Good morning and welcome to the Ur-Energy Year End Operational Update Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Penne Goplerud. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Brian. Thank you all for joining us for our fourth quarter 2017 operation teleconference and webcast. We are required to draw the attention of all of our participants to the legal disclaimers contained in this morning’s slide presentation, which will apply equally to our oral presentation today. At slide two, you will find legal disclaimers with regard to forward-looking statements, risk factors and projections, as well as other cautionary notes to U.S. investors. We ask that you read and consider these disclaimers carefully before investing in our shares. As well, risk factors inherent in forward-looking statements and projections are set forth and discussed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 3, 2017, with U.S. Securities and Exchange on EDGAR and with securities regulatory authorities in Canada on SEDAR. I would now like to introduce and turn the webcast presentation over to our Chairman and CEO, Jeff Klenda.

Great. Thank you, Penne. And again, welcome everyone this morning. I want to personally thank you for taking some time to spend with us this morning to allow us to share with you our operational results for 2017, I think we had a very good year. But in addition to that we might as well get right to the elephant in the room and that is everyone knows that we filed a Section 232 Petition with the Department of Commerce earlier this week and that is something that we're going to want to discuss and certainly take questions on - in this webcast as well. So with that said, we'll go ahead and get started on slide number three. As usual we kind of start with our company at a glance and here you see the areas of emphasis for us as we begin our 2018 campaign. But let me say that normally we would be - I would be working with Steve Hatten on this to give an operational update. Today I'm going to be kind of passing the baton back and forth with John Cash, Ur-Energy’s Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, only as John one of our - of course, one of most highly technical people. But John has also been spearheading our initiative on the Section 232 Petition in the filing this week. So it's particularly important for John to be on this call today. But as we look at our areas of emphasis for 2018, what I would emphasize here is that we have now exceeded 4 years of consistent production and I don't want to see any of John’s under [ph] so I'll just let him speak to that production. But we have exceeded £2.4 million that we have produced at Lost Creek. And candidly…

All right. Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate that. First and foremost Ur-Energy did implemented a development schedule in 2017 that allowed us to continue to be ready to respond to positive market developments, while maintaining the future value of in-ground resources. This included keeping experienced staff and contractors where possible, by doing so Ur-Energy was able to develop our key development and construction costs as low as possible for the realized production levels. The last of the required wells for the first 3 header houses in Mine Unit 2 were installed in 2017 using updated installation methods. These latest well completion techniques, along with an experienced team has proven beneficial and that we are experiencing sustained flow rates in our newest areas. That equates to lower maintenance costs, quicker recovery times and potentially lower operating costs. Surface construction of the two of the three Mine Unit 2 header houses is complete with the first house starting in late August 2017 and the other in January 2018. Construction of the third house will be complete in 2018 Q1. As with drilling we have incorporated the lessons learned at Lost Creek to date and have been able to increase average flow rates for injection wells, reduced maintenance and operating costs through better filtration and more precisely with CVN [ph] chemistry maintenance. The result again should be potentially lower operating cost. So on slide seven, here's a slide summarizing our production costs and sales for the last few years. As we stated earlier in the webcast 2017 has been about balancing construction, production and maintaining assets in the ground. The top section of the data again provides more evidence of that, as stock prices have weakened, we have increasingly curtailed pounds captured. Continued excellent recoveries and duration of operations in Mine Unit 1 has…

Great. Thanks, John. And I would just make a couple of supplementary comments here. And one is that while John accurately detailed that we have been able to enjoy gross revenues of $38.3 million that was on 780,000 pounds delivered into the marketplace at an average price of $49.09. And when you consider that throughout 2017 we spent the bulk of the year between $20 and $24 a pound on spot to achieve $49 dollars a pound is something that we're very, very proud of. But in addition to that because we have scaled back production in the manner that we have and strategically purchased pounds when needed, we've been able to preserve our resources in the ground and not lose them to the market place during a time of very low prices. But the other thing that I would emphasize that I don't think John really - really put much emphasis on was the fact that in the first four years we have experienced a recovery of 89%. Remember that our initial PEA stated that we hope to achieve recoveries of 80%. We're already at 89% and with some of those secondary recoveries as John put it in Mine Unit 1, this is one of those forward looking statements that [indiscernible]. But I do believe that we can actually push a 100% and I think that that's something that's not only worthwhile, but that’s virtually unheard of in our industry or any of the extractive industries. The other thing is that John's very self-deprecating, but one of the things that he didn't mention was the fact that in 2017 we put in place and implemented and are operating our classified waste disposal systems and this is really a game changer in the ISR industry. This is something that has…

Okay. If we could advance to slide number 13. Thank you Jeff, I appreciate that. Something really interesting that we did as part of the Section 232 petition itself. We took the preliminary economic assessment for Lost Creek and we compared it to some of the things that are going on over in Kazakhstan and I'll get to that a little bit more in just a second. But it really showed the difference between the two sides, and that we'll get more into that in just a bit. But Kazakhstan and Russia as you can imagine they have very different environmental regulations that we - than we do here in the U.S. They mine with sulphuric acid. They don't perform mechanical integrity tests on wells. They don't even restore their groundwater when they're done like we do in the U.S. There is substantial cost differences between operations because of that. And in Kazakhstan and Russia they benefit from a lot of subsidies and things like faster permitting, energy subsidies, we know that electricity is subsidized. Currency valuation is also a big issue. If you take a look at the Tenge and also the Russian currency they are very weak compared to the U.S. dollar. So those countries they produce in their domestic currency and then they sell in U.S. dollars. And that makes it very difficult to compete with them. In fact at one point the Tenge, the devaluation there was about 87%. And also there are some significant differences in labor costs. Moving back to the PEA. We took the last PEA which our engineers had put together back in 2016 and we asked them to simply integrate the Kazakh environmental regulations into that, don't make any other changes, just integrate the Kazakh regulatory regime, their environmental regulations into…

That's great. Thank you, John. And let me just follow on by making a couple of comments and that is that again I will echo what John said and what's in one of the bullet points is that we believe that what we are recommending in terms of a remedy or remedies because they are two parts, are both reasonable and achievable and I think that this is something where I can't emphasize this strongly enough that this is certainly not any 1930s type Smoot-Hawley style protectionism where American industry has been rendered uncompetitive and we are trying to salvage faltering industries in the United States. We have been rendered uncompetitive by state sponsorship and subsidies and currency devaluation is that - and open markets and there's a lot to be said for open markets and this is not intended to be protectionist in any way, but you've got to – they’ve got to make sense and particularly when it pertains to national security. When you allow your markets to be flooded with cheap materials to the point where it results in the destruction of critical industries that are allowed to wither and die here in the United States. That absolutely makes no sense and those are broken trade policies. And as expected when we dropped this petition, the opposition popped up immediately. The one trade magazine brought out - rolled out no less than the ancient oracle of the industry. Tom Neff who within less than 24 hours came out and said that by reserving 25% of utility consumption for domestic producers that it would result in the destruction of the nuclear industry in the United States. I can't help but think that that's a bit of a hysterical response and a bit of an overreaction. And actually anybody…

[Operator Instructions] And the first question comes from Michael Wichterle with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead.

Yeah, hi. Hi, Jeff and John.

Hi, Mike.

Hi. Congrats on your yearly production figures and on your Q3 two analysis. I just had two questions. The first dealing with the petition itself, to get to that proposed 25% quota – the domestic quota. How do you see that working, I am assuming this would be a gradual rollout with spread over - spread over a couple of years I guess?

It most certainly put in and by the way John and I are at different locations. So John feel free to jump in on any of this anytime you want, but we have taken a look at this and I'll speak to it on a macro basis, well let John speak to it on a micro level. On a macro level of view, if you look at EIA numbers from the Department of Energy they will tell you that we have capacity in this country for 36 million pounds of production, but I think anybody that's actively involved in this industry and owns a red pen can have that list pretty readily and whittle that down to where I think that even with a concentrated effort of significant capital infusion and an effort to bring production on line, I think that we could probably in five years get to about 21 million to 23 million pounds or at least that's my personal assessment. Now given your question has to do with how quickly we could ramp up to meet the 25% that we're asking for. John has taken a look at that on a detail basis and I'd ask John to weigh in on that John?

All right. Thanks, Jeff. Actually if you take a look at the petition there are two exhibits that are dedicated to discussion of the domestic uranium industry, it includes a table that shows the capacity of each of the facilities that are out there. But of the second what Jeff said, if you take a look at the EIA numbers and start whittling that down, I think I'll take it a step further not just five years, but if you look in one year I think it would be relatively easy to get up to about 8 million pounds of production if the price were right going on from 8 million pounds a year to get up to 11.5 million which would represent about 25% which we're seeking in the petition that might take another year and some good prices to support that. But we could get to that 25% I believe quite readily within two years with the proper incentive with respective prices.

Great. Got it. And last question. Just concerning your header houses, obviously you’re ramping up in Mine Unit 2. But circling back to Mine Unit 1 has got 13 in operation right now. Do you see those 13 running over the duration of 2018 or will some be gradually shut off this year? That's it for me. Thanks very much.

All right. John?

Yeah, we see those continue to operate throughout the majority of 2018. Of course, as the head grade continues to decline and then the [indiscernible] field will continue to reduce the flow rates to turn off some of those wells where the head grades are just becoming uneconomic. But I believe the majority of that flow continues throughout most of 2018.

Okay.

Right. The next question comes from Heiko Ihle with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question.

Hi, Heiko. Sorry, its [indiscernible]

So on 232, walking through that timeline, I mean, we know the maximum timeline with you know the one to initiate investigations that created the 270 days, the present got 90. I did some Googling around and to say the aluminium one that's going on right now, there really hasn't been one of those 232 since 2001. So I am just trying to get my hands around what would your – what your people have told you on what they realistic - what time they realistically think it will take to get some sort of feedback on this. Will they enacted out, they try to get this done ASAP?

Yeah let me let me make a couple of preliminary comments on this and then John jump in with anything that you have. But one of the things that we should emphasize here is that we did in our petition ask for an expedited review. So whether or not we get that from Congress we simply don't know. From a statutory standpoint they have 270 days to evaluate, investigate and write their report and send that along to the president who then has 90 days to determine what remedies are appropriate if any. And so I guess this is as good a time as any to, to emphasize that the outcome here is anything, but certain this will be a very open and very public process wherein there will be public comment period. Certainly our utility customers and any other parties that have standing in the 232 process will be invited to weigh in their concerns and their criticisms or whatever else they have to offer will be evaluated by Congress and that will all be reflected in Congress decision, to a large extent yes we'll have to deal with this thing over the next year now that it's been filed, but actually the determination will be in Congress hands and ultimately in the president's hands. John, anything you'd like to add?

No, you're spot on Jeff, just would add one thing. Back in 1989 Congress initiated a Section 232 investigation on uranium imports that was required by statute [ph] because the Atomic Energy Act stated that anytime we exceed more than 37.5% in-force of uranium that the federal government would investigate and determine if trade action needed to be taken. Now the results of that are confidential, they are sealed. We were not able to have access to that. But at that time when it exceeded 37.5%, the government decided not to take any action at that point. We have to recognize that was a totally different world at that point. Most of the uranium coming into the U.S. was coming in from Canada and Australia and also some from South Africa. So it was coming in from allies and the situation has dramatically changed. Now we're not at 37.5%, we’re at 89 – 80% [ph] and growing rapidly and longer it is a lot of that coming out of the friendly allies like Canada and Australia, a growing percentage is coming from Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and we believe a growing percentage is going to be coming from China. So keep in mind too that Canada now or very soon will only have one operating uranium mine. Cameco has decided to shut down McArthur River. I think that’s getting pretty tenuous on the production coming out of Canada to continue to rely on that and say our allies are providing a sufficient quantity because that number just continues to decline.

Okay. And again, my first real time going through one of these things, and these are two questions thrown into one. How often does the government keep you guys updated on what's going on with this and how often do you expect to keep the marketplace updated with what's going on with this. That question is especially important and since its right now two companies you know pulling on the same strings, so you guys need to sort of get together and figure out what you say and when you say it?

Yes most certainly, Heiko that's a good question and the fact is that we are coordinating our efforts as best we can with energy fuels. We have designated spokespersons within our organised respective organizations and the two spokespersons for our company are on this call today and energy fuels will select their own and make those into the marketplace. We will be coordinating our efforts. Really this now is in the hands of Congress. We would expect to hear from them within the next two to four weeks. And then as I said, as far as what we report to the marketplace and what we can even say to the marketplace, I'm not honestly - I'm not trying to be evasive here. But I really don't know exactly what that's going to be because it will be in their hands and the process will be theirs. They will - they will share with us what they want to share with us when they want to share with us and I'm not sure that we have much if any control over that. John, anything else that you would add to that in terms of process?

A proper characterization of how Congress is going to handle it.

Okay. That's what I hear your answer would be.

Okay…

Our first time too indeed

The next question comes from Joseph Reagor with Roth Capital Partners. Please go ahead.

Morning, guys. And good to be having a public call again. Most of my questions have already been answered. But just kind of some fine tuning items. This whole attempt to get the regulators to pay attention better. Is there any additional cost you're going to absorb, you know, chasing this down or have you guys budgeted for a certain amount of money you’re going to throw at it or is it simply [indiscernible] writing it up and now it's strict in the hands of the regulators?

Okay. Good question and I wish I could say that it has been a little bit of money. It has not. This type of a filing honestly does not come cheap. We have - but frankly the reason that we did this in conjunction with our friends at Energy Fuels was because we want - between the two of us and this is a sad commentary on the state of our industry. But we represent more than 50% percent of primary production that remains in the United States and we felt that that gave us proper standing to bring this action to begin with although anybody can bring the action. But the other upside of that has been that we've been able to share costs. They've been great to work with. And so it has helped us to fray the cost of that we haven't had to shoulder it alone as a company. We feel as though the legal costs have been manageable to date and certainly haven't been a hardship for either one of our companies. But moving forward we will have to deal with this and manage - media responses and so on and so that will be an active ongoing activity of ours throughout 2018. And when you take a look at the timing of when this was filed this really will play out throughout 2018. John any comments from you.

Thank you. Well, it's been submitted and that was the bulk of the effort right there, but we’ll continue to respond to Congress with any questions that they might have and also any items from the media. So there is some effort involved there.

Okay. But not like a - there's no set number you could give us as far as like a number to add to G&A for this year and last…

No, you'll see that reflected in our in our end of year. Likely you'll be able to peel it out of there. And when we come out with the end of year numbers Joe we'll be happy to have a call and identify those additional costs specifically. But I think that when you see – and you're going to see that they're not backbreaker, but we felt critically important.

Yeah. Fair enough. And then on the more positive note, let’s dream that you essentially win and we get the 25%. At what price and how quickly after that price is reached could you get Shirley Basin into production?

Well there's two different - there's two parts of that and I think I'll let John speak to both of them because I think that – what’s critical of course, one of the things that we've endeavoured to do, the reason we're still producing is because we just are adamant about retaining the quality staff that we have and that has taken us years to train and we don’t want to lose good people, we've lost enough of them. And that's one of the reasons that we brought this action is because we're just tired of losing critical staff. The fact is, is that if we get much leaner the ramp up should the market give us proper incentive to ramp up we won't have the ability to do it. So what you've seen from us over the course of throughout 2017 has been an effort to retain critical staff and to give ourselves the ability to respond rapidly to what we hope will be positive changes in market conditions. John, you can speak better to the time it would take to ramp to a full [ph] million pounds at Lost Creek and then would you follow on with the second half of that question and address Shirley Basin as well.

Yeah, absolutely. And I'm really glad you asked that question, that’s an important question, what will the price be going forward. So essentially what would happen that there would be two markets created, there would be a world market for uranium and a price established associated with that, but then there would also be a U.S. produced market. Keep in mind though that the U.S. market any time a utility wanted to buy pounds they would send out an RFP to a number of producers and then we would be competing amongst ourselves to try to win that bid. So to see what those prices would be, I think you only have to look back to a few years ago when we were signing contracts with our utility customers. So if you want to see that the range of prices where we think it would be, in particular I think for Energy Fuels and Lost Crude – into Lost Creek Ur-Energy, look back at the prices we've been getting for our uranium here in the last few years. So I think that's kind of where you can bracket it. So probably an increase in price 20 to 30 pounds are dollars per pound. So with regard to Lost Creek and Shirley Basin, the Lost Creek is already permitted, so we've got a number of places we can go there to continue production within Lost Creek. So ramping up to 1 million pounds per year would be a matter of simply additional drilling, getting well installed in places that are already permitted, we just have to get the infrastructure put in place in the well field. The infrastructure and the processing plant is already there. So for Lost Creek to get up to that 1 million pound a year rate once…

Yeah, it’s very helpful, I'll turn it over. Thanks, guys.

Great. Thanks, Joe.

Next question comes from Ben Atkinson with Gagnon. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Jeff. And the management and employees there. Thanks for doing such a great job on trying to keep Ur-Energy in a good position to take advantage of what I think we will ultimately see is a turnaround in the uranium markets. So thanks and appreciate working on our behalf.

Thank you.

My question just coming back to today's market, Jeff could you just give us your thoughts on supply - over supply, potential over supply in 2018. Some of the things that have influenced [ph] in the past have been underfeeding and the traders, as well as perhaps uranium leaking out of Japan that was supposed to be delivered to utilities that they can use. Could you just kind of give us your thoughts about where that - what all that looks like over the next year or two?

Yeah, look I think that you're talking about two different things there and first of all let me deal with what I think is the first half for question and that is global primary production. When you look at primary production one of the things that we were very, very happy to see last year is that there was a great deal of what we call supply destruction that took place throughout the year and we had everybody from AREVA to Rio Tinto to Cameco to [indiscernible] all announced a very significant reductions in production and of course we need to see that - we need to see that supply destruction. Now we attempted to put the total on that, total amount of primary production that was supposed to be based on public pronouncements by multiple companies and state owned entities out there. We put that number at somewhere around 36 million pounds of primary production that was being taken out of the market by the first quarter of this year. Now if you translate that into global primary production it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 24%, 22% of global primary production. That's significant supply destruction and that helps the situation. The second half of that equation is one that's less - less transparent, it's certainly more opaque, because you're really talking about underfeeding and with underfeeding you're talking about U3O8 equivalent being really produced out of thin air because those centrifuges just have to keep earning. And so they're going to get more production out of them and underfeeding is projected to introduce to the market this year, somewhere between 20 million to 22 million pounds again this year. So that continues to be a problem, particularly with enriched product EUP being at such low prices right now, in…

So I mean, it sounds as if at least entering 2018 there is nothing that's getting substantially worse on the supply side, if anything it could be getting a bit better at least as far as we know today?

I would say that this is probably going into 2018. The most positive environment that we've had entering the New Year in the last six years, at least from my perspective it is. And I think that that viewpoint is generally shared and if you take a look at what I've mentioned earlier was the constructive based building that's taking place in the stock, I would have to look at that and say that the market tends to agree.

Thanks, Jeff.

You bet. Thanks, Ben. Appreciate it.

This will conclude our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Jeff Klenda for any closing remarks.

Great. Thank you very much. And once again thank you everyone for joining us tonight. I'd like to - I really do have what I think are some important closing comments here that I'd like to make. And first of all I'd like to say that we as a company will continue to do the things that you know characterizes. We will continue to work on our efficiencies and strive to be the lowest cost producer across all publicly traded companies and playing field ever gets levelled we just might emerge as the lowest cost producer in the world. Wherever possible we will add or grow resources. We will continue to pursue that balanced approach so that we can maximize our margins. But above all we will work to make sure that we cash flow properly and in that process protect our shareholders. And a couple of last words with respect to the filing of the Section 232. I think that it needs to be stated here that while yes it is your energy and energy fuels that is filing this petition, I think it really speaks to the dire state of the industry that a couple of juniors of our statures have to be the ones to bring this. And as we looked at how the situation in the uranium production industry, you see the number of employees below 500, it became such a – we see a dire situation developing over the next two to three years unless we get some love out of the market and we see higher prices. But it really became a question of if not us who, if not now when. And so we felt compelled to act on behalf of the industry and I think that it deserves to be stated here…

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.