

Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities – renewed in 2021 and expires on November 30, 2029 (from the SMOE)

The CNSC licence conditions handbook allows the Key Lake mill to produce up to 25.0 million pounds (100% basis) per year.

Supply

All McArthur River ore, including our share, is milled at Key Lake. We do not have a formal toll milling agreement with the Key Lake joint venture.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 37

In June 1999, the Key Lake joint venture (Cameco and UEM) entered a toll milling agreement with Orano to process their total share of McArthur River ore. The terms of the agreement (as amended in January 2001) include the following:

 

•

processing is at cost, plus a toll milling fee; and

 

•

the Key Lake joint venture owners are responsible for decommissioning the Key Lake mill and for certain capital costs, including the cost of any tailings management associated with milling Orano’s share of McArthur River ore.

With the UEM distribution in 2009 (see History on page 31 for more information), we made the following changes to the agreement:

 

•

The fees and expenses related to Orano’s pro-rata share of ore produced just before the UEM distribution (16.234% – the first ore stream) have not changed. Orano is not responsible for any capital or decommissioning costs related to the first ore stream.

 

•

The fees and expenses related to Orano’s pro-rata share of ore produced as a result of the UEM distribution (an additional 13.961% – the second ore stream) have not changed. Orano’s responsibility for capital and decommissioning costs related to the second ore stream are, however, as a Key Lake joint venture owner under the original agreement.

The agreement was amended again in 2011 and now requires:

 

•

milling of the first ore stream at the Key Lake mill until May 31, 2028; and

 

•

milling of the second ore stream at the Key Lake mill for the entire life of the McArthur River project.

Processing

McArthur River low-grade mineralization, including legacy low-grade mineralized waste rock stored at Key Lake, is ground and thickened at Key Lake and then blended with McArthur River high-grade slurry to a nominal 5% U₃O₈ mill feed grade. All remaining uranium processing (leaching through to calcined uranium ore concentrate packaging) and tailings disposal also occur at Key Lake.

The Key Lake mill comprises the following eight plants:

 

•

ore slurry receiving plant;

 

•

grinding/blending plant;

 

•

reverse osmosis plant;

 

•

leaching/counter current decantation plant;

 

•

solvent extraction plant;

 

•

yellowcake precipitation/calcining/packaging/ammonium sulfate plant;

 

•

bulk neutralization/lime handling/tailings treatment and pumping; and

 

•

powerhouse/utilities/acid plant/oxygen plant complex.

Recovery and metallurgical testing

The McArthur River original flowsheet was largely based on the use of conventional mineral processing concepts and equipment. Where necessary, testwork was undertaken to prove design concepts or adapt conventional equipment for unique services. Simulated ore was utilized in much of the testwork because the off-site testing facilities were not licensed to receive radioactive materials. Testwork at the Key Lake metallurgical laboratory also confirmed the suitability of the Key Lake mill circuit for processing McArthur River ore with some Key Lake circuit modifications.

To date, numerous changes have been made to both the McArthur River and Key Lake processing and water treatment circuits to improve their operational reliability and efficiency. From a uranium recovery perspective, the most important was to change the McArthur River grinding circuit classification system from screens to cyclones. This was completed in late 2009 and provided a measurable recovery increase as well as reduced particle segregation issues. Based on average operating results achieved during the periods from 2009 to 2017, inclusive, and from 2023 to 2025, inclusive, the Key Lake mill recorded an average annual recovery of approximately 99.2%, which is assumed to be maintained. Testing at Key Lake has shown that use of a silica coagulant was able to alleviate the issues caused by the cement dilution in the ore from McArthur River. This has eliminated the need to operate the gravity concentrator circuit as well as increased the solvent extraction circuit operational reliability.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 38

Waste rock

There are five rock stockpiles at the Key Lake site:

 

•

Three contain non-mineralized waste rock. These will be decommissioned when the site is closed.

 

•

Two contain low-grade mineralized material. These are used to reduce the grade of McArthur River ore slurry before it enters the mill circuits to maintain a nominal 5% U3O8 ore feed grade.

Treatment of effluent

We modified Key Lake’s effluent treatment process to satisfy our licence and permit requirements.

Tailings capacity

There are two TMFs at the Key Lake site:

 

•

An above-ground impoundment facility, where tailings are stored within compacted till embankments. We have not deposited tailings here since 1996, and are looking at several options for decommissioning this facility in the future.

 

•

The Deilmann open pit, which was mined out in the 1990s. Tailings from processing McArthur River ore are deposited in the Deilmann in-pit TMF.

Beginning in July 2001, periodic sloughing of the pit walls in the western portion of the Deilmann TMF was experienced. We implemented a long-term stabilization plan, with the final phase completed in 2019.

Based upon the current licence conditions, tailings capacity is sufficient to mill all the known McArthur River mineral reserves and resources, should they be converted to reserves, with additional capacity to toll mill ore from other regional deposits.

Decommissioning and financial assurances

Updated preliminary decommissioning plans for McArthur River and Key Lake were submitted in 2022 as part of the regular five-year update schedule. Prior to revising the letters of credit, approval of the updated plans is required from the province of Saskatchewan and CNSC staff as well as formal approval from the CNSC through a Commission proceeding. The necessary approvals were received for McArthur River in 2025 and updated financial assurances are in place. A formal Commission proceeding will be required for final approval of the updated preliminary decommissioning plans for Key Lake. The existing financial assurance remains in place for Key Lake and will be updated upon regulatory acceptance of the updated documents.

For more information, see Nuclear waste management and decommissioning.

Operating and capital costs

The following is a summary of the operating and capital cost estimates for the life of mine, stated in constant 2025 dollars and reflecting a forecast life-of-mine mill production of 346.6 million pounds U₃O₈ packaged.

 

Operating Costs ($CAD million)		Total (2026 – 2044)
McArthur River Mining
Site administration		$	1,030.6
Mining costs			2,341.4
Process			372.1
Corporate overhead			288.9
Total mining costs		$	4,033.0
Key Lake Milling
Administration		$	1,269.1
Milling costs			1,909.9
Corporate overhead			317.2
Total milling costs		$	3,496.2
Total operating costs		$	7,529.2
Total operating cost per pound U3O8		$	21.72

Note: Presented as total cost to the McArthur River Joint Venture.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 39

Estimated operating costs to the MRJV consist of annual expenditures at McArthur River to mine the mineral reserves, process it underground, including grinding, thickening, and pumping the resulting slurry to surface and transporting it to Key Lake, as well as the costs associated with the low-grade mineralized waste brought to surface and transported to Key Lake for ore blending purposes.

Operating costs at Key Lake consist of costs for receipt of the slurry, grinding of mineralized waste for blending, processing of the ore up to and including precipitation, dewatering, calcining and packaging of the yellowcake into drums, including the cost of tailings placement for long-term storage in the Deilmann TMF.

We expect increased operating costs primarily related to maintaining the long-term reliability of our assets at both sites. Maintenance costs have increased substantially in the past year due to increases in the costs of materials and supplemental contractor labour.

 

Capital Costs ($CAD million)		Total (2026 - 2044)
McArthur River Mine Development		$	425.8
McArthur River Mine Capital
Freeze infrastructure		$	129.4
Water management			20.2
Concrete batching and delivery			30.2
Electrical infrastructure			33.0
Other mine capital			479.6
Total mine capital		$	692.4
Key Lake Mill Sustaining
Mill sustaining capital		$	375.7
Mill capacity expansion			296.1
Total mill capital		$	671.8
Total capital costs		$	1,790.0

Notes:

 

1.	Presented as total cost to the MRJV.

2.	Mine development includes delineation drilling, mine development, probe and grout drilling, freeze drilling, and minor support infrastructure.

Estimated capital costs to the MRJV include sustaining costs for both McArthur River and Key Lake, as well as underground development at McArthur River to bring undeveloped mineral reserves into production. Overall, the largest segment of capital at McArthur River is mine development. Other significant capital includes freeze infrastructure costs.

Capital costs at Key Lake have increased due to inflationary pressures on project execution as well as investments to address aging infrastructure to help ensure the long-term sustainability of the operation.

The economic analysis, effective as of December 31, 2018, being the effective date of the technical report for McArthur River and Key Lake operations, resulted in an estimated pre-tax net present value (NPV) (at a discount rate of 8%) to Cameco for net cash flows from January 1, 2019 forward of $2.97 billion for its share of the current McArthur River mineral reserves. Using the total capital invested to December 31, 2018, along with the operating and capital estimates for the remainder of the mineral reserves, the pre-tax internal rate of return (IRR) was estimated to be 11.6%.

The analysis was from the point of view of Cameco, which owns 69.805% of the MRJV, and incorporated a projection of Cameco’s sales revenue from its proportionate share of the related production, less its share of related operating and capital costs of the MRJV, as well as royalties and surcharges that will be payable on the sale of concentrates.

For the purpose of the economic analysis, the projected impact of income taxes was excluded due to the nature of the required calculations. McArthur River operates as an unincorporated joint venture and is, therefore, not subject to direct income taxation at the joint venture level. It is not practical to allocate a resulting income tax cost to Cameco’s portion of the McArthur River operation, as Cameco’s tax expense is a function of several variables, most of which are independent of its investment in McArthur River.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 40

Economic Analysis ($Cdn M)		Year 0				Year 1				Year 2				Year 3				Year 4				Year 5				Year 6				Year 7				Year 8				Year 9				Year 10				Year 11				Year 12
Production volume (000’s lbs U308)			—				2,788				12,508				12,550				12,653				12,591				12,621				12,611				12,550				12,556				12,587				12,553				12,569
Sales revenue		$	—			$	131.7			$	572.2			$	577.5			$	602.8			$	618.7			$	635.0			$	651.6			$	662.9			$	683.3			$	698.0			$	709.1			$	719.4
Operating costs			68.2				137.5				171.1				169.5				169.0				168.9				170.1				172.9				177.5				177.9				179.3				179.9				180.0
Capital costs			3.7				31.1				36.7				31.9				31.0				42.9				36.8				34.7				35.0				42.6				43.6				74.4				32.0
Basic royalty			—				5.6				24.3				24.5				25.6				26.3				27.0				27.7				28.2				29.0				29.7				30.1				30.6
Resource surcharge			—				3.9				17.2				17.3				18.1				18.6				19.0				19.5				19.9				20.5				20.9				21.3				21.6
Profit royalty			—				—				42.6				49.7				53.5				54.1				57.3				59.6				60.4				62.3				64.1				61.1				69.1
Net pre-tax cash flow		$	(71.9	)		$	(46.5	)		$	280.2			$	284.6			$	305.5			$	307.9			$	324.8			$	337.2			$	341.8			$	351.0			$	360.4			$	342.3			$	386.2

 

Economic Analysis ($Cdn M)		Year 13				Year 14				Year 15				Year 16				Year 17				Year 18				Year 19				Year 20				Year 21				Year 22				Year 23				Total
Production volume (000’s lbs U308)			12,567				12,630				12,618				12,602				12,591				12,603				12,611				12,649				12,779				11,705				6,060				272,553
Sales revenue		$	748.7			$	757.8			$	772.9			$	787.6			$	780.6			$	787.7			$	794.5			$	796.9			$	805.1			$	737.4			$	381.8			$	15,413.2
Operating costs			182.1				184.7				185.3				184.5				184.0				182.1				181.8				178.8				175.4				171.0				148.6				4,080.3
Capital costs			33.3				23.6				21.7				21.4				21.6				21 .9				17.7				11.9				6.4				1.4				—				657.5
Basic royalty			31.8				32.2				32.8				33.5				33.2				33.5				33.8				33.9				34.2				31.3				16.2				655.1
Resource surcharge			22.5				22.7				23.2				23.6				23.4				23.6				23.8				23.9				24.2				22.1				11.5				462.4
Profit royalty			73.1				75.7				78.1				80.5				79.5				80.8				82.5				84.2				86.6				78.5				31.7				1,465.0
Net pre-tax cash flow		$	405.9			$	418.9			$	431.7			$	444.1			$	438.9			$	445.7			$	454.9			$	464.3			$	478.2			$	433.0			$	173.8			$	8,092.9
Pre-tax NPV (8%) to January 1, 2019		$	2,973.3
Pre-tax IRR(%)			11.6	%

Notes:

 

1.	Production volume does not include recycled product received from the Blind River Refinery and the Port Hope Conversion Facility.

Our expectations and plans regarding McArthur River/Key Lake, including forecasts of operating and capital costs, net cash flow, production and mine life are forward-looking information and are based specifically on the risks and assumptions discussed on pages 5 to 8. We may change our operating or capital spending plans in 2026, depending upon uranium markets, our financial position, results of operation, or other factors. Estimates of expected future production, and capital and operating costs are inherently uncertain, particularly beyond one year, and may change materially over time.

Exploration, drilling, sampling, data quality and estimates

There are no historical mineral resource estimates within the meaning of NI 43-101 to report. The original McArthur River mineral resource estimates were derived from surface diamond drilling from 1980 to 1992. In 1988 and 1989, this drilling first revealed significant uranium mineralization and by 1992, we had delineated the mineralization over a strike length of 1,700 metres at depths of between 500 to 640 metres. Following the drillhole results, development of an underground exploration project was undertaken in 1993.

Exploration

Drilling has been carried out extensively from both surface and underground to locate and delineate mineralization. Surface exploration drilling is initially used in areas where underground access is not available. The results are used to guide future underground exploration activities.

Drilling

Surface drilling

We have carried out surface drilling since 2004, to test the extension of mineralization identified from the historical surface drillholes, to test new targets along the strike, and to evaluate the P2 trend northeast and southwest of the mine. Surface drilling since 2004 has extended the potential strike length to approximately 2,700 metres.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 41

We have completed preliminary drill tests of the P2 trend at 300 metre intervals or less over 11.5 kilometres (5.0 kilometres northeast and 6.4 kilometres southwest of the McArthur River deposit) of the total 13.75 kilometres strike length of the P2 trend. Surface exploration drilling in 2015 focused on additional evaluation in the southern part of the P2 trend south of the P2 main mineralization. Starting in 2016, exploration efforts mostly shifted away from the P2 trend to the north part of the property.

Underground drilling

In 1993, regulators approved an underground exploration program, consisting of shaft sinking, lateral development and drilling. We completed the shaft in 1994.

We have drilled more than 1,400 underground drillholes since 1993 to get detailed information along approximately 1,900 metres of strike length. The drilling was primarily completed from the 530 and 640 metre levels.

Other data

In addition to the exploration drilling, geological data has been collected from the underground probe and grout, service, drain, freeze, and geotechnical drill programs.

Recent activity

Underground exploration at McArthur River continued in 2025 with the focus areas being infill drilling of Zones A and B. In addition, a small surface and underground drill program was carried out on exploration targets just north of the existing underground workings. Drill results were encouraging and are currently under review.

Surface exploration activities were also carried out on the northern end of the property.

Sampling, analysis and data verification

Surface samples

Surface holes were generally drilled on sections spaced between 50 and 200 metres with 12 to 25 metres between holes on a section when necessary. Drilled depths average 670 metres.

The orientation of mineralization is variable but, in general, vertical holes intersect mineralization at angles of 25 to 45 degrees, resulting in true widths being 40 to 70% of the intersected width. Angled holes usually intercept mineralization closer to perpendicular, giving intercepts that are closer to true width.

Any stratigraphy exhibiting noteworthy alteration, structures or radiometric anomalies is split and sampled.

Given that the vast majority of the deposit has been delineated from underground, few surface holes are used for mineral resource and reserve estimation purposes.

Underground samples

Underground drilling is generally planned to provide close to true thicknesses results. All underground exploration holes are core drilled and gamma probed whenever possible. McArthur River uses a high-flux gamma probe designed and constructed by alphaNUCLEAR, a member of the Cameco group of companies. This high-flux gamma probe utilizes two Geiger MÜller tubes to detect the amount of gamma radiation emanating from the surroundings. The count rate obtained from the high-flux probe is compared against chemical assay results to establish a correlation to convert corrected probe count rates into equivalent % U₃O₈ grades for use when assay results are unavailable.

The consistency between probe data and chemical assays demonstrates that secular equilibrium exists within the deposit. A small portion of the data used to estimate mineral resources is obtained from assays, and in these cases, the core depth is validated by comparing the downhole gamma survey results with a hand-held scintillometer on core before it is logged, photographed, and then sampled for uranium analysis. Attempts are made to avoid having samples cross geological boundaries.

When sampled, the entire core from each sample interval is taken for assay or other measurements to characterize the physical and geochemical properties of the deposit. This reduces the potential sample bias inherent when splitting core. Core recovery throughout the deposit has generally been very good. However, in areas of poor core recovery, uranium grade determination is generally based on radiometric probe results.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 42

The typical sample collection process at our operations is performed by or under the supervision of a qualified geoscientist and includes the following procedures:

 

•

marking the sample intervals on the core boxes at nominal 0.5 metre sample lengths;

 

•

collection of the samples in plastic bags, taking the entire core;

 

•

documentation of the sample location, assigning a sample number, and description of the sample, including radiometric values from a hand-held device;

 

•

bagging and sealing, with sample tags inside bags and sample numbers on the bags; and

 

•

placement of samples in steel drums for shipping.

Sample security

Current sampling protocols dictate that all samples are collected and prepared in a restricted core processing facility. The core samples are collected and transferred from the core boxes to high-strength plastic sample bags, then sealed. The sealed bags are then placed in steel drums and shipped in compliance with the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations with tamper-resistant security seals. Chain of custody documentation is present from inserting samples into steel drums to the final delivery of results by the Saskatchewan Research Council Geoanalytical Laboratories (SRCGL).

All samples collected are prepared and analysed under the close supervision of qualified personnel at SRCGL, which is a restricted access laboratory licensed by the CNSC.

Analysis

Drill core assay sample preparation is performed at SRCGL’s main laboratory, which is independent of the participants of the MRJV. It involves jaw crushing to 80% passing at less than two millimetres and splitting out a 100- to 200-gram sub-sample using a riffle splitter. The sub-sample is pulverized to 90% at less than 106 microns using a puck and ring grinding mill. The pulp is then transferred to a bar coded plastic snap top vial. Assaying by SRCGL involves digesting an aliquot of pulp in concentrated 3:1 HCl:HNO₃, on a hot plate for approximately one hour. The volume is then made up in a 100-millilitre volumetric flask using deionized water prior to analysis by ICP-OES. Instruments used in the analysis are calibrated using certified commercial solutions. This method is ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited by the Standards Council of Canada.

Quality control and data verification

The quality assurance and quality control procedures used during early drilling programs were typical for the time. Many of the original signed assay certificates from surface drilling are available and have been reviewed by Cameco geoscientists.

More recent sample preparation and assaying was completed under the supervision of qualified personnel at SRCGL and includes preparing and analysing standards, duplicates and blanks. At least two standards are analysed for each 40-sample batch. We also include a pulp repeat and one split sample repeat with every group. Samples that fail quality controls are re-analysed.

In 2013, McArthur River implemented a SQL server based centralized geological data management system to manage all drillhole and sample related data. All core logging, sample collection, downhole probing and sample dispatching activities are carried out and managed within this system. All assay, geochemical and physical analytical results obtained from the external laboratory are uploaded directly into the centralized database, thereby mitigating the potential for manual data transfer errors. The database used for the current mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates was validated by Cameco qualified geoscientists. A review and minor update of the Zone 1 mineral resource estimate was completed in 2025.

Additional data quality control measures include:

 

•

Surveyed drillhole collar coordinates and downhole deviations are entered into the database and visually validated and compared to the planned location of the holes.

 

•

Comparison of the information in the database against the original data, including paper logs, assay certificates and original probing data files as required. While no new drilling information was collected in Zone 1, additional assay certificate checks on high impact holes, including a field visit to inspect the original core was performed in 2025. No discrepancies between the assay certificates and database entries were observed.

 

•

Validation of core logging information in plan and section views, and review of logs against photographs of the core.

 

•

Checking for data entry errors such as overlapping intervals and out of range values.

 

•

Radiometric probes undergo annual servicing and re-calibration as well as additional checks including control probing to ensure precision and accuracy of the probes. Servicing and re-calibration of the probes were performed to support 2025 drilling activities. Control probing results have generally been within acceptable tolerances. Malfunctioning probes failing quality control checks in 2025 were identified in a timely manner.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 43

•

Validating uranium grades comparing radiometric probing, core radioactivity measurements and chemical assay results. During the course of the Zone 1 mineral resource update, probing results for 10% of the historical drillholes were reviewed with no significant issues observed.

Quality control and data verification activities described above will be finalized prior to the next resource estimate updates.

Since the start of commercial production, we have regularly compared information collected from production activities, such as freeze holes, raisebore pilot holes, radiometric scanning of scoop tram buckets and mill feed sampling, to the drillhole data informed models. We also compare the uranium block model with mine production results on a quarterly basis to ensure an acceptable level of accuracy is maintained. Results in 2025 were within acceptable tolerances.

Our geoscientists, including a qualified person as such term is defined in NI 43-101, have witnessed or reviewed drilling, core handling, radiometric probing, logging, sampling facilities, sampling and data verification procedures employed at the McArthur River operation and consider the methodologies to be satisfactory and the results representative and reliable. There has been no indication of significant inconsistencies in the data used or verified nor any failures to adequately verify the data.

Accuracy

We are satisfied with the quality of data and consider it valid for use in the estimation of mineral resources and reserves for McArthur River. Comparison of the actual mine production with the expected production supports this opinion.

Mineral reserve and resource estimates

Please see pages 97 and 98 for our mineral reserve and resource estimates for McArthur River.  

Uranium – Tier-one operations

Cigar Lake

 

		2025 Production (our share)   10.4M lb   2026 Production Outlook (our share)   9.5-10.0M lb1   Estimated Reserves (our share)   94.1M lb   Estimated Mine Life   2036

Cigar Lake is the world’s highest-grade uranium mine. We are a 54.5% owner and the mine operator. Cigar Lake ore is milled at Orano’s McClean Lake mill.

Cigar Lake is considered a material uranium property for us. There is a technical report dated March 22, 2024 (effective December 31, 2023) that can be downloaded from SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) or from EDGAR (www.sec.gov).

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 44

Location		Saskatchewan, Canada
Ownership		54.547%
Mine type		Underground
Mining method		Jet boring system
End product		Uranium concentrate
Certification		ISO 14001 certified
Estimated reserves		94.1 million pounds (proven and probable), average grade U3O8: 16.33%
Estimated resources		14.3 million pounds (measured and indicated), average grade U3O8: 5.05%
		10.9 million pounds (inferred), average grade U3O8: 5.55%
Licensed capacity		18.0 million pounds per year (our share 9.8 million pounds per year)
Licence term		Through June 2031
Total packaged production: 2014 to 2025		174.5 million pounds (100% basis)
2025 production		10.4 million pounds (19.1 million pounds on 100% basis)
2026 production outlook		9.5-10.0 million pounds (17.5-18 million pounds on 100% basis)1
Estimated decommissioning cost		$76.5 million (100% basis)

All values shown, including reserves and resources, represent our share only, unless otherwise indicated.

 

1	Production ranges, our share, have been rounded to the nearest half-million.

Business structure

Cigar Lake is owned by a joint venture of three companies (CLJV):

 

•

Cameco – 54.547% (operator)

 

•

Orano – 40.453%

 

•

TEPCO Resources Inc. – 5.000%

History

 

1976		• Canadian Kelvin Resources and Asamera Oil Corporation form an exploration joint venture, which includes the lands that the Cigar Lake mine was built on
1977		• SMDC, one of our predecessor companies, acquires a 50% interest
1980		• Waterbury Lake joint venture formed, includes lands now called Cigar Lake
1981		• Deposit discovered by surface drilling – it was delineated by a surface drilling program between 1982 and 1986
1985		• Reorganization of the Waterbury Lake joint venture – Cigar Lake Mining Corporation becomes the operator of the Cigar Lake lands and a predecessor to Orano becomes the operator of the remaining Waterbury Lake lands   • SMDC has a 50.75% interest
1987-1992		• Test mining, including sinking shaft 1 to 500 metres and lateral development on 420 metre, 465 metre and 480 metre levels
1988		• Eldorado Resources Limited merges with SMDC to form Cameco
1993-1997		• Canadian and Saskatchewan governments authorize the project to proceed to regulatory licensing stage, based on recommendation of the joint federal-provincial panel after public hearings on the project’s environmental impact
2000		• Jet boring system (JBS) tested in waste and frozen ore
2001		• Joint venture approves a feasibility study and detailed engineering begins in June
2002		• Joint venture is reorganized, new joint venture agreement is signed, Rabbit Lake and JEB toll milling agreements are signed, and we replace Cigar Lake Mining Corporation as Cigar Lake mine operator
2004		• Environmental assessment process is complete   • CNSC issues a construction licence

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 45

2005		• Development begins in January
2006		• Two water inflow incidents delay development:   • in April, shaft 2 floods   • in October, underground development areas flood   • In November, we begin work to remediate the underground development areas
2008		• Remediation interrupted by another inflow in August, preventing the mine from being dewatered
2009		• Remediation of shaft 2 completed in May   • We seal the 2008 inflow in October
2010		• We finish dewatering the underground development areas in February, establish safe access to the 480 metre level, the main working level of the mine, and backfill the 465 metre level   • We substantially complete clean-up, inspection, assessment and securing of underground development and resume underground development in the south end of the mine
2011		• We begin to freeze the ground around shaft 2 and restart freezing the orebody from underground and from the surface   • We resume the sinking of shaft 2 and early in 2012 achieve breakthrough to the 480 metre level, establishing a second means of egress for the mine   • We receive regulatory approval of our mine plan and begin work on our Seru Bay project   • Agreements are signed by the Cigar Lake and McClean Lake joint venture participants to mill all Cigar Lake ore at the McClean Lake mill and the Rabbit Lake toll milling agreement is terminated
2012		• We achieve breakthrough to the 500 metre level in shaft 2   • We assemble the first JBS unit underground and move it to a production tunnel where we commence preliminary commissioning
2013		• CNSC issues an eight-year operating licence   • We begin jet boring in ore
2014		• First Cigar Lake ore shipped to McClean Lake mill   • McClean Lake mill starts producing uranium concentrate from Cigar Lake ore
2015		• We declared commercial production in May
2016		• We updated the CNSC on our commissioning activities to satisfy a condition in our federal licence
2020		• In March, production is temporarily suspended as a precautionary measure due to the COVID-19 pandemic   • In September, production resumes   • In December, production is temporarily suspended as a precautionary measure due to the COVID-19 pandemic
2021		• In April, we announce plans to restart production   • In June, CNSC granted a 10-year renewal of Cigar Lake’s uranium operating licence
2022		• In February, we announce plans to reduce production at Cigar Lake in 2024 to 13.5 million pounds per year (100% basis), 25% below its annual licensed capacity   • In May, we acquire an additional 4.522 percentage interest in Cigar Lake, increasing our interest to 54.547%
2023		• We updated our production plans for Cigar Lake to maintain production of 18 million pounds per year (100% basis) in 2024
2024		• We began work to extend the mine life to 2036, subject to receipt of all regulatory approvals, with estimated full annual production of 18 million pounds (100% basis) for 10 years followed by a two-year ramp-down until depletion
2025		• Substantially progressed physical surface work for development of the Cigar Lake extension portion of the orebody initial mining zone as well as progressed key development activities underground for both the main and extension areas of Cigar Lake

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 46

Technical report

 

This description is based on the project’s technical report: Cigar Lake Operation, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada, dated March 22, 2024 (effective December 31, 2023) except for some updates that reflect developments since the technical report was published. The report was prepared for us in accordance with NI 43-101, by or under the supervision of Biman Bharadwaj, P. Eng., Scott Bishop, P. Eng., Alain D. Renaud, P. Geo., and Lloyd Rowson, P. Eng. The following description has been prepared under the supervision of Kirk Lamont, P. Eng., Scott Bishop, P. Eng., Alain D. Renaud P. Geo., and Biman Bharadwaj, P. Eng. They are all qualified persons within the meaning of NI 43-101 but are not independent of us.		For information about uranium sales see pages 22 to 25, environmental matters see Our sustainability principles and practices and The regulatory environment starting on pages 101 and 104, and taxes see page 109.   For a description of royalties payable to the province of Saskatchewan on the sale of uranium extracted from orebodies within the province, see page 111.   For a description of risks that might affect access, title or the right or ability to perform work on the property, see Regulatory and governance risks starting at page 126.
The conclusions, projections and estimates included in this description are subject to the qualifications, assumptions and exclusions set out in the technical report except as such qualifications, assumptions and exclusions may be modified in this AIF. We recommend you read the technical report in its entirety to fully understand the project. You can download a copy from SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca) or from EDGAR (www.sec.gov).

About the Cigar Lake property

We began developing the Cigar Lake underground mine in 2005, but development was delayed due to water inflows. In October 2014, the McClean Lake mill produced the first uranium concentrate from ore mined at the Cigar Lake operation. Commercial production was declared in May 2015. Since that time, mine operation has achieved full nameplate capacity.

Location

The Cigar Lake mine site is located near Waterbury Lake, approximately 660 kilometres north of Saskatoon. The mine site is near other uranium production operations: McClean Lake mill is 69 kilometres northeast by road and McArthur River mine is 46 kilometres southwest by air from the mine site.

Access

Access to the property is by an all-weather road and by air. Site activities occur year-round, including supply deliveries. There is an unpaved airstrip and air terminal east of the mine site.

Saskatoon, a major population centre south of the Cigar Lake deposit, has highway, rail and air links to the rest of North America.

Leases

Surface lease

The CLJV acquired the right to use and occupy the lands necessary to mine the deposit under a surface lease agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. The lease covers approximately 715 hectares and expires in May 2044.

We are required to report annually on the status of the environment, land development and progress on northern employment and business development.

Mineral lease

We have the right to mine the deposit under ML 5521, granted to the CLJV by the province of Saskatchewan. The lease covers 308 hectares and expires in November 2031. The CLJV has the right to renew the lease for further 10-year terms.

Mineral claims

A mineral claim gives us the right to explore for minerals and to apply for a mineral lease. There are 40 mineral claims totaling 100,813 hectares, adjoining the mineral lease and surrounding the site. The mineral claims are in good standing until 2026 or later.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 47

Environment, social and community factors

The climate is typical of the continental sub-arctic region of northern Saskatchewan. Summers are short and cool even though daily temperatures can sometimes reach above 30°C. The mean daily temperature for the coldest month is below -20°C, and winter daily temperatures can reach below -40°C.

The deposit is 40 kilometres west of the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan. The topography and environment are typical of the taiga forested lands in the Athabasca Basin. This area is covered with 30 to 50 metres of overburden. Vegetation is dominated by black spruce and jack pine. There is a lake known as “Cigar Lake” which, in part, overlays the deposit.

We are committed to building long-lasting and trusting relationships with the communities in which we operate. For more information, see Our Sustainability principles and practices at page 101.

The closest inhabited site is Points North Landing, 56 kilometres northeast by road. The community of Wollaston Lake is approximately 80 kilometres by air to the east of the mine site.

Athabasca Basin community resident employees and contractors fly to the mine site from designed pick-up points. Other employees and contractors fly to site from Saskatoon with pickup points in Prince Albert and La Ronge.

Geological setting

The deposit is at the unconformity contact separating late Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic sandstone of the Athabasca Group from middle Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss and plutonic rocks of the Wollaston Group. The Key Lake, McClean Lake and Collins Bay deposits all have a similar structural setting. While Cigar Lake shares many similarities with these deposits, it is distinguished by its flat-lying geometry, size, the intensity of its alteration process, the high degree of associated hydrothermal clay alteration and the presence of massive, extremely rich, high-grade uranium mineralization.

Cigar Lake’s geological setting is similar to McArthur River’s: the permeable sandstone, which overlays the deposit and basement rocks, contains large volumes of water at significant pressure. Unlike McArthur River, however, the deposit is flat-lying with the ore zone being overlain by variably developed clay alteration as opposed to silica enrichment.

Mineralization

The Cigar Lake deposit has the shape of a flat- to cigar-shaped lens and is approximately 1,950 metres in length, 25 to 100 metres in width, and ranges up to 15.7 metres thick, with an average thickness of about 5.4 metres. It occurs at depths ranging between 410 to 450 metres below the surface. The eastern part of Cigar Lake (CLMain) is approximately 670 metres long by 100 metres wide and the western part (CLExt) is approximately 1,280 metres long by 75 metres wide.

The deposit has two distinct styles of mineralization:

 

•

high-grade mineralization at or proximal to the unconformity which includes all of the mineral resources and mineral reserves; and

 

•

low-grade, fracture controlled, vein-like mineralization which is located either higher up in the sandstone or in the basement rock mass.

The uranium oxide in the form of uraninite and pitchblende occurs as disseminated grains in aggregates ranging in size from millimetres to decimetres, and as massive metallic lenses of mineralization up to a few metres thick in a matrix of sandstone and clay. Coffinite (uranium silicate) is estimated to form less than 3% of the total uranium mineralization.

Geochemically, the deposit contains quantities of the elements nickel, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc, molybdenum, arsenic and rare earth elements, but in non-economic concentrations. Higher concentrations of these elements are associated with massive pitchblende or massive sections of arseno-sulphides.

Deposit type

Cigar Lake is an unconformity-related uranium deposit. Deposits of this type are believed to have formed through a redox reaction at a contact where oxygenated fluids met with reducing fluids. The geological model was confirmed by surface drilling, development, and production activities.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 48

About the Cigar Lake operation

Cigar Lake is a developed property with sufficient surface rights to meet current mining operation needs. We are currently mining in the CLMain orebody. We have successfully packaged approximately 174.5 million pounds (100% basis) since we began mining in 2014.

Permits

Please see page 54 for more information about regulatory approvals for Cigar Lake.

Infrastructure

Surface facilities are 490 metres above sea level. The site includes:

 

• an underground mine with two shafts   • access road joining the provincial highway and McClean Lake   • site roads and site grading   • airstrip and terminal   • employee residence and construction camp   • Shaft No. 1 and No. 2 surface facilities   • freeze plants and brine distribution equipment   • surface freeze pads   • water supply, storage and distribution for industrial water, potable water and fire suppression   • propane, diesel and gasoline storage and distribution   • electrical power substation and distribution		• compressed air supply and distribution   • mine water storage ponds and water treatment   • sewage collection and treatment   • surface and underground pumping system installation   • surface runoff containment infrastructure   • waste rock stockpiles and aggregate processing infrastructure   • garbage disposal landfill   • administration, maintenance and warehousing facilities   • ore load out facility   • concrete batch plant   • Seru Bay treated water effluent pipeline   • emergency power generating facilities

The Cigar Lake mine site contains all the necessary services and facilities to operate a remote underground mine, including personnel accommodation, access to water, airport, site roads and other necessary buildings and infrastructure.

Water, power and heat

Waterbury Lake, which is nearby, provides water for the industrial activities and the camp. The site is connected to the provincial electricity grid, and it has standby generators in case there is an interruption in grid power.

Cigar Lake operates throughout the year despite cold winter conditions. During the winter, we use propane-fired burners to heat the fresh air necessary to ventilate the underground workings.

Employees

Employees are recruited with preference given to residents of northern Saskatchewan.

Mining

The Cigar Lake deposit presents unique challenges that are not typical of traditional hard or soft rock mines. These challenges are the result of mining in or near high-pressure ground water in challenging ground conditions with significant radiation concerns due to the high-grade uranium and elements of concern in the orebody with respect to water quality. We take significant steps and precautions to reduce the risks. Mine designs and the mining method are selected based on their ability to mitigate hydrological, radiological, and geotechnical risks. Operational experience gained since the start of production has resulted in a significant reduction in risk. However, there is no guarantee that our efforts to mitigate risk will be successful.

Mining methods

At Cigar Lake, the permeable sandstone that overlays the deposit and basement rocks, contains large volumes of water at significant pressure. Before we begin mining, we freeze the ore zone and surrounding ground. We use a JBS to mine the ore.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 49

Artificial ground freezing (AGF)

The current method of mining the Cigar Lake orebody uses progressive block freezing of portions of the mineralized zone and adjacent host rock. Freezing the orebody reduces the risk of potential inflow of groundwater and release of radon gas into the workplace, while increasing cavity stability and standup time during mining. The freezing strategy is to bulk freeze the ore zone and the surrounding area prior to start of mining in a given area. Frozen cavity criteria are applied to each cavity prior to mining to ensure it meets the minimum standard prior to excavation.

This AGF system freezes the deposit and surrounding rock to between -5°C and -25°C in two to four years, depending on freeze pipe geometry and ground properties such as water content and thermal conductivity.

JBS mining

As a result of the unique geological conditions at Cigar Lake, we are unable to utilize traditional mining methods that require access above the ore, which necessitated the development of a non-entry mining method specifically adapted for this deposit. After many years of test mining, we selected jet boring, a non-entry mining method, and it has been used since we began mining in 2014. This method involves:

 

•

drilling a pilot hole into the frozen orebody, inserting a high-pressure water jet and cutting a cavity out of the frozen ore;

 

•

collecting the ore and water mixture (slurry) from the cavity and pumping it to a storage sump, allowing it to settle;

 

•

using a clamshell, transporting the ore from the storage sump to an underground crushing and grinding circuit;

 

•

once mining is complete, filling each cavity in the orebody with concrete; and

 

•

starting the process again with the next cavity.

 

This is a non-entry method, which means mining is carried out from headings in the basement rock below the deposit, so workers are not exposed to the ore. This mining approach is highly effective at managing worker exposure to radiation levels. Combined with ground freezing and the cuttings collection and hydraulic conveyance system, jet boring reduces radiation exposure to acceptable levels that are below regulatory limits.

The mine equipment fleet is currently comprised of three JBS units plus other equipment to support mine development, drilling and other services. Additional scooptrams, plus some smaller ancillary equipment, will be added to the current equipment fleet to meet the production and development requirements for the remainder of the mine life.

We have divided the orebody into production panels. At least three production panels need to be frozen at one time to achieve the full annual production rate of 18 million pounds. One JBS machine will be located below each frozen panel and the three JBS machines required are currently in operation. Two machines can actively mine at any given time while the third is moving, setting up, backfilling or undergoing maintenance.

Mine development

Mine development for construction and operation uses two basic approaches: drill and blast and mechanical excavation with conventional ground support is applied in areas with a competent rock mass, and New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) principles in areas of weak or poor quality rock mass. Most permanent areas of the mine, which contain the majority of the installed equipment and infrastructure, are hosted in competent rock mass and are excavated and supported conventionally. The production tunnels immediately below the orebody are primarily in poor, weak rock mass and are excavated and supported using NATM. NATM was adopted as the primary method of developing new production crosscuts, replacing the former Mine Development System.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 50

NATM, as applied at Cigar Lake, involves a multi-stage sequential mechanical excavation, extensive external ground support and a specialized shotcrete liner. The liner system incorporates yielding elements which permit controlled deformation required to accommodate additive pressure from mining and ground freezing activities. The production tunnels have an inside diameter of five metres and are approximately circular in profile.

We plan our mine development to take place away from known groundwater sources whenever possible. In addition, we assess all planned mine development for relative risk and apply extensive additional technical and operating controls for all higher risk development.

In order to successfully achieve the planned production schedule, we must continue to successfully transition into new mining areas, which includes mine development and investment in critical support infrastructure, and deployment of the jet boring method in new areas. If development or infrastructure construction work is delayed for any reason, including if the performance of our jet boring method is materially different in new areas than in previously mined areas, our ability to meet our future production plans may be impacted.

Mine access

There are two main levels in the mine: the 480 and 500 metre levels. Both levels are in the basement rocks below the unconformity. Mining is conducted from the 480-metre level, which is located approximately 40 metres below the ore zone. The main underground processing and infrastructure facilities are located on this level. The 500-metre level is accessed via a ramp from the 480-metre level. The 500-metre level provides for the main ventilation exhaust drift for the mine, the mine dewatering sump and additional processing facilities. All construction required for production has been completed.

Processing

Cigar Lake ore is processed at two locations; crushing and grinding of the ore is conducted underground at Cigar Lake, while leaching, purification and final yellowcake production and packaging occurs at the McClean Lake mill. The ore is trucked as a thickened finely ground slurry from Cigar Lake to the McLean Lake mill in purpose-built containers identical to those used to transport McArthur River ore slurry to the Key Lake mill.

Recovery and metallurgical testing

Extensive metallurgical test work was performed on core samples of Cigar Lake ore from 1992 to 1999. Samples used for the metallurgical test work during this period may not have been representative of the deposit as a whole. Additional test work completed by Orano in 2012 with drill core samples verified that a high uranium recovery rate could be achieved regardless of the variability of the ore. Test work also concluded that more hydrogen gas evolution took place than previously anticipated, which resulted in safety related modifications being implemented in the leaching circuit. Leaching modifications began in 2013 and were completed in 2014, with mill start-up in September 2014. Since 2014, the McClean Lake mill has processed on a daily basis a range of ore grades, at times in excess of 28% U (33% U₃O₈).

In 2018 and 2019, Orano completed test work on core samples from CLExt. The test work, combined with ongoing optimization and operating experience at the McClean Lake mill, confirmed that no modifications would be required to the mill circuits to process CLExt ore. Tailings neutralization and aging tests also completed during this period verified that the current operating practices at the McClean Lake mill will produce tailings that are stable over the long-term.

Based on the test results and past mill performance, an overall uranium recovery of 98.9% for CLMain and CLExt is expected for the remainder of the mine life.

Specific ore induced risks include:

 

•

Elevated arsenic concentration in the mill feed may result in increased leaching circuit solution temperatures. This could result in a reduction in mill feed rates and additional capital and operating expense to modify the leaching process.

 

•

Hydrogen evolution rates in leaching may exceed the design capacity of the hydrogen gas control system resulting in reduced leach feed rates. Additional capital expense may be required to increase the capacity of the hydrogen gas control system.

Tailings

Cigar Lake site does not have a TMF. The ore is processed at the McClean Lake mill. See Toll milling agreement below for a discussion of the McClean Lake TMF.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 51

Waste rock

The waste rock piles are separated into three categories:

 

•

clean waste – will remain on the mine site for use as aggregate for roads, concrete backfill and future site reclamation;

 

•

mineralized waste (>0.03% U3O8) – will be disposed of underground at the Cigar Lake mine; and

 

•

waste with acid-generating potential – temporarily stored on lined pads and is used as aggregate for concrete backfill.

The latter two stockpiles are contained on lined pads; however, no significant mineralized waste has been identified during development to date.

Production

The production plan is designed to extract all current Cigar Lake mineral reserves. The following is a general summary of the production plan over the expected life of asset on a 100% basis for these mineral reserves:

 

Target annual production		• 18 million pounds U3O8
Average mine production		• 115 to 150 tonnes per day during peak production, depending on ore grade
Total mine production		• 479,000 tonnes of ore
Average mill feed grade		• 16% U3O8 (Cigar Lake ore only)
Total mill production		• 170.5 million pounds of U3O8, based on current mineral reserves and an overall milling recovery of 98.9%

Total packaged production from Cigar Lake in 2025 was 19.1 million pounds U₃O₈ (10.4 million pounds our share), compared to 16.9 million pounds U₃O₈ (9.2 million pounds our share) in 2024. The operation exceeded our forecast of 18 million pounds (100% basis) as a result of higher productivity and our ability to temporarily adjust annual mine production to make up for past annual production shortfalls, as permitted under our CNSC licence and provincial approval.

In 2026, we expect to produce 17.5 million to 18 million pounds (100% basis) at Cigar Lake; our share is approximately 9.5 million to 10.0 million pounds.

Inflation, the availability of personnel with the necessary skills and experience, and the impact of supply chain challenges on the availability of materials and reagents carry with them the risk of not achieving our production plans, production delays and increased costs in 2026 and future years.

Decommissioning and financial assurances

An updated preliminary decommissioning plan for Cigar Lake was submitted in 2022 as part of the regular five-year update schedule. Prior to revising the letters of credit, approval of the updated plan is required from the province and CNSC staff as well as formal approval from the CNSC through a Commission proceeding. The necessary approvals were received in 2025. The document included our estimated cost for implementing the plan and addressing known environmental liabilities.

The reclamation and remediation activities associated with waste rock and tailings at the McClean Lake mill are covered by the plans and cost estimates for the McClean Lake facility.

For more information, see Nuclear waste management and decommissioning.

Water inflow and mine/mill development

Cigar Lake water inflow incidents

From 2006 through 2008, the Cigar Lake project suffered several setbacks because of three water inflow incidents. The first occurred in 2006, resulting in the flooding of the then partially completed Shaft No. 2. The two subsequent incidents involved inflows in the mine workings connected to Shaft No. 1 and resulted in flooding of the mine workings. We executed recovery and remediation plans for all three inflows. Re-entry into the main mine workings was achieved in 2010 and work to secure the mine was completed in 2011. The mine is fully remediated and entered commercial production in 2015.

Lessons learned from the inflows have been applied to the subsequent mine plan and development to reduce the risk of future inflows and improve our ability to manage them should they occur.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 52

Increased pumping capacity

In 2012, we increased the installed mine dewatering capacity to 2,500 cubic metres per hour. Mine water treatment capacity has been increased to 2,550 cubic metres per hour, and regulatory approval to discharge routine and non-routine treated water to Seru Bay is in place. As a result, we believe we have sufficient pumping, water treatment and surface storage capacity to handle the estimated maximum inflow.

Current status of development

Construction of all common major underground development and process facilities required for the duration of the mine life is complete. A number of underground access drifts and production crosscuts remain to be driven as part of ongoing mine development to sustain production rates.

On surface, construction of all infrastructure associated with CLMain required to achieve nameplate capacity has been completed, while installation of infrastructure associated with CLExt remains ongoing.

Underground mine development continued in 2025. We completed development of one production crosscut in the western portion of CLMain, while starting development of one production crosscut in the eastern portion of CLMain. Development also continued for access to the CLExt orebody.

During 2025, we:

 

•

produced from and continued development work in the CLMain orebody in alignment with our long-term production plan;

 

•

successfully executed a planned 28-day annual maintenance outage;

 

•

completed construction outfitting activities on one production tunnel that will support production targets in 2026;

 

•

substantially progressed physical surface work for development of the CLExt portion of the orebody initial mining zone; and

 

•

crushed concrete aggregate to support backfill operations and development activities.

In 2026, we plan to:

 

•

continue production and development activities in CLMain, as well as development to access CLExt in alignment with our long-term mine plan; and

 

•

continue earthworks and construction of surface services to support the expansion of freeze activities required for future production from CLExt.

Toll milling agreement

The McClean Lake joint venture agreed to process Cigar Lake’s ore slurry at its McClean Lake mill, according to the terms in its agreement with the CLJV: JEB toll milling agreement (effective January 1, 2002, and amended and restated effective November 30, 2011), dedicating the necessary McClean Lake mill capacity to process and package 18 million pounds of Cigar Lake uranium concentrate annually.

The CLJV pays a toll milling fee and its share of milling expenses.

The McClean Lake mill started receiving Cigar Lake ore in March 2014 and produced its first drum of Cigar Lake yellowcake in October 2014. All of Cigar Lake’s ore slurry from current mineral reserves will be processed at the McClean Lake mill, operated by Orano. Orano does not expect any new major infrastructure is necessary at the McClean Lake mill to receive and process Cigar Lake’s mineral reserves. Minor mill upgrades, in the spirit of continual improvement, related to throughput optimisation and reagent efficiency continue to be implemented.

The McClean Lake joint venture commenced work in 2012 to optimize its TMF to accommodate all of Cigar Lake’s current mineral reserves. This optimization included periodic raising of a bentonite amended liner, the most recent of which was completed in 2023.

In 2022, Orano received regulatory approval for the expansion of the JEB TMF.

The expansion will be achieved by the continued construction of an engineered embankment and placement of a bentonite amended liner. Following the staged expansion, the TMF is expected to have capacity to receive tailings from processing all of Cigar Lake’s current mineral reserves.

 

2025 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM		Page 53