If any securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. [X]

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. [ ]

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. [ ]

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(1)   In the event of a stock split, stock dividend or similar transaction involving the common stock of the Registrant, in order to prevent dilution, the number of shares of common stock registered shall be automatically increased to cover additional shares in accordance with Rule 416(a) under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").

(2)   Includes shares of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share, currently owned by the selling stockholders (each a "Selling Stockholder") and shares of common stock which are issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants held by the Selling Stockholders, all of which may be offered pursuant to this registration statement. In addition to the shares set forth in the table, the amount to be registered includes an indeterminate number of shares issuable upon the exercise of the warrants as such number may be adjusted as a result of stock splits, stock dividends and similar transactions in accordance with Rule 416 of the Securities Act.

(3)   The Proposed Maximum Offering Price per Share is calculated in accordance with Rule 457(c) of the Securities Act, based upon the average of the high and low prices for our common stock on the American Stock Exchange on February 6, 2008. The Proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price is based on the Proposed Maximum Offering Price Per Share times the total number of shares of common stock to be registered. These amounts are estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the registration fee pursuant to Rule 457(c) of the Securities Act.

(4)   The fee is calculated in accordance with Rule 457(c) of the Securities Act. We have based the fee calculation on the average of the high and low prices for our common stock on the American Stock Exchange on February 6, 2008. We paid the fee upon the filing of our Form S-1 on February 12, 2008.

(5)   On December 12, 2007, we issued an aggregate of 1,800,000 units (each a "December 2007 Unit"), at a price of $3.75 per December 2007 Unit, with each December 2007 Unit consisting of one share of common stock and one common stock purchase warrant (each a "December 2007 Warrant"), to certain of the Selling Stockholders named herein. These 1,800,000 shares of common stock represent the shares of common stock issued in connection with the issuance of the December 2007 Units.

(6)   These 1,800,000 shares of common stock represent the 1,800,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the December 2007 Warrants. Each December 2007 Warrant entitles the holder to purchase one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.25 per share. The December 2007 Warrants are exercisable for a period of one year from the date of issuance.

(7)   In May 2006, we issued an aggregate of 1,500,000 units to a Selling Stockholder pursuant to a private placement, with each unit comprised of one share of common stock and one-half of one non-transferable warrant, with each full warrant entitling the holder to purchase one share of common stock at a price of $2.50 per share until April 20, 2007. The shares and shares underlying the warrants issued pursuant to this private placement were registered with the SEC pursuant to a registration statement on Form SB-2 filed October 4, 2006 and declared effective October 23, 2006. We subsequently extended the expiry period of the warrants from April 20, 2007 to May 31, 2008. These shares represent the 750,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of these warrants.

This prospectus relates to the offering, from time to time, of 1,800,000 shares of our common stock by the selling stockholders (each a "Selling Stockholder") named in this prospectus under the heading "Selling Stockholders". In addition, this prospectus relates to the offering, from time to time, of 2,550,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of certain outstanding warrants to acquire shares of our common stock by the Selling Stockholders. These shares include the following shares, all as described in this prospectus under "Selling Stockholders":

1. the resale by certain Selling Stockholders, and their transferees, donees or successors, of an aggregate of 1,800,000 shares of our common stock issued on December 12, 2007 pursuant to a private placement (the "December 2007 Private Placement");
2. the resale by certain Selling Stockholders, and their transferees, donees or successors, of an aggregate of 1,800,000 shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of 1,800,000 common stock purchase warrants (the "December 2007 Warrants") issued pursuant to the December 2007 Private Placement; and
3. the resale by a certain Selling Stockholder, and their transferees, donees or successors, of an aggregate of 750,000 shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise of 750,000 common stock purchase warrants (the "May 2006 Warrants") issued pursuant to a private placement on May 11, 2006 (the "May 2006 Private Placement").

We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares by the Selling Stockholders. However, we will receive proceeds upon the exercise of any common stock purchase warrants that may be exercised by the Selling Stockholders. If all of the warrants are exercised we will receive proceeds in an amount of $9,525,000.

Our common stock is registered under Section 12(g) of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is listed for trading on the American Stock Exchange ("Amex") under the symbol "UEC". The last reported sales price per share of our common stock as reported by Amex on April 2, 2008 was $2.50.

The date of this prospectus is                                   , 2008

1

2

__________

You should rely only on the information contained in this document or to which we have referred you. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with information that is different. This document may only be used where it is legal to sell these securities. The information in this document may only be accurate on the date of this document. Our business, financial condition or results of operations may have changed since that date.

As used in this prospectus: (i) the terms "we", "us", "our", "Uranium Energy" and the "Company" mean Uranium Energy Corp.; (ii) "SEC" refers to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (iii) "Securities Act" refers to the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (iv) "Exchange Act" refers to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (v) all dollar amounts refer to United States dollars unless otherwise indicated.

__________

4

We are a natural resource exploration company engaged in the exploration of properties that may contain uranium minerals in the United States. Our strategy is to acquire properties that are prospective for uranium exploration, and have undergone some degree of uranium exploration but have not yet been mined. To date we have acquired interests in 64,233.90 gross acres of leased or staked mineral properties, consisting of claim blocks located in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. In 2008 we have plans to acquire further acres of mineral properties subject to adequate funding being completed. Other mineral property acquisitions are contemplated in states of interest that include Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. These potential acquisition properties have not yet been specifically identified. Our ability to complete these acquisitions will be subject to our obtaining sufficient financing and our being able to conclude agreements with the property owners on terms that are acceptable to us.

As of the date of this prospectus we have interests in an aggregate of 64,233.90 gross acres (55,891.81 net mineral acres) of properties that have been either leased or staked, which we intend to explore for economic deposits of uranium. Some of these leases are subject to varying net royalty interests. These properties consist of claim blocks located in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Each of these properties has been the subject of historical exploration by other mining companies, and provide indications that further exploration for uranium is warranted.

Our properties do not have any reserves. We plan to conduct exploration programs on these properties with the objective of ascertaining whether any of our properties contain economic concentrations of uranium that are prospective for mining. As such, we are considered an exploration, or exploratory stage company. Since we are an exploration stage company, there is no assurance that a commercially viable mineral deposit exists on any of our properties, and a great deal of further exploration will be required before a final evaluation as to the economic and legal feasibility for our future exploration is determined. We have no known reserves of uranium or any other type of mineral. Since inception we have not established any proven or probable reserves on our mineral property interests.

We have received an updated technical report in accordance with the provisions of National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, of the Canadian Securities Administrators for our Goliad Project located in Goliad County, Texas. For more information, see "Description of Business and Properties - General -Goliad Project Technical Report."

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 under the name "Carlin Gold Inc." During 2004, we changed our business operations and focus from precious metals exploration in the State of Nevada to the exploration for economic reserves of uranium throughout the United States. On January 24, 2005, we filed an amendment to our articles of incorporation changing our name to "Uranium Energy Corp.".

On January 24, 2004, we completed a reverse stock split of our shares of common stock on the basis of one share for two outstanding shares. Effective February 28, 2006, we completed a forward split of our shares of common stock on the basis of 1.5 shares for each outstanding share to increase liquidity for our shares of common stock. Effective February 28, 2006, we amended our Articles of Incorporation with the Nevada Secretary of State and increased our authorized capital stock from 75,000,000 shares of common stock at $0.001 par value to 750,000,000 shares of common stock par value $0.001.

5

6

In June 2007, we determined to change our fiscal year end from December 31 to July 31. Accordingly, on October 29, 2007, we filed a Transition Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal period ended July 31, 2007, as subsequently amended, with the SEC and commenced a new reporting period.

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003. During 2004, we changed our business operations focus from precious metals exploration in the State of Nevada to the exploration for economic reserves of uranium throughout the United States. Since then, we have been acquiring mineral property interests in the United States. In addition, we amended our audited financial statements for the fiscal period ended July 31, 2007 to include a note explaining a reclassification of mineral property acquisition costs from the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, which had no impact on the reported loss for these periods. Accordingly, the financial information presented below may not be comparable from period to period.

7

Our properties do not contain reserves in accordance with the definitions adopted by the SEC and there is no assurance that any exploration programs that we carry out will establish reserves. All of our mineral properties are in the exploration stage as opposed to the development stage and have no known body of economic mineralization. The known mineralization at these projects has not yet been determined to be economic ore, and may never be determined to be economic. We plan to conduct further exploration activities on our mineral properties, which future exploration may include the completion of feasibility studies necessary to evaluate whether a commercial mineable orebody exists on any of our mineral properties. There is a substantial risk that these exploration activities will not result in discoveries of commercially recoverable quantities of ore. Any determination that our properties contain commercially recoverable quantities of ore may not be reached until such time that final comprehensive feasibility studies have been concluded that establish that a potential mine is likely to be economic. There is a substantial risk that any preliminary or final feasibility studies carried out by us will not result in a positive determination that our mineral properties can be commercially developed.

We are an exploration stage company and have not as yet established any reserves on our properties. Our long-term success depends on our ability to establish commercially recoverable quantities of ore on our mineral properties that can then be developed into commercially viable mining operations. Mineral exploration is highly speculative in nature, involves many risks and is frequently non-productive. These risks include unusual or unexpected geologic formations, and the inability to obtain suitable or adequate machinery, equipment or labor. The success of uranium exploration is determined in part by the following factors:

8

Substantial expenditures are required to establish proven and probable reserves through drilling and analysis, to develop metallurgical processes to extract metal, and to develop the mining and processing facilities and infrastructure at any site chosen for mining. Whether a mineral deposit will be established or determined to be commercially viable depends on a number of factors, which include, without limitation, the particular attributes of the deposit, such as size, grade and proximity to infrastructure; metal prices, which fluctuate widely; and government regulations, including, without limitation, regulations relating to prices, taxes, royalties, land tenure, land use, importing and exporting of minerals and environmental protection. We may invest significant capital and resources in exploration activities and abandon such investments if we are unable to identify commercially exploitable mineral reserves. The decision to abandon a project may reduce the trading price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise future financing. We cannot provide any assurance to investors that we will discover any mineralized material in sufficient quantities on any of our properties to justify commercial operations. Further, we will not be able to recover the funds that we spend on exploration if we are not able to establish commercially recoverable quantities of ore on our mineral properties.

In considering whether to invest in our common stock, you should consider that our inception was May 16, 2003 and, as a result, there is only limited historical financial and operating information available on which to base your evaluation of our performance.

We have a history of operating losses, expect to continue to incur losses, and may never be profitable, and we must be considered to be in the exploration stage. Further, we have been dependent on sales of our equity securities and debt financing to meet our cash requirements. We have incurred losses totalling approximately $42,952,259 from May 16, 2003 (inception) to January 31, 2008. As of January 31, 2008, we had an accumulated deficit of $42,952,259 and incurred net losses totalling approximately $9,789,105 in the six months ended January 31, 2008, $14,818,318 during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and $16,193,375 during the seven months ended July 31, 2007. Further, we do not expect positive cash flow from operations in the near term. There is no assurance that actual cash requirements will not exceed our estimates. In particular, additional capital may be required in the event that: (i) the costs to acquire additional uranium exploration claims are more than we currently anticipate; (ii) exploration costs for additional claims increase beyond our expectations; or (iii) we encounter greater costs associated with general and administrative expenses or offering costs.

Our participation in an increasingly larger number of uranium minerals exploration prospects has required and will continue to require substantial capital expenditures. The uncertainty and factors described throughout this section may impede our ability to economically discover uranium prospects. As a result, we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability or positive cash flows from operating activities in the future.

Based upon our historical losses from operations, we will require additional funding in the future. If we cannot obtain capital through financings or otherwise, our ability to execute our exploration programs will be greatly limited. Our current plans require us to make capital expenditures for the exploration of our minerals exploration properties. Historically, we have funded our operations through the issuance of equity and short-term debt financing arrangements. We may not be able to obtain additional financing on favorable terms, if at all. Our future cash flows and the availability of financing will be subject to a number of variables, including the market prices of uranium. Further, debt financing could lead to a diversion of cash flow to satisfy debt-servicing obligations and create restrictions on business operations. If we are unable to raise additional funds, it would have a material adverse effect upon our operations.

9

Since inception, our activities have been limited to organizational efforts, obtaining working capital and acquiring and exploring a very limited number of properties. As a result, there is limited information upon which to base our future success.

The business of minerals exploration is subject to many risks and uncertainties, including those described in this section, and if uranium is found in economic quantities, the profitability of future uranium mining ventures depends upon factors beyond our control. The profitability of mining uranium properties if economic quantities of Uranium are found is dependent upon many factors and risks beyond our control, including, but not limited to: (i) unanticipated ground and water conditions and adverse claims to water rights; (ii) geological problems; (iii) metallurgical and other processing problems; (iv) the occurrence of unusual weather or operating conditions and other force majeure events; (v) lower than expected ore grades; (vi) accidents; (vii) delays in the receipt of or failure to receive necessary government permits; (viii) delays in transportation; (ix) labor disputes; (x) government permit restrictions and regulation restrictions; (xi) unavailability of materials and equipment; and (xii) the failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations.

We are not currently engaged in mining operations because we are in the exploration phase and have not yet any proved uranium reserves. We carry some property and liability insurance. Cost effective insurance contains exclusions and limitations on coverage and may be unavailable in some circumstances.

The uranium exploration industry is intensely competitive, and we compete with other companies that have greater resources. Many of these companies not only explore for and produce uranium, but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. These companies may be able to pay more for productive uranium properties and exploratory prospects or define, evaluate, bid for and purchase a greater number of properties and prospects than our financial or human resources permit. In addition, these companies may have a greater ability to continue exploration activities during periods of low uranium market prices. Our larger competitors may be able to absorb the burden of present and future federal, state, local and other laws and regulations more easily than we can, which would adversely affect our competitive position. Our ability to acquire additional properties and to explore them in the future will be dependent upon our ability to evaluate and select suitable properties and to consummate transactions in a highly competitive environment. In addition, because we have fewer financial and human resources than many companies in our industry, we may be at a disadvantage in bidding for exploratory prospects.

10

If economic quantities of uranium are found on any lease owned by us in sufficient quantities to warrant uranium mining operations, such mining operations are subject to federal, state, and local laws relating to the protection of the environment, including laws regulating removal of natural resources from the ground and the discharge of materials into the environment. Uranium mining operations are also subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations which seek to maintain health and safety standards by regulating the design and use of mining methods and equipment. Various permits from government bodies are required for mining operations to be conducted; no assurance can be given that such permits will be received. Environmental standards imposed by federal, provincial, or local authorities may be changed and any such changes may have material adverse effects on our activities. Moreover, compliance with such laws may cause substantial delays or require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated, thus resulting in an adverse effect on us. Additionally, we may be subject to liability for pollution or other environmental damages which we may elect not to insure against due to prohibitive premium costs and other reasons. To date we have not been required to spend material amounts on compliance with environmental regulations. However, we may be required to do so in future and this may affect our ability to expand or maintain our operations.

Uranium minerals exploration and development and future potential uranium mining operations are or will be subject to stringent federal, state, provincial, and local laws and regulations relating to improving or maintaining environmental quality. Environmental laws often require parties to pay for remedial action or to pay damages regardless of fault. Environmental laws also often impose liability with respect to divested or terminated operations, even if the operations were terminated or divested of many years ago.

Future potential uranium mining operations and current exploration activities are or will be subject to extensive laws and regulations governing prospecting, development, production, exports, taxes, labor standards, occupational health, waste disposal, protection and remediation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, mine safety, toxic substances and other matters. Uranium mining is also subject to risks and liabilities associated with pollution of the environment and disposal of waste products occurring as a result of mineral exploration and production. Compliance with these laws and regulations will impose substantial costs on us and will subject us to significant potential liabilities.

Costs associated with environmental liabilities and compliance are expected to increase with the increasing scale and scope of operations and we expect these costs may increase in the future.

11

We believe that our operations comply, in all material respects, with all applicable environmental regulations. However, we are not fully insured at the current date against possible environmental risks.

The laws, regulations, policies or current administrative practices of any government body, organization or regulatory agency in the United States or any other applicable jurisdiction, may be changed, applied or interpreted in a manner which will fundamentally alter our ability to carry on business. The actions, policies or regulations, or changes thereto, of any government body or regulatory agency, or other special interest groups, may have a detrimental effect on us. Any or all of these situations may have a negative impact on our ability to operate and/or our profitably.

Our extremely limited personnel means that we would be required to spend significant sums of money to locate and train new employees in the event any of our employees resign or terminate their employment with us for any reason. Due to our limited operating history and financial resources, we are entirely dependent on the continued service of Amir Adnani, our President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director, and Harry Anthony, our Chief Operating Officer and a director. Further, we do not have key man life insurance on any of these individuals. We may not have the financial resources to hire a replacement if any of our officers were to die. The loss of service of any of these employees could therefore significantly and adversely affect our operations.

Some of our officers and directors serve only part time and may be subject to conflicts of interest. Each may devote part of his working time to other business endeavors, including consulting relationships with other corporate entities, and may have responsibilities to these other entities. Such conflicts may include deciding how much time to devote to our affairs, as well as what business opportunities should be presented to us. Because of these relationships, some of our officers and directors may be subject to conflicts of interest.

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

12

As of the date of this prospectus, there are 17,317,205 outstanding shares of our common stock that are restricted securities as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. Although the Securities Act and Rule 144 place certain prohibitions on the sale of restricted securities, restricted securities may be sold into the public market under certain conditions. Further, as of the date of this prospectus, there are an aggregate of 4,327,500 stock options outstanding and an aggregate of 5,761,763 share purchase warrants outstanding.

Any significant downward pressure on the price of our common stock as the selling stockholders sell their shares of our common stock could encourage short sales by the selling stockholders or others. Any such short sales could place further downward pressure on the price of our common stock.

Our common stock commenced trading on September 28, 2007 on Amex, and previously traded on the OTCBB, and the trading price has fluctuated. In addition to volatility associated with Bulletin Board securities in general, the value of your investment could decline due to the impact of any of the following factors upon the market price of our common stock: (i) disappointing results from our discovery or development efforts; (ii) failure to meet our revenue or profit goals or operating budget; (iii) decline in demand for our common stock; (iv) downward revisions in securities analysts' estimates or changes in general market conditions; (v) technological innovations by competitors or in competing technologies; (vi) lack of funding generated for operations; (vii) investor perception of our industry or our prospects; and (viii) general economic trends.

In addition, stock markets have experienced price and volume fluctuations and the market prices of securities have been highly volatile. These fluctuations are often unrelated to operating performance and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. As a result, investors may be unable to sell their shares at a fair price and you may lose all or part of your investment.

As of the date of this prospectus, Morgan Stanley & Co. ("Morgan Stanley") beneficially owns 7,742,360 shares of our common stock, or approximately 18.79% of our outstanding common stock, and Westcliff Capital Management LLC ("Westcliff") beneficially owns 4,587,626 shares of our common stock, or approximately 11.18% of our outstanding common stock. Due to its stock ownership, Morgan Stanley or Westcliff may be in a viable position to affect the election of the Board of Directors and, therefore, to affect the control our business and affairs including certain significant corporate actions such as acquisitions, the sale or purchase of assets, and the issuance and sale of our securities. Further, Morgan Stanley or Westcliff may be able to affect the prevention of or cause a change in control. We also may be prevented from entering into transactions that could be beneficial to us without Morgan Stanley's or Westcliff's consent. The interest of our largest shareholders may differ from the interests of other shareholders.

The Board of Directors has the authority to issue additional shares of our capital stock to provide additional financing in the future and the issuance of any such shares may result in a reduction of the book value or market price of the outstanding shares of our common stock. If we do issue any such additional shares, such issuance also will cause a reduction in the proportionate ownership and voting power of all other stockholders. As a result of such dilution, if you acquire shares of our common stock, your proportionate ownership interest and voting power could be decreased. Further, any such issuances could result in a change of control.

13

A decline in the price of our common stock could result in a reduction in the liquidity of our common stock and a reduction in our ability to raise additional capital for our operations. Because our operations to date have been principally financed through the sale of equity securities, a decline in the price of our common stock could have an adverse effect upon our liquidity and our continued operations. A reduction in our ability to raise equity capital in the future would have a material adverse effect upon our business plan and operations, including our ability to continue our current operations. If our stock price declines, we may not be able to raise additional capital or generate funds from operations sufficient to meet our obligations.

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

This prospectus contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements in this prospectus include, among others, statements regarding our capital needs, business plans and expectations. Such forward-looking statements involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties regarding, among others, the success of our business plan, availability of funds, government regulations, operating costs, our ability to achieve significant revenues, our business model and products and other factors. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may", "will", "should", "expect", "plan", "intend", "anticipate", "believe", "estimate", "predict", "potential" or "continue", the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. In evaluating these statements, you should consider various factors, including the assumptions, risks and uncertainties outlined in this prospectus under "Risk Factors". These factors or any of them may cause our actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statement made in this prospectus. While these forward-looking statements, and any assumptions upon which they are based, are made in good faith and reflect our current judgment regarding future events, our actual results will likely vary, sometimes materially, from any estimates, predictions, projections, assumptions or other future performance suggested herein. The forward-looking statements in this prospectus are made as of the date of this prospectus and we do not intend or undertake to update any of the forward-looking statements to conform these statements to actual results, except as required by applicable law, including the securities laws of the United States.

14

All proceeds from the sale of the shares will be for the account of the Selling Stockholders, and they will pay any and all expenses incurred by them for brokerage, accounting or tax services or any other expenses incurred by them in disposing of their shares. We will, however, incur substantially all of the costs associated with the filing of this prospectus and the registration statement of which it forms a part.

The Selling Stockholders named in this prospectus are offering, from time to time, the 4,350,000 shares of common stock under this prospectus.

On December 12, 2007 we issued an aggregate of 1,800,000 units (the "December 2007 Units"), at a price of $3.75 per December 2007 Unit, with each December 2007 Unit consisting of one share of common stock and one December 2007 Warrant, to certain of the Selling Stockholders named herein by way of the December 2007 Private Placement. Each December 2007 Warrant entitles the holder to purchase one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.25 per share for a period of one year from the date of issuance. The common stock registered represents the 1,800,000 shares of common stock issued in connection with the issuance of the December 2007 Units and the 1,800,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the December 2007 Warrants. We agreed to file a registration statement with the SEC in accordance with the requirements of the Securities Act in order to register the resale by the Selling Stockholders of the shares issued and the shares issuable upon exercise of the December 2007 Warrants in the December 2007 Private Placement. In the event that the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part is not declared effective by the SEC on or before April 12, 2008, for each 30 calendar day period (or partial period thereof) until the registration statement is declared effective, we have agreed to issue to each of the Selling Stockholders one one-hundredth of a warrant to acquire shares of our common stock for each $1.00 in aggregate funds paid by the Selling Stockholders for our securities, exercisable at a price of $4.25 per share, expiring two years from the date of issuance thereof.

On May 11, 2006, we issued an aggregate of 1,500,000 units (the "May 2006 Units") to a Selling Stockholder, with each May 2006 Unit comprised of one share of common stock and one-half of one non-transferable warrant, with each full May 2006 Warrant entitling the holder to purchase one share of common stock at a price of $2.50 per share until April 20, 2007. The shares and shares underlying the May 2006 Warrants issued pursuant to the May 2006 Private Placement were registered with the SEC pursuant to a registration statement on Form SB-2 filed October 4, 2006 and declared effective October 23, 2006. We subsequently extended the expiry period of the May 2006 Warrants from April 20, 2007 to May 31, 2008. We agreed to include the shares underlying the May 2006 Warrants in a registration statement filed by us to register any of our securities. The common stock registered includes the 750,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the May 2006 Warrants.

The private placement transactions were completed in reliance on Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act, with respect to investors in the United States, and in reliance on Rule 903 of Regulation S of the Securities Act, with respect to those investors who were not "U.S. Persons", within the meaning of Regulation S, and who were otherwise outside of the United States. Sales to United States investors pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D were limited to investors who qualified as "accredited investors" within the meaning of Rule 501(a) of Regulation D.

15

The following table sets forth information as of April 2, 2008 regarding the ownership of the shares of common stock to be sold by the Selling Stockholders. The number of shares indicated for each Selling Stockholder includes both the shares issued in the private placement transactions and the shares issuable to the Selling Stockholders upon exercise of the warrants.

Information with respect to ownership is based upon information obtained from the Selling Stockholders. Information with respect to "Shares Owned Prior to this Offering" includes the shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants held by the Selling Stockholders even though some of these warrants are not exercisable within 60 days of April 2, 2008. The "Number of Shares Being Offered" includes the shares acquired by the Selling Stockholders in the private placement transactions described above and the shares that are issuable upon exercise of the warrants acquired by the Selling Stockholders. Information with respect to "Shares Owned After this Offering" assumes the sale of all of the shares offered by this prospectus and no other purchases or sales of our common stock by the Selling Stockholders. Except as described below and to our knowledge, the named Selling Stockholders own and have sole voting and investment power over all shares or rights to these shares. Except for their ownership of common stock described below, none of the Selling Stockholders had or have any material relationship with us. The Selling Stockholders may have sold or transferred, in transactions exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, some or all of the common stock held by them since the date as of which information is presented below.

16

17

*      Less than one percent.

(1)   Includes shares of common stock currently held by the Selling Stockholder and shares issuable upon exercise of all warrants owned by the Selling Stockholder, even though some of these warrants are not exercisable within 60 days of April 2, 2008.

(2)   The applicable percentage of ownership is based on 39,807,823 shares of common stock outstanding as of April 2, 2008, plus the number of shares of common stock that would be outstanding if all of the warrants held by such Selling Stockholder were exercised.

(3)   Comprised of the shares underlying the December 2007 Units. On December 12, 2007, we issued an aggregate of 1,800,000 December 2007 Units, at a price of $3.75 per December 2007 Unit, with each December 2007 Unit consisting of one share of common stock and one December 2007 Warrant, to certain of the Selling Stockholders named in the table above by way of the December 2007 Private Placement. The common stock registered represents the 1,800,000 shares of common stock issued in connection with the issuance of the December 2007 Units and also represents the 1,800,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the December 2007 Warrants. Each December 2007 Warrant entitles the holder to purchase one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.25 per share. The December 2007 Warrants are exercisable for a period of one year from the date of issuance.

(4)   Craig Porter, portfolio manager for Front Street Investment Management Inc., on behalf of Jayvee & Co., has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of its client. Mr. Porter disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(5)   Craig Porter, portfolio manager for Front Street Investment Management Inc., on behalf of NBCN Inc., has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of its client. Mr. Porter disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(6)   Craig Porter, portfolio manager for Front Street Investment Management Inc., on behalf of BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of its client. Mr. Porter disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(7)   Andrew G. Bluhm, principal of DSC Advisors, LP, as investment manager for Delaware Street Capital Master Fund LP, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of its client. Mr. Bluhm disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(8)   Malcolm H. Gissen, as President of Malcolm H. Gissen & Associates Inc., portfolio manager on behalf of Encompass Fund, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of its client. Mr. Gissen disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(9)   David Agard and Lisa McConlogue, as trustees for Agard-McConlogue Family Revocable Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Agard and Ms. McConlogue disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(10) Robert Amado and Ada Amado, as trustees for Amado Family Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Amado and Ms. Amado disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(11) Erika Ammirati and John Ammirati, as trustees for The John & Erika Ammirati 2000 Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Ammirati and Mr. Ammirati disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(12) Barry Bunshoft and Sylvia Bunshoft, as trustees for Bunshoft Family Revocable Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Bunshoft and Ms. Bunshoft disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(13) Rae Lyn Burke and Regis Kelly have authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities as their community property.

18

(14) William Burkett and Lori Burkett, as trustees for William J. & Lori L. Burkett Rev Liv Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Burkett and Ms. Burkett disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(15) Sandra Chen and Sidney Chen, as trustees for Sidney & Sandra Lee Chen Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Chen and Ms. Chen disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(16) Charlene B. Cristo, as trustee for Charlene B. Cristo Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Cristo disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of her pecuniary interests therein.

(17) Sharon Fertitta, as trustee for Sharon Fertitta Rev Inter Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms Fertitta disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of her pecuniary interests therein.

(18) Steven Frankel and Joan Reid, as trustees for SH Frankel & JE Reid Revocable Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Frankel and Ms. Reid disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(19) Judith Cohen and Malcolm Gissen, as trustees for Malcolm Gissen/Judith Cohen 2003 Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Cohen and Mr. Gissen disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(20) Richard McKee and Beverley McKee, as trustees for The McKee Family 2005 Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. McKee and Ms. McKee disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(21) Andrew Mendelsohn and Judith Mendelsohn, as trustees for Andrew J. and Judith A. Mendelsohn Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Mendelsohn and Ms. Mendelsohn disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(22) Paolo Morante & Brigid Doherty, as joint tenants, have authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities.

(23) Joe Neal and Janet Neal, as trustees for Neal Revocable Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Neal and Ms. Neal disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(24) Margo Ogus and Roy Ogus, as trustees for Ogus Family Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Ogus and Mr. Ogus disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(25) Sudha M. Pennathur and Edward P. Messerly, as joint tenants, have authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities.

(26) Robert B. Viener, as trustee for Robert B. Viener Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Viener disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(27) Joan Viener and Robert Viener, as trustees for Joan E. Viener Revocable Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Viener and Mr. Viener disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(28) Wayne Richards and Christine Richards, as trustees for WL & CM Richards Rev Inter Vivos Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Richards and Ms. Richards disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(29) Elizabeth Blackburn and John Sedat, as trustees for Sedat Family Revocable Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Sedat disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(30) Glenn B. Stoller, as trustee for Glenn B. Stoller Inter Vivos Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Stoller disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(31) Noah Stroe, as trustee for U/W Mara Stroe, FBO Anthony Stroe Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Stroe disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(32) Susan P. Tom, as trustee for Susan P. Tom Revocable Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Ms. Tom disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of her pecuniary interests therein.

(33) Peter Walter and Patricia Caldera-Munoz, as trustees for the Walter 1997 Trust, have discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Walter and Ms. Caldera-Munoz disclaim beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of their pecuniary interests therein.

(34) Arnold B. Wolfe, as trustee for The Arnold and Nancy Wolfe Living Trust, has discretionary authority to purchase, vote and dispose of the securities on behalf of the trust. Mr. Wolfe disclaims beneficial ownership as to such securities except to the extent of his pecuniary interests therein.

(35) On May 11, 2006, we issued an aggregate of 1,500,000 May 2006 Units to a Selling Stockholder, with each unit comprised of one share of common stock and one-half of one non-transferable warrant, with each full May 2006 Warrant entitling the holder to purchase one share of common stock at a price of $2.50 per share until April 20, 2007. The shares and shares underlying the May 2006 Warrants issued pursuant to the May 2006 Private Placement were registered with the SEC pursuant to a registration statement on Form SB-2 filed October 4, 2006 and declared effective October 23, 2006. We subsequently extended the expiry period of the May 2006 Warrants from April 20, 2007 to May 31, 2008. We agreed to include the shares underlying the May 2006 Warrants in a registration statement filed by us to register any of our securities. The common stock registered represents the 750,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the May 2006 Warrants.

(36) To our knowledge, Eric Sprott, as portfolio manager, presently exercises dispositive and voting power with respect to the shares of common stock owned by Sprott Asset Management Inc.; and this Selling Stockholder has no known relationship with our Company. To our knowledge, Sprott Asset Management Inc. acquired our securities as a portfolio manager in the ordinary course of business for their own account without any view or intention to distribute their securities and that, at the time of purchase, they had no agreements or understandings, directly or indirectly, with the Company or with any other party to distribute the securities.

The Selling Stockholders identified above, and certain of their transferees, may, from time to time and as set forth in this prospectus, offer and sell common stock pursuant to this prospectus. Prior to any use of this prospectus in connection with an offering of the common stock by any transferee of the common stock, this prospectus will be amended or supplemented, and the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part will be amended by a post-effective amendment, if required, to set forth the name and aggregate amount of common stock beneficially owned by the transferee intending to sell such common stock and the amount of common stock to be offered.

19

Because a Selling Stockholder may offer by this prospectus all or some part of the common stock which it holds, no estimate can be given as of the date hereof as to the number of shares of common stock actually to be offered for sale by a Selling Stockholder or as to the number of shares of common stock that will be held by a Selling Stockholder upon the termination of such offering.

The Selling Stockholders may, from time to time, sell any or all of their shares of common stock on any stock exchange, market or trading facility on which the shares are traded or in private transactions. These sales may be at fixed or negotiated prices. The Selling Stockholders may use any one or more of the following methods when selling shares:

The Selling Stockholders may also sell shares under Rule 144 or Regulation S under the Securities Act, if available, rather than under this prospectus.

The Selling Stockholders may also engage in short sales against the box, puts and calls and other transactions in our securities or derivatives of our securities and may sell or deliver shares in connection with these trades.

Broker-dealers engaged by the Selling Stockholders may arrange for other brokers-dealers to participate in sales. Broker-dealers may receive commissions or discounts from the Selling Stockholders (or, if any broker-dealer acts as agent for the purchaser of shares, from the purchaser) in amounts to be negotiated. The Selling Stockholders do not expect these commissions and discounts to exceed what is customary in the types of transactions involved. Any profits on the resale of shares of common stock by a broker-dealer acting as principal might be deemed to be underwriting discounts or commissions under the Securities Act. Discounts, concessions, commissions and similar selling expenses, if any, attributable to the sale of shares will be borne by a Selling Stockholder. The Selling Stockholders may agree to indemnify any agent, dealer or broker-dealer that participates in transactions involving sales of the shares if liabilities are imposed on that person under the Securities Act.

20

The Selling Stockholders may from time to time pledge or grant a security interest in some or all of the shares of common stock owned by them and, if they default in the performance of their secured obligations, the pledgees or secured parties may offer and sell the shares of common stock from time to time under this prospectus after we have filed an amendment to this prospectus under the applicable provisions of the Securities Act amending the list of Selling Stockholders to include the pledgee, transferee or other successors in interest as Selling Stockholders under this prospectus.

The Selling Stockholders also may transfer the shares of common stock in other circumstances, in which case the transferees, pledgees or other successors in interest will be the selling beneficial owners for purposes of this prospectus and may sell the shares of common stock from time to time under this prospectus after we have filed an amendment to this prospectus under the applicable provisions of the Securities Act amending the list of Selling Stockholders to include the pledgee, transferee or other successors in interest as Selling Stockholders under this prospectus.

The Selling Stockholders and any broker-dealers or agents that are involved in selling the shares of common stock may be deemed to be "underwriters" within the meaning of the Securities Act in connection with such sales. In such event, any commissions received by such broker-dealers or agents and any profit on the resale of the shares of common stock purchased by them may be deemed to be underwriting commissions or discounts under the Securities Act.

We are required to pay all fees and expenses incident to the registration of the shares of common stock, including the reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel to the Selling Stockholders. We have agreed to indemnify the Selling Stockholders against certain losses, claims, damages and liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act.

The Selling Stockholders have advised us that they have not entered into any agreements, understandings or arrangements with any underwriters or broker-dealers regarding the sale of their shares of common stock, nor is there an underwriter or coordinating broker acting in connection with a proposed sale of shares of common stock by any selling stockholder. If we are notified by any selling stockholder that any material arrangement has been entered into with a broker-dealer for the sale of shares of common stock, if required, we will file a supplement to this prospectus. If the Selling Stockholders use this prospectus for any sale of the shares of common stock, they will be subject to the prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act.

The anti-manipulation rules of Regulation M under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 may apply to sales of our common stock and activities of the Selling Stockholders.

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings nor are we aware of any legal proceedings pending or threatened against us or our properties, except as follows:

As disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 20, 2008 with the SEC, a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court by Goliad County, Texas and an individual landowner alleging infractions of the Safe Drinking Water Act in connection with our exploration activities in Goliad County. We believe this claim regarding our exploration activities to be completely without merit and will be vigorously defended by us. The responsible state agency with sole jurisdiction over our exploration activities previously thoroughly investigated a similar claim by the County and found us to be in compliance with all applicable regulatory and environmental requirements.

Specifically, as the agency noted in an April 2007 letter to the County's attorney, the state agency hydrologist "concluded from the available information that no ground-water contamination has occurred as a result of the drilling activities." The state agency concluded its letter by noting that "[t]o date, the Commission's investigation of your complaint has not revealed any practice or activity within the approved permit area that has adversely affected the wells identified in your complaint or the related aquifer, or is out of compliance with the Texas Uranium Mining Regulations...". Later in a September 2007 letter to the Goliad groundwater district, the agency reiterated its findings stating the agency's "investigation of your complaint has not revealed any practice or activity at UEC's Uranium Exploration Permit No. 123 that is out of compliance... We consider this investigation to be closed."

21

Our Goliad Project has been inspected on a monthly basis since the close of the investigation, and no violations have been noted. In fact, an inspection report from November of 2007 observed that "prompt attention" to site restoration during exploration was apparent and "the area inspected looked very good". We are dedicated to full compliance with all aspects of the state regulatory process and will continue to focus our attention and efforts on obtaining all necessary authorizations for our Goliad Project.

The lawsuit, which was commenced by the filing of the plaintiffs' Original Complaint on or about March 17, 2008, follows on a notice of intent to file litigation issued by counsel for Goliad County which was disclosed in the Company's current report filed with the SEC on Form 8-K on March 3, 2008. The plaintiffs have requested that the Court grant the following relief: (a) that the Court exercise jurisdiction over the lawsuit; (b) an order enjoining the Company from further exploration activities in the Weesatche Project in Goliad County; (c) an order requiring the Company to clean up the alleged contamination of the aquifer; (d) an order enjoining initiation of the aquifer exemption process until the Company has cleaned up the alleged contamination; (e) an order prohibiting the Company from using any water quality data for purposes of establishing baseline water quality if such data was collected after initiation of mining activity (although the Company has not commenced any mining activity); (f) an order granting Goliad County payment of its expert fees incurred in the prosecution of the lawsuit; (g) an order granting Goliad County payment of its attorney fees; and (h) such additional relief as the Court may deem just, proper and equitable, including an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs.

We were also recently informed that we have been named as a defendant in a claim filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for $33,000 in legal fees in connection with our prior amicable settlement of a short-swing profit matter under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act by a non-management shareholder of our Company. The plaintiff acted as counsel for the shareholder. We believe that the legal fees sought are highly unreasonable for the work performed by the plaintiff and intend to vigorously defend against the claim.

Our directors and executive officers and their respective ages as of April 2, 2008 are as follows:

22

The following describes the business experience of each of our directors and executive officers, including other directorships held in reporting companies:

Amir Adnani. Mr. Amir Adnani has been our President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director since January 24, 2005. Mr. Adnani is an entrepreneur with an extensive background in business development and marketing. In September 2004, he founded and was the sole shareholder, a director and President of, Blender Media Inc., a Vancouver based company that provides strategic marketing and financial communications services to public companies and investors in mineral exploration, mining, and energy sectors. Effective October 1, 2006, Mr. Adnani is no longer a director, officer or shareholder of Blender Media Inc. In June 2001, Mr. Adnani co-founded, and from June 2001 to September 2004, was a director and officer of Fort Sun Investments Inc, a strategic marketing and financial communications services company for public companies. Mr. Adnani holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of British Columbia. Mr. Adnani is not a director or officer of any other U.S. reporting company.

Alan P. Lindsay. Mr. Alan P. Lindsay has been our Chairman and a director since May 16, 2003. Mr. Lindsay has extensive experience and expertise in the mining and biomedical fields. From 2000 to the present, he has been the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of MIV Therapeutics, Inc., a publicly-listed biomedical company focused on biocompatible coating technology for stents and medical devices, and was also a co-founder of GeneMax Pharmaceuticals, a biotech company with a novel cancer treatment technology discovered at the University of British Columbia. Mr. Lindsay was the founder of Azco Mining Inc. and served as Chairman, President and CEO of Azco from 1992 to 2000. During his term, Azco obtained listings on both the Toronto and American Stock Exchanges. Azco developed the Sanchez copper deposit and Piedras Verdes copper deposits with a combined SX-EW oxide copper resource of 3.25 billion pounds of copper. Mr. Lindsay negotiated a business transaction with Phelps Dodge Corporation that led to the sale of the Sanchez deposit for $55 million and a joint venture on the Piedras Verdes deposit. Mr. Lindsay is not a director or officer of any other U.S. reporting company.

Harry L. Anthony. Mr. Harry L. Anthony has been our Chief Operating Officer since July 2007 and a director since February 2005. He was our Chief Operating Officer from February 2005 to July 2007. Mr. Anthony has over thirty years of experience in the uranium mining industry. From approximately 1997 to present, Mr. Anthony has been a consultant through Anthony Engineering Services for several major uranium companies and international agencies, which duties generally include project evaluation, operations "trouble shooter" and technical and financial expert. From approximately 1990 through 1997, Mr. Anthony was a senior vice president of Uranium Resources, Inc., where he managed all facets of operations and technical support to achieve production goals, drilling, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, software development and equipment design. His duties also included oversight of construction, technical aspects, and daily operations of plants and wellfields, budget planning and forecasting, property evaluations and reserve estimations. Mr. Anthony also previously served as the vice-president of engineering/engineering manager of Uranium Resources, Inc., and a project superintendent and project engineer for Union Carbide Corp. Mr. Anthony was on the board of directors of Uranium Resources, Inc. from 1984 through 1994. He is the author of several publications and the recipient of the awards "Distinguished Member of the South Texas Mineral Section of AIME -1987" and "1999 Outstanding Citizen of the Year - Kingsville Chamber of Commerce". Mr. Anthony received an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics in 1973 and a B.S. in Engineering Mechanics in 1969 from Pennsylvania State University. Mr. Anthony is not a director or officer of any other U.S. reporting company.

Pat Obara. Mr. Obara became our Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer on August 23, 2006. During the past five years Mr. Obara has worked as a consultant to several private and publicly listed companies providing various consulting services in the areas of corporate finance and administration. From March of 2003 to present Mr. Obara has provided various administrative consulting services to private companies involved in business activities in Asia and North America. Prior to April of 2004 Mr. Obara served as the Chief Financial Officer and a director of two public companies listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. Mr. Obara was involved in the restructuring, organizing and management of these early stage companies which were involved in the resource and technology sectors. Mr. Obara is not a director or officer of any other U.S. reporting company.

23

Erik Essiger. Mr. Essiger became a director of our company and a member of our Audit Committee on August 23, 2006. During the past five years Mr. Essiger has been: the Managing Director and the founder of Precisetech GmbH, a corporate finance advisory company focused on international M&A transactions (from October 2004 to present); a member of the Supervisory Board of Corix Capital AG (from December 2003 to present); the Senior Manager, Transaction Services Strategy Group, with PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, heading up the commercial and due diligence practice of that group in Germany which provided services mainly to private equity clients of the firm (from April 2003 to September 2004); and a member of the Executive Board (Vorstand) of MultiMedia Technologies AG, a producer of set-top-boxes and a company operating in the fields of interactive digital television and the streaming media market (from July 2000 to July 2002) Mr. Essiger also has extensive international experience in corporate restructuring; especially in Germany, Russia, Hong Kong and Switzerland; and he was a member of the German-Russian co-operation council. Mr. Essiger is a director of Morgan Creek Energy Corp, a publicly traded company.

Ivan Obolensky. Mr. Obolensky has 40 years experience in the investment banking business as a financial analyst, with specific expertise in the defense aerospace, oil and gas, nuclear power, metals and minerals, publishing and high technology industries. He has been an executive of several investment banks, including Sterling Grace & Co., Jesup, Josephthal & Co., Dominick and Dominick, Inc., Middendorf Colgate, and CB Richard Ellis Mosley Hallgarten. Since November 1990 to date, Mr. Obolensky has been Vice President of Shields & Company, an Investment Bank and Member of the New York Stock Exchange. Ivan Obolensky is a Registered Investment Advisor and a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts. He has made frequent appearances as a guest on CNBC, CNNfn, and Bloomberg TV. Mr. Obolensky is also a member of various foundations and philanthropic organizations, and serves as Chairman and CEO of the Soldiers' Sailors' Marines' and Airmen's Club in New York. He is a graduate of Yale University and a retired Lieutenant (Junior Grade) in the U.S. Naval Air Corps.

Vincent Della Volpe. Mr. Della Volpe has served as a professional money manager for over 35 years, including as a senior portfolio manager of pension funds for Honeywell Corporation and senior vice president of the YMCA Retirement fund in New York. Throughout his career Mr. Della Volpe has particularly focused on the management of energy and utility equity portfolios, and he also has experience managing venture capital investments. Mr. Della Volpe holds a Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and an MBA in finance, both from Seton Hall University. Since September 2006, Mr. Della Volpe has served as a director of Gold Canyon Resources, Inc., a junior natural resources company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada, that is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. Mr. Della Volpe has been retired since March 2003.  During the prior 11 years he was employed by the YMCA Retirement Fund.   In addition to his position as director of the Company, he has been a director of Gold Canyon Resources since Sept 2006. 

We have also established an Advisory Board currently comprised of Mr. Craig Holmes, Mr. Jon Indall, Mr. Edward Brezinski and Mr. George Carey. The purpose of the Advisory Board is to provide support in our search and acquisition of uranium properties, and for the design, permitting and reclamation of our uranium properties.

Craig Holmes, age 57, has extensive experience in uranium mine permitting in the United States which traces back to the advent of ISR uranium mining in the United States in 1976. Mr. Holmes is the founding partner of Eggleston Holmes and Associate (EHA) and served as a General Partner in the firm from 1983 to December 2006. During his tenure with EHA, Mr. Holmes served a major part in conducting numerous environmental assessments related to uranium mining and processing. Mr. Holmes continues to work full time as a regulatory consultant to the uranium industry in Texas and Wyoming. Mr. Holmes devotes a significant amount of his time to us in the areas of permitting and technical services, and in legislative efforts pertaining to rules governing the uranium industry.

24

His 30-year career has been dedicated to the permitting of uranium projects spanning 26 different projects in Texas, Wyoming and New Mexico. He was involved in the baseline and environmental impact analyses in support of permits and a radioactive material licenses for the Highlands In-Situ Recovery Project in Wyoming. Additionally, he participated in technical evaluations regarding waste disposal and radiological assessments for the Smith Ranch In-Situ Recovery Project for Rio Algom Mining Corporation. More recently, Mr. Holmes acted as Project Manager and Advisor to Mesteña Uranium, LLC, a private uranium-producing company based in south Texas. In this role, he was responsible for preparing all required baseline studies, writing the applications for the mine permit, the production area authorizations, and the radioactive material license. He was also responsible for preparing all data needed for an air permit exemption, and the EPA aquifer exemption. As a result of his deep involvement with regulatory matters, Mr. Holmes has made a significant contribution to the formulation of the rules and regulations that govern the ISR permitting process today. He received his BSc and MSc from the University of Pittsburgh.

Jon Indall, age 57, is a prominent attorney, and an acknowledged expert in representing uranium industry interests in the United States. Mr. Indall currently is and has been a partner at the law firm of Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall in Santa Fe, New Mexico for over 25 years. Mr. Indall's career in the law and as an authoritative lobbyist spans over 30 years, with specialization in natural resources and environmental law, and with a special focus on the uranium mining industry. Mr. Indall has represented the Uranium Producers of America - a trade association of domestic uranium producers - since its inception in 1985. He drafted and successfully assisted in lobbying Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which has provided over $500 million of federal reimbursements for costs related to reclamation of uranium and thorium mill tailings sites. He was also instrumental in the revitalization of the UPA in 2005, and has been active in negotiations with the US Department of Energy regarding sales of the their excess uranium inventories. In court, Mr. Indall has represented senior mining companies including Homestake Mining, Kerr-McGee, Kennecott Corp, and Pennzoil Corp. He has also represented uranium mining and development companies Cameco, Uranium Resources Inc, United Nuclear Corporation, Strathmore Resources and many others. Mr. Indall received his BA from the University of Kansas, and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Kansas Law School. He is currently a member of the American Bar Association (Natural Resources Section), the State Bar of New Mexico (Natural Resources Section), and First Judicial District Bar Association.

Edward Brezinski, age 53, career spans over 20 years working for utility companies and with nuclear fuel traders and brokers.  His experience has been focused on marketing, trading and brokerage of uranium and related products, market analysis, inventory management, procurement and contracting for nuclear fuel, fuel services and other vital nuclear power plant services.  While at Northeast Utilities, he acted as lead purchaser of uranium concentrates, and conversion, enrichment and fabrication services.  He also worked in a similar lead trader or broker capacity for UG USA, Nukem Inc, and NYNCO trading and brokerage companies. Mr. Brezinski currently serves as the Vice President of Nuclear Fuel Supply for Utah-based Energy Solutions.  Mr. Brezinski has a Bachelor of Science in Radiological Health Physics, and an MBA in Finance and International Business.

George Cavey, age 53, is a consulting geologist with 35 years experience.  Since 1982, he has been the president of OreQuest Consultants, a company providing geological consulting services to resource companies, both public and private.  Mr. Cavey has been responsible for the examination and evaluation of properties in North, Central and South America and Africa; implementation and management of all aspects of exploration programs including research, geophysical surveys, diamond drilling, reserve definition and underground development.  He has authorized or been involved in the writing of more than 300 geological reports for Canadian junior resource companies.  He is a past president of the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists.  Mr. Cavey has served on the Canadian Securities Administrators Mining Technical Monitoring and Advisory Committee and still acts as a consultant to the BCSC with respect to NI43-101 issues. Mr. Cavey is an officer and/or director of six public companies.

All of our directors hold office until the next annual general meeting of the shareholders or until their successors are elected and qualified. Our officers are appointed by our board of directors and hold office until their earlier death, retirement, resignation or removal.

There are no significant employees other than our executive officers.

25

Vincent Della Volpe, Erik Essiger and Ivan Obolensky are "independent" directors of the Company as that term is defined in Rule 121 of the American Stock Exchange listing standards.

Alan Lindsay is the father-in-law of Amir Adnani.

None of our directors, executive officers, advisory board members or control persons have been involved in any of the events prescribed by Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K during the past five years, including:

1. any bankruptcy petition filed by or against any business of which such person was a general partner or executive officer either at the time of the bankruptcy or within two years prior to that time;
2. any conviction in a criminal proceeding or being subject to a pending criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations and other minor offenses);
3. being subject to any order, judgment, or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any court of competent jurisdiction, permanently or temporarily enjoining, barring, suspending or otherwise limiting his involvement in any type of business, securities or banking activities; or
4. being found by a court of competent jurisdiction (in a civil action), the Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to have violated a federal or state securities or commodities law, and the judgment has not been reversed, suspended, or vacated.

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock by each stockholder known by us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock and by each of our current directors and executive officers. Each person has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares of common stock, except as otherwise indicated. Beneficial ownership consists of a direct interest in the shares of common stock, except as otherwise indicated. As of April 2, 2008, there are 39,807,823 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.

26

*      Less than one percent.

27

Our authorized capital stock consists of 750,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001 per share. As of April 2, 2008, there were 39,807,823 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding.

Upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our company, the holders of common stock are entitled to share rateably in all net assets available for distribution to common stockholders after payment to secured convertible promissory note holders and creditors. The common stock is not convertible or redeemable and has no pre-emptive, subscription or conversion rights. Each outstanding share of common stock is entitled to one vote on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. There are no cumulative voting rights. The holders of outstanding shares of common stock are entitled to receive dividends out of assets legally available therefore at such times and in such amounts as our Board of Directors may from time to time determine. In the event of a merger or consolidation all holders of common stock will be entitled to receive the same per share consideration.

An aggregate of 2,550,000 shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants to acquire shares of our common stock by the Selling Stockholders are offered by this prospectus. Warrants to acquire an aggregate of 1,800,000 shares of our common stock are exercisable at a price of $4.25 per share for a period of one year from the date of issuance on December 12, 2007. Warrants to acquire up to 750,000 shares of our common stock are exercisable at a price of $2.50 per share until May 31, 2008. The purchase price and number of shares to be issued upon exercise of the warrants is subject to adjustment in certain cases, including, among others, in the event of a share reorganization, capital reorganization or other related transaction.

Lang Michener LLP, our independent legal counsel, has provided an opinion on the validity of the shares of our common stock that are the subject of this prospectus.

The audited financial statements included in this prospectus and the registration statement of which it forms a part: (i) for the seven-month period ended July 31, 2007 have been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, Chartered Accountants; and (ii) for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 have been audited by Dale Matheson Carr-Hilton LaBonte LLP, Chartered Accountants, each of which is an independent registered public accounting firm, as set forth in their respective reports thereon appearing elsewhere herein and are included in reliance upon such reports given on the authority of such firms as experts in auditing and accounting.

28

Our directors and officers are indemnified as provided by the Nevada Revised Statutes, our Articles of Incorporation and our Bylaws.

We have been advised that, in the opinion of the SEC, indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act, and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities is asserted by one of our directors, officers, or controlling persons in connection with the securities being registered, we will, unless in the opinion of our legal counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit the question of whether such indemnification is against public policy to a court of appropriate jurisdiction. We will then be governed by the court's decision.

34

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

The current leases range in size from 14 acres to 331.98 acres. Most of the leases have starting dates in 2005 or 2006 with term periods of five years with a five-year renewal option (Figure 4-2). The various lease fees and royalty conditions are negotiated with individual lessors and conditions may vary from lease to lease. Because the leases are negotiated with individual private land and/or mineral owners and none of the properties are located on government land, the details of the lease information and terms are considered confidential.

35

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

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

36

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

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

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

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

Ownership History of the Property

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

In the early 1980s Moore Energy obtained access to review some of the Coastal States wide-spaced drilling exploration data. The review resulted in Moore Energy obtaining several leases from Coastal Uranium, including several of the current Goliad Project leases. During the period from March 1983 through August 1984, Moore Energy conducted an exploration program in the Goliad Project area.

No further drilling was done at the Goliad Project area until we obtained the leases through assignment from a private entity. During the period from May 2006 to present we began and are continuing an extended drilling program at the site.

This description of previous exploration and development work undertaken at the Goliad Project is based primarily on electric logs and maps produced by Moore Energy during the period 1983 to 1984. Moore Energy completed 479 borings on various leases. Eight widespread exploration borings were completed by Coastal Uranium in 1980. We obtained leases from a private entity in 2006 and began confirmation drilling in May 2006. As of December 20, 2007, approximately 591 confirmation-delineation holes totaling 191,775 feet have been drilled by us to confirm and expand the mineralization base at the Goliad Project with the intention of permitting the project as an ISR mining and recovery facility.

37

All of the exploration holes (Coastal Uranium, Moore Energy and the Company) have been drilled using truck-mounted drilling rigs contracted with various drilling companies. The holes were drilled by conventional rotary drilling methods using drilling mud fluids. All known uranium exploration or confirmation drilling at the Goliad property has been by way of vertical holes. Drill cuttings were typically collected from the drilling fluid returns circulating up the annulus of the borehole. These samples were generally taken at 10-foot intervals and laid out on the ground in rows (10 cuttings piles per 100 feet of drilling) by the driller for review and description by a geologist. At completion the holes were logged for gamma ray, self potential and resistance by contract logging companies. The logging companies utilized by both Coastal Uranium and Moore Energy provided and primarily analog data. No down-hole deviation tool was available at the time. In contrast, the Company has utilized a company (Century Geophysical) that has provided digital log data along with downhole deviation. In an effort to be cost effective we have recently purchased and had built our own logging truck.

Historical mineral estimates were prepared by Moore Energy from 1983 through 1985. For each drill hole, a grade thickness (GT) was determined. GT is the product of the average equivalent uranium mineral grade, as determined by eU3O8 gamma ray readings, and the thickness of the mineralized zone. An outline contouring all of the drill holes with intercepts meeting these criteria was produced and the area within the outline was determined using a planimeter. The average GT of the holes within the contoured outline was then used to estimate the mineralization meeting the specified criteria.

During the field investigation by Moore Energy a prompt fission neutron ("PFN") specialty logging unit was used to determine the disequilibrium factor ("DEF") in the four different mineralized zones identified at the site. The logging unit was designed to determine the grade of uranium only while excluding the daughter products that develop over time from the half-life decay rates. The unit utilized by Moore Energy was provided by Princeton Gamma Technologies ("PGT"). A total of 30 boreholes were logged with the PFN unit by Moore Energy during the field investigation. The log output data is on a printout with one-foot values for the logged mineralized intercepts. Numerical values of the PGT uranium were assayed in %U₃O₈, the gross gamma equivalent e%U₃O₈, and the unit calculated the DEF. The log header contains logging unit factors and location and hole identification data. The log output also provides a calculation of the thickness, average grade, starting depth, grade thickness and DEF. A review of the historic data and discussion with the Moore Energy geologist shows that DEF data from PGT logged holes were sorted by intervals according to what zone that interval was situated. The DEF values from each zone were then averaged if there were enough values and those values used to adjust the historical estimate of Moore Energy.

Regional Geology

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

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

38

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

39

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

The hydrogeologic characteristics of the water-bearing sands at the Goliad Project have not been determined yet, but aquifer tests are required prior to submitting a mining permit application. Hydrogeologic tests will determine the hydraulic character of the sands and the confining beds separating the individual sand zones.

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

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

The other Goliad projects in the region include the Mt. Lucas mine at Lake Corpus Christi, the Kingsville Dome mine southeast of Kingsville, the Rosita mine west of Alice and the Mestena mine in Brooks County. These mines are all located south of the Goliad Project from about 60 to 160 miles. The average tons and uranium grade information for these mines is not known, but all these ISR projects mining Goliad Formation sand units have been very successful with the following characteristics in common: excellent leaching characteristics rate, favorable hydraulic conductivity of host sands, mineral resources have DEF mostly above 1.0 and mineral resource mining recoveries of 80-100 percent.

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

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

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

40

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

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

The A and B gamma ray anomaly zones are continuous, tabular bodies which extend for over 2000 feet along trend. The A Zone mineralized body ranges from about 100 feet to over 600 feet in width and the B Zone ranges from about 50 feet to over 300 feet in width. The D Zone gamma ray anomaly extends for over 5,000 feet along trend and appears to be comprised of extensive, isolated pods of high grade gamma anomalies which range from 50 feet to over 500 feet in width. Confirmation drilling, however, has shown high-grade gamma ray anomaly connections between some of the pods. The C Zone is the least extensive of the four gamma anomaly zones.

A review of the available records for the Goliad Project indicated that approximately eight holes were drilled by Coastal Uranium on or near the current Goliad Project leases. This original exploration program resulted in the original find of gamma ray logging responses indicating potential low grade uranium as a part of a very wide spaced preliminary exploration program by Coastal Uranium during the period from October 1979 through June 1980.

Records indicate that Moore Energy obtained leases from Coastal Uranium for properties in the current Goliad Project area and conducted a thorough exploration program that consisted of drilling 479 exploration holes from March 1983 to August 1984. The program utilized gamma ray, resistance and self-potential logging of each hole and a geologic description of the lithology from five to 10-foot interval drill cuttings. In addition to gamma logs, several holes were also logged with a Princeton Gamma Tech Geophysical Services PFN type tool. This logging tool was used to differentiate gamma radiation from uranium and daughter products, and determine a DEF for the mineralization intervals. The Moore Energy exploration program provided the geological basis for the Goliad Project.

Current (2006-2007) drilling at the property has been to confirm the geological details of the uranium mineralization at the property. The Goliad property work by our geologists is not exploration but confirmation-verification drilling. Additionally, our staff has continued peripheral as well as internal drilling to expand the historical mineralization.

41

Based on a review of drilling records and discussions with former Moore Energy and our current employees, previous drilling on the property was conducted using rotary mud drilling and truck-mounted drilling rigs. Cuttings are typically taken at 10-foot intervals and placed in piles on the ground for a geologist to review for lithology and alteration. The drill holes were completed at various depths depending on which of the four sand units may have been mineralized in the vicinity location. Once completed, the drill holes were logged by a contract logger using a probe with gamma ray, self-potential and single point resistance capability. Drift tools for bottom hole deviation were not used by Coastal Uranium nor for the vast majority of Moore Energy holes. We have utilized the digital logging capability of Century Geophysical Corp. and have downhole deviation records for these holes. The drill hole collar location was used to position the hole location for map locations of individual holes. Although several boreholes had no deviation records, all drilling to date has been set up to be vertical drilling. At the depth range (300-500 ft) of most Goliad Project drilling, measured bottom hole deviations from vertical are generally less than 10 feet.

Initial exploration drilling in the general areas was conducted by Coastal Uranium in 1980. Some scattered low level gamma ray anomalies were noted in the geophysical logs that indicated potential low grade uranium mineralization was possible in three of the eight Coastal drill holes. Moore Energy established leases in the area in 1982 and began an exploration program in early 1983. Between 1983 and August 1984 Moore Energy completed 479 borings by mud rotary methods on several of their leases. We obtained leases at the property by assignment from a private entity in 2006 and began confirmation drilling in May 2006. 360 holes have been completed by us so far.

At the time when we received a report of data for this disclosure, the report indicated that we had drilled a total of 801 confirmation holes. Of the total 801 holes, 61 were strongly mineralized.

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

Split sections of core were placed in laboratory containers and a lixiviate solution with 2.0 grams per liter HCO₃ (NaHCO₃) and either 0.50 or 0.25 g/L of H₂O₂ (hydrogen peroxide) was added to each test container. The containers were then rotated at 30 rpm for 16 hours. The lixiviate was then extracted from each test container and analyzed for uranium, molybdenum, sodium, sulfate, alkalinity (bicarbonate, carbonate), pH and conductance. A clean charge of lixiviate was added and the container rotated another 16 hours. Each sample rotation and lixiviate charge cycle was representative of 5 pore volumes with chemical analyses after each cycle. The cycle was repeated for a total of 6 cycles or the equivalent of 30 pore volumes.

The four core samples subjected to the leach amenability tests were determined to contain from 0.04% to 0.08% cU₃O₈ before testing_. Leach tests conducted on the core samples from the A Zone indicate leach efficiencies of 60 to 80% U₃O₈ extraction, while the tails analyses indicate efficiencies of 87-89%. The differences between the two calculations involve the loss of solid clay based materials during multiple filtrations. Based on post leach solids analysis, the core intervals were leachable to a very favorable 86 to 89%. After tests the tails were reanalyzed for uranium concentration to determine the recovery, which ranged on the 4 samples using 2 methods from 60% to 89%.

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

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

47

The amenability testing described above was conducted on core recovered from four depth intervals from one boring. While this was a limited sampling for this property, the samples are believed to be generally representative of the characteristics of the mineralized intervals and the determined recovery ranges for these intervals is considered to be reliable. Two of the four samples tested contained approximately 0.08% cU₃O₈ and two contained lower grades of uranium (~0.04% cU₃O₈). Energy Laboratories, Inc. in Casper, Wyoming, conducted the laboratory testing for this project. The laboratory has been in business since 1952, is fully certified, but not ISO certified. Certifications include the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the following US states: AZ, CA, CO, FL, ID, NV, OR, SD, TX, UT and WA.

The Goliad Project appears to be most suitable for mining as an ISR (in-situ recovery) project. Although leach and permeability tests are still being conducted, south Texas uranium deposits in permeable sands situated below the groundwater table are generally favorable to ISR production.

We have completed the majority of required environmental baseline studies for the various permits needed for production.  The Mine Permit application was submitted to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in mid August and is currently undergoing technical review.  The Radioactive Material License application is nearing completion and is scheduled for submittal to the TCEQ in early February, 2008.  Studies completed to compile this document include: cultural resources (including archaeology), socioeconomic impact and soils mapping, baseline gamma survey, baseline soil/sediment/surface water/vegetation, baseline radon, and gamma exposure rates. The cultural resources study found no adverse impacts to the site and socioeconomic impacts are projected to be positive for the community. The Waste Disposal Well feasibility study is complete and the application is being assembled for submittal in early March, 2008 to the TCEQ. The initial Production Permit Area (PAA-1) is nearly complete and monitor well drilling will commence in January to begin the process of collecting the required information for this final permit application.

The geotechnical engineering study for the proposed plant site has been completed and mine planning, including engineering design for the proposed plant site, is in progress.  20 Regional Baseline water quality wells have been installed for monitoring the aquifer within the mineralized zones and pump tests on the aquifer are planned. Laboratory testing has indicated 86-89% leach ability of tested core samples and the results indicate that the mineralization is amenable to in situ leaching with an oxygenated bicarbonate lixiviant.

Soils in the upper 25 feet at the proposed site are variable with dominantly brown to light brown sandy silty clay in the upper 4 to 6 feet. Soils grade to tan sandy clayey silt that is generally present to depth of the investigation (25 feet). The shallow clayey soils have relatively high plasticity indices (PI) with lower PIs in the silty soils below. Groundwater was not encountered while drilling the borings.

48

The primary recommendation in the report is to construct a reinforced concrete mat type foundation sized for a uniform allowable loading of 2,000 pounds per square foot.

The report and recommendations indicates there are no apparent problem soils and the recommended slab and foundation should be suitable for the intended use of the slab.

Our company completed the planned 32,000-foot drilling program during the fourth quarter of 2006. Based on encouraging results, a two-fold, follow-on program was designed to be performed during 2007 to support mine permitting, mine planning and expansion of existing mineralizations. All 2007 drilling at the Goliad Project will be carried out under our approved Texas Railroad Commission Exploration Permit No. 123 dated February 3, 2006. The Permit has been extended for an additional year (until February 3, 2008).

The first phase of the new program will be to support ongoing environmental permitting. An additional 216 holes will be drilled. Total drilling footage for this part of the program will be approximately 75,840 feet.

The first phase will also involve a total of five core holes averaging 300 feet in depth. The cores will be collected and sent to an analytical laboratory to have agitation leach analyses run to best determine the composition of the mine lixiviant amenable to in-situ recovery methodology.

Following the coring program at total of five cased holes will be installed and utilized as groundwater monitor wells. Groundwater will be sampled and analyzed as part of the ongoing environmental mine permitting application process. These monitor wells will be drilled and cased to an average depth of 300 feet below ground surface. The entire cost of this first phase program will be approximately $595,000. The first phase drilling program was completed during the second quarter of 2007.

The second phase of drilling planned at the Goliad Project will be designed to explore additional acreage acquired during our company's 2006 - 2007 leasing program. It is anticipated that at least 500 exploratory holes will be required to adequately define the presence or absence of mineralization on the newly acquired acreage. The 500 holes will account for an approximate total of 227,250 feet of drilling and cost $1,500,000. This drilling program should be initiated during the second quarter of 2007 and extend into the first quarter of 2008.

Geologists and engineers performing work at the Goliad Project have developed a timetable of forecasted workflow, which includes the forecasted completion dates of various tasks which have been assigned to various personnel. The workflow has been broken down into two broad categories, which have then been further broken down into individual tasks, many of which can be performed contemporaneously. The two major categories of work relate to radioactive materials licenses and mine permits.

Within these two broad categories of work are included the following tasks, many of which are required by the regulatory bodies to whom the Company is subject to oversight for its exploration activities. The forecasted dates of completion of these tasks is also indicated. These are internal forecasts only, and the actual dates of the beginning or completion of these tasks may differ materially from the forecasts:

49

Upon the satisfactory completion of these tasks, and with approval of all applicable regulatory agencies involved in these tasks, the Company may then proceed with uranium extraction, provided that this exploration property can establish economic uranium reserves.

The permitting process is well underway and the Company has accomplished the following key elements to that end:

50

Nuclear Energy Inc ("NEI"), the manager of Cibola Resources, obtained a lease from the Board of Trustees of the Cebolleta Land Grant Board for an area of the land grant covering approximately 6,700 acres (2,994 hectares) of mineral rights. The majority of the leased mineral rights are covered by the surface estate held by the Cebolleta Land Grant, and surface use and access rights are included as provisions of the lease. A portion of the leased mineral rights are covered by surface rights held by a third party, and are not leased by NEI. NEI has assigned the lease to Cibola Resources, of which, Uranium Energy owns 49% of the shares.

The leased lands are part of a land grant that was made to certain individuals by the King of Spain prior to the inclusion of the State of New Mexico as part of the United States.

51

When the territory of New Mexico was acquired by the United States, the rights and title first conveyed by the creation of the Cebolleta Land Grant were honoured by the United States Senate through the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Although the area of the Cebolleta Land Grant, including a portion of the Cebolleta project, was never surveyed into the US Section-Township-Range system, the property has been legally surveyed by a registered land surveyor and the appropriate monuments have been put in place.

Cibola Resources has accepted assignment of the Cebolleta Land Grant mineral lease from NEI. The lease, which has an initial term of ten years, may be extended beyond the initial term by Cibola Resources by undertaking mineral exploration, mine development and mining and/or mineral processing activities. The lease agreement requires Cibola Resources to make periodic (annual) advance royalty payments to the Cebolleta Land Grant, pay a sliding scale production royalty (based upon the sales price of U3O8) on any mine production from the property and provide employment opportunities and job training programs for the members of the Cebolleta Land Grant. Cibola Resources is required to complete an independent "third-party" feasibility study within six years of the effective date of the lease, and make a "reserve bonus" payment of US$1 per pound of U3O8, within the "Measured" or "Proven" reserve category and determined to be recoverable by a feasibility study. All annual payments made to the Cebolleta Land Grant prior to the completion of a feasibility study are to be deducted from the "reserve bonus" payment. The lease agreement conveys the rights to explore for, mine and process uranium deposits present on the leased lands. A "Short Form Memorandum of Uranium Mining Lease and Agreement" has been filed and recorded with the offices of the County Clerk and Recorder for Cibola County, New Mexico.

A portion of the leased properties are subject to a pre-existing 1/48th (2.08%) royalty on a "Uranium Value". This third-party royalty is deductible from production royalties payable to the Cebolleta Land Grant, and does not represent a further economic burden to Cibola Resources or the project.

The leased property was formerly the site of several underground uranium and open pit mines and processing plant (uranium mill). Open pit and underground mines in the St. Anthony area of the Cebolleta Land Grant lease are currently being reclaimed by the former operators of those mines, UNC Resources (a subsidiary of General Electric). The L-Bar mine and uranium mill were reclaimed by the successor to Sohio Western Mining Company ("Sohio"), Kennecott Energy Company ("Kennecott"), and the mill site has been transferred to the US Department of Energy for long-term monitoring and management. The former L-Bar mill site is not a part the lease from Cebolleta Land Grant. An examination of the files of the State of New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department indicates that Kennecott has some limited reclamation obligations relating to subsidence associated with several ventilation holes for the former JJ #1 underground mine. UNC Resources has obligations to reclaim portions of the former St. Anthony mine area, and they are currently undertaking a comprehensive restoration program in accordance with the directives of the State of New Mexico. Cibola Resources and its members, NEI and Uranium Energy, have not assumed any reclamation liabilities for the properties.

As with all drilling projects proposed in the State of New Mexico, Cibola Resources will be required to obtain permits from the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. Cibola Resources is currently preparing an application for drilling on the project. Mining and milling operations will require additional permits from the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, the New Mexico Environment Department, as well as the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At this time Cibola Resources does not hold permits for any activities for the Cebolleta project.

The Cebolleta project is situated on the southern margin of the San Juan Basin of west-central and northwestern New Mexico. The project area adjoins Mesa Chivato, a broad volcanic capped mesa that surrounds Mount Taylor, a dormant volcano that is a prominent landmark. Elevations within the project area range from 6,400 feet to 7,100 feet above sea level (1,950 metres to 2,164 metres). Topography is typical of the mesa-and-canyon landforms that dominate this portion of New Mexico, with sharp local variations in elevation, on the order of 200 to 400 feet (61 metres to 122 metres) over short distances. A series of rounded hills, raising 200 to 300 feet (61 to 91 metres) above the surrounding landscape, are present in the vicinity of the former L-Bar uranium mine (in the western part of the project area). A prominent canyon, developed along Meyer Draw and Arroyo Pedro Padilla, cuts the southern part of the project area.

52

In spite of these local variations in topography, access to nearly all of the project area is good. Access to the project is over a paved state-maintained highway to the village of Seboyeta (a distance of approximately 10 miles, or 16 kilometres). One all-weather graded gravel road, maintained by Cibola County, and several private roads of varying quality, cross the project lands and provide access to nearly all parts of the project area. Rail service is available from the BNSF Railroad at the towns of Grants and Milan, and scheduled air service is available in Albuquerque.

53

54

The area is populated with sparse mixed grasses, with very limited stands of mesquite and pinion pine trees, typical of a semi-arid high desert climate. Temperatures at Grants (the nearest town with meaningful weather records) range from lows of approximately 50° to 80° Fahrenheit (9.9° to 26.6° Celsius) in the summer season, and 10° to 40° F (-12.2° to 4.4° Celsius) in the winter. The area receives approximately 11 inches (279 millimetres) of precipitation annually. Much of this precipitation comes in the form of afternoon thundershowers during the months of July and August, and as much as 13 inches (330 millimetres) of snow during the winter months. Winter snows and summer thunderstorms may create temporary muddy ground conditions that interrupt access for short periods of time. Other than these short periods of muddy ground conditions, mineral exploration and mining activities normally can be conducted without interruption throughout the year.

The project area has sufficient surface resources to support mining and processing operations, tailings ponds, and mine waste dumps. There are numerous sources of water, electricity, and fuel in the area. Personnel experienced in open pit and underground mining, construction and mineral processing are available in Grants (40 miles, or 64 kilometres, to the southwest of the project area) and at the town of Laguna. Two high voltage electrical transmission lines cross the region several miles north of the project area, and electrical lines have been constructed to the sites of the former Sohio L-Bar uranium mine.

The Cebolleta project is located in the northern portion of the Laguna mining district, the eastern-most portion of the Grants mineral belt. The first discovery of uranium mineralization in the Laguna district was made by geologists and engineers of the Anaconda Copper Company in late 1951. The identification of strong uranium mineralization resulted in the discovery of the Jackpile-Paguate uranium mine. Anaconda also undertook an exploration program on the nearby Evans Ranch, located northeast of the Jackpile mine, in 1955 and this program continued until 1957. During this period of exploration more than 350 holes were drilled in the area of the Cebolleta project by Anaconda.

Climax Uranium, a subsidiary of American Metals Climax, obtained a lease from the Cebolleta Land Grant for the St. Anthony area and subsequently discovered several uranium deposits on the leased properties. Climax operated a series of small-scale open pit and underground mines, commencing in 1953 and ending in 1960, when the lease was acquired by United Nuclear Corporation (later to become UNC Resources, now a subsidiary of General Electric). During the period of Climax's operations the company produced 320,942 pounds of U3O8. UNC's mining activities are reported to have commenced in 1977. Production rates for the last two years of production at St. Anthony (1979 and 1980) were 1.134 million pounds of U3O8 from stockpiles at the mine site.

Reserve Oil and Minerals, a publicly-traded resource development company, purchased the Evans Ranch (surface and mineral rights) in 1968. Reserve sold an undivided 50 percent interest in the ranch, including the mineral rights, to Sohio (then a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio) in 1969 and formed a joint venture to explore for and develop uranium deposits on the Evans Ranch. Sohio operated the joint venture and discovered extensive uranium mineralization on the property prior to the construction of an underground mine and uranium mill complex (the L-Bar mine and mill). Sohio acquired Reserve's interests in the property in 1982, and subsequently deeded their property interests in the area to the Cebolleta Land Grant in 1989.

Areas I and II were considered to be open pit development targets by Sohio, while the remaining deposits were considered to be underground mining targets only.

Mining at the Cebolleta project removed, prior to shut-down of mining operations due to depressed commodity prices, only a portion of the previously identified mineral resources in place at the project.

This work verified earlier studies by Sohio, based upon 150 core samples, that the deposits were generally in radiometric equilibrium.

The staff of Sohio Western Mining Company updated the historical resources periodically based upon mine production, cut-off grade changes, additional drilling results, underground long-hole drilling and underground sampling of mine workings and muck-piles. Underground sampling was undertaken with the aid of underground probes for muck-pile sampling, while grades of hauled muck were determined by the use of a scanner, with both methods yielding radiometric assays (%eU3O8). Sohio based the 1981 estimate, along with the 1982 and 1984 updates on the following criteria:

55

The Cebolleta project is situated at the eastern end of the prolific Grants mineral belt, which is located on the southern and south-eastern margins of the San Juan Basin and the northern margin of the ancestral Mogollan Highland. The geology of the region is dominated by a thick sequence of sedimentary rocks ranging from Triassic to Late Cretaceous in age. This sedimentary sequence is overlain by volcanic rocks (basalt) that were erupted from the Mount Taylor volcanic center, which is located a short distance to the northwest of the project area. Additionally, isolated basalt plugs and diabase dikes have been intruded into Cretaceous-aged rocks immediately north and southwest of the project area.

A thick sequence of sedimentary rocks, ranging in age from Triassic through upper Cretaceous is present within the immediate project area. Of particular importance is the Jurassic-aged Morrison Formation, which is the host unit for nearly all of the significant uranium deposits in the Grants mineral belt. The Morrison Formation has been subdivided by various workers into three principal units (in ascending order) in the southern portion of the San Juan Basin: the Recapture unit, the overlying Westwater Canyon Member, and the upper-most Brushy Basin Member. The Morrison Formation is unconformably overlain by the Cretaceous-aged Dakota Sandstone, which in turn is overlain by the Mancos Shale.

Regionally, the Recapture Member of the Morrison Formation ranges from 50 to 600 feet (15 to 183 metres) in thickness, and is about 50 feet (15 metres) thick in the project area. It is comprised of interbedded mudstones, siltstone, sandstones, and occasional limestone. Historic reports indicated that the unit was normally greyish-red on surface exposures, while fresh exposures of the various lithologies were grey (limestone), greyish-green (mudstone), or greyish-yellow (sandstone).

The Westwater Canyon Member ranges from 10 to 90 feet (three to 27 metres) in thickness in the project area. While the Westwater Canyon conformably overlies the Recapture Member there is evidence, on a local scale, for Westwater Canyon channels having "scoured" into the uppermost parts of the underlying Recapture Member. The Westwater Canyon, which is the principal host for uranium mineralization throughout the Grants mineral belt, is a greyish-yellow to pale orange sandstone. The sandstones are poorly sorted, range from fine to coarse-grained, and are sub-arkosic to arkosic in composition. In the Marquez Canyon area, approximately 15 miles (24 kilometres) north of the project area, the Westwater is comprised of several sandstone lenses that are separated by thin lenses of mudstone and siltstone.

The uppermost unit of the Morrison Formation is the Brushy Basin Member, a thick unit comprised primarily of variegated mudstones and claystones, which range in thickness from 220 to 300 feet (67 to 91 metres) in the vicinity of the project. The mudstone and claystone units are greyish-red, greyish-green to greenish-grey in color and form distinctive rounded outcrops. Several sandstone beds are present within the Brushy Basin throughout the Grants mineral belt, and certain of these sandstones have economic significance for hosting uranium deposits. Several of the sandstone units are similar in character to the Westwater Canyon sandstone.

56

The Jackpile sandstone is a distinct, yet local, unit that is in the uppermost part of the Brushy Basin Member. This unit is the host for the significant uranium deposits at the Jackpile - Paguate, St. Anthony, and L-Bar mines. The Jackpile sandstone extends in a north-easterly-trending belt that may be as much as 13 miles (21 kilometres) wide and more than 65 miles (105 kilometres) long. The unit may achieve a thickness of 200 feet (61 metres). In the St. Anthony mine complex the Jackpile ranges from 80 to 120 feet (24 to 37 metres), while at the adjoining L-Bar mine it ranges from 80 to 100 feet (24 to 30 metres) in thickness.

Thick, essentially uninterrupted, sequences of sandstone are characteristic of the Jackpile. Shale or mudstone beds are not totally absent but they are reported to be rare. The unit is a fine to medium-grained feldspathic sandstone, which is often cemented with clay. It is composed of 60 to 90% quartz, with clay and feldspar making up the remainder. Rock fragments are present, but are minor constituents. Clays occur as kaolinite, and more importantly, montmorillonite, and often serves as cement in the sandstone. Locally, the Jackpile has also been cemented with calcite.

The Dakota Sandstone, of Cretaceous age, unconformably overlies the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation throughout the project area. It is tan, orange, and white, well cemented sandstone that has minor interbeds of black shale. It averages about 50 feet (15 metres) in the project area. The Mancos Shale, also of Cretaceous age conformably overlies the Dakota Sandstone and is the uppermost sedimentary rock unit in the project area. It attains a thickness of approximately 400 feet (122 metres) in the area. It is comprised of grey to black friable shale with various interbedded sandstones that range from five to 30 feet (1.5 to nine metres) in thickness (Schlee and Moench, 1963).

Sedimentary rocks in the project area dip gently to the northwest, into the San Juan Basin, at less than two degrees. Several small scale dip-slip faults, generally down-dropped to the west, have been mapped on the surface several miles north of the project, and two similar structures, down-dropped to the east, have been mapped northeast and southwest of the immediate project area. No major faulting has been recognized in the area.

Several small-scale high-angle faults were observed in the workings of the JJ #1 underground mine, but these structures do not appear to have disrupted uranium mineralization in the mine and do not appear to have influenced the localization of mineralization.

Throughout the Grants mineral belt sandstones of the Morrison Formation, particularly the Westwater Canyon, and the Dakota Sandstone are aquifers. Various reports for the L-Bar mine, groundwater inflows from the Jackpile sandstone member of the Morrison Formation range from 25 to 100 gallons per minute (113 to 454 litres). Water wells capable of producing between 25 and 35 gallons per minute (113 and 159 litres) were completed into the Jackpile sandstone at L-Bar, and wells capable of producing between 35 and 50 gallons per minute (159 and 227 litres) from the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation (Geo-Management, 1972). Although pumping data is not available to determine the ability of either aquifer to provide sustained water supplies considerable water is known to exist in the Westwater Canyon in the vicinity of the Cebolleta project.

The mineralization at the Cebolleta project is classified as tabular sandstone-hosted uranium deposits. The St. Anthony and L-Bar uranium occurrences were formed by the mobilization of uranium from either granitic rocks of the ancestral Mogollon Highlands, located south of the Cebolleta project area, or from the devitrification of tuffaceous rocks and tuffaceous material contained in the host sandstones and in the Brushy Basin Member. The uranium was transported from its "source" area to current locations by alkaline ground waters. Uranium minerals were deposited in the host sandstones, where humic acids derived from decayed vegetal material and transported by ground water "scavenged" uranium from the active ground water system.

57

At the L-Bar deposits carbonaceous material, which was the reductant for the precipitation of uranium occurs in two forms, as detritus, and as humate. No significant uranium mineralization occurs where carbonaceous material is absent.

As previously noted, the uranium mineralization is hosted (primarily) in porous and permeable sandstones within the Jackpile unit of the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. This type of uranium deposit generally occurs at several different levels in the host, and a group of deposits may extend along an ill-defined "trend", which may reflect channel facies of the host, for a distance of several miles. This style of uranium deposit is very well known in the Grants mineral belt where it is the dominant mode of uranium occurrence.

Uranium minerals at the Cebolleta project are reported to be Coffinite [U(SiO4)1-x(OH04x)], Uraninite [UO2], organo-uranium complexes, and unidentified oxidized uranium complexes.

There are several uranium prospects located on the Cebolleta project. The L-Bar portion of the project includes four distinct zones of mineralization, known as Area I, Area II, Area VI, and Area V. Mining operations undertaken by Sohio were limited to the Area II and Area III deposits, but based upon historical resources data prepared by Sohio after the closure of the L-Bar mine substantial mineralization remains in both deposits. The Area I deposit, located in the southern part of the L-Bar complex (and was never mined), extends south of the former property boundary onto the former St. Anthony area, and additional uranium mineralization is present in the St. Anthony area adjacent to the St. Anthony open pit and the Willie P. underground mine.

The six known uranium prospects located on the Cebolleta project share a common set of geological controls;

58

At the L-Bar complex, mineralization occurs in tabular bodies that may be more than 1,000 feet (305 metres) in length, and attain thicknesses of 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 metres). The upper and lower boundaries of these mineralized bodies are generally quite abrupt. There is some tendency for individual prospects to develop in clusters. Locally, these clusters may be related to the coalescence of separate channel sandstone bodies. In this instance, mineralization is often thicker and higher grade than adjoining areas.

Cibola Resources has not undertaken any exploration on the properties covered by this report, other than a review and analysis of available historical and published information.

Cibola Resources has not carried out any drilling on the subject properties.

The drilling data that served as the basis for the historical mineral resources for the Cebolleta project includes more than 1,500 conventional (open-hole) rotary and core holes (totaling in excess of 600,000 feet [182,880 metres]) that were drilled between the late 1950's and the early 1980's. All drill holes were logged with truck mounted surface recording gamma/Self-Potential/single point resistivity logging units, which is a standard method of determining the presence and magnitude of subsurface uranium mineralization. This method of "sampling" provided a continuous record of the intensity of uranium mineralization in each drill hole. Cibola Resources has a significant number of the gamma/S-P/resistivity logs for holes at the Cebolleta project, and this data effectively defines the nature and extent not only of the subsurface uranium mineralization in the project areas, but also the thickness and lateral extent of the host rocks within the areas of drilling.

Drill holes were generally drilled on a square grid pattern, with holes spaced at 100 feet (30.48 metres), although some drilling at the "Area III" uranium deposit was spaced at 200 foot (60.96 metres) intervals. All drill holes were drilled vertically (-90 degrees) and intersected the generally flat-lying host rocks in a manner that gave an accurate depiction of the true thicknesses of the host rocks and the mineralized horizons.

Samples collected from the conventional rotary and core holes have not been available for examination, and likely no longer exist.

All of the historical drill holes drilled at the Cebolleta project were logged with truck-mounted continuous surface recording natural gamma-ray/S-P/resistivity probe units. This process provided a continuous reading of gamma radioactivity through the entire length of the drill hole. Gamma-ray log values were then used to calculate radiometric grades from all of the mineralized holes. Most of the gamma logging was done by Dalton Well Logging and Geoscience Associates, Inc., both of whom were competent, experienced and independent geophysical logging contractors, on behalf of Reserve Oil and Minerals, Sohio and United Nuclear/UNC Resources. The gamma logging equipment was periodically calibrated at "test pits" of the US Atomic Energy Commission (now US Department of Energy) near Grants, New Mexico and Grand Junction, Colorado, in accordance with the standard operating procedures utilized in the industry at the time.

Radiometric assays, calculated from gamma ray logging of the exploration drill holes at the Cebolleta project, were checked by the then project operators, Sohio and United Nuclear, by drilling core holes at selected locations. Sohio collected more than 150 samples that were analyzed by chemical and radiometric assay methods. Samples were collected from drill holes in several areas of the project area. Analytical results tabulated by Geo-Management show minor differences between radiometric and chemical assays, with general pattern of chemical assays being slightly higher than radiometric assays, especially at grades in excess of 0.20% U₃O₈.

59

We are not aware of any current uranium mining or exploration on properties adjoining the Cebolleta project.

Cibola Resources has not carried out any metallurgical test work on the mineral deposits at the Cebolleta project. An audit of several former uranium mills, including the former Sohio L-Bar processing facility, outlines the general process design for the mill. The mill included conventional SAG mill grinding, CCD liquid/solid separation and an acid leach-solvent extraction process. The mill operated from late 1976 through mid-1981 and processed approximately 2.5 million short tons of feed material.

Cibola Resources has not examined any metallurgical test work that led to the development of process design criteria or any mill performance and recovery data.

We are participating in our mineral properties in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado by way of mining claims and mineral leases. The mining claim properties were staked and claimed by us and registered with the US Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"). There are claim blocks acquired in this manner in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming,. We have surface access and complete mineral rights to an unlimited depth below surface. The claims are in effect for an indefinite period provided the claims are kept in good standing with the BLM and the counties. The claims were entered into between November 4, 2004 and December 2007. Annual maintenance fees to be paid to the BLM are relatively nominal. We will also be required to remediate the land upon release of the claim - bringing the land back into the state it was originally in prior to the commencement of our exploration activities. These costs are determined by the BLM and bonded accordingly.

In the States of New Mexico, Texas and Utah we are participating in our mineral properties by way of property lease directly from the owners of the land/mineral rights. As of this date we have executed leases in New Mexico, Texas and Utah. These leases give us similar access and privileges as described above, however with some important differences. Although we will have access to the surface, the mineral rights below surface are restricted to uranium and associated fissionable minerals only, with any other minerals and hydro carbons, including, for example, petroleum, retained by the lessor. The lease terms are for five years, and include five-year renewal periods. After the expiration of the second five-year term the leases will be either held by production or the leases will be terminated. Royalty payments must be made to the lessor in event that we extract uranium ore from the properties. Royalty payments vary based on a sliding scale tied to the price of uranium. All royalties are based on the gross sales revenue less certain charges and fees.

60

We have the following gross and net acre mineral property interests in states indicated below under lease:

We plan to conduct exploration programs on these properties with the objective of determining the existence of any economic concentrations of uranium.

Since inception we have not established any proven or probable reserves on our mineral property interests.

On October 11, 2005, we entered into a Mineral Asset Option Agreement (the "Option") with Brad A. Moore giving us the option to acquire certain uranium leases from Mr. Moore in the State of Texas. In consideration for the Option we have paid Mr. Moore a cash payment of $50,000 and issued 1,000,000 shares of our restricted common stock. The Option, which was exercised, required the further issuance of 2,000,000 restricted shares of common stock in varying share installments over the three, six month intervals following the effective date of the Option Agreement (October 11, 2005). A further payment of $150,000 was paid under the Option on February 1, 2006. Title to the properties transferred upon payment of all remaining stock required under the Option. During the Option term we had the right as operator to conduct or otherwise direct all the exploration on the properties to be acquired. As of this date all cash consideration and share issuances required pursuant to the terms of the Option have been completed.

On May 1, 2007, we entered into a joint venture with Neutron Energy Inc. ("NEI"), a Wyoming corporation, in connection with the exploration of a property covering approximately 6,700 acres located in Cibola County, New Mexico, for uranium resources. In connection with the joint venture, Cibola Resources, a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware, was formed to undertake the exploration activities contemplated by the parties. NEI acquired the mining lease to the property from La Merced del Pueblo de Cebolleta ("Ceboletta"), a private entity that has the authority over the natural resources of the property, pursuant to a letter agreement between Cebolleta and NEI dated January 27, 2007, and has contributed the lease to Cibola Resources. In connection with the acquisition of the lease, NEI has made cash payments to Cebolleta of $3,000,000 to date. The Company has reimbursed an aggregate of $1,470,000 to NEI to date. As a result, NEI and the Company hold a 51% and 49% interest, respectively, in Cibola Resources.

All of our Arizona claims were previously the subject of exploration drilling for the incidence of uranium by companies such as Noranda, Inc., Uranerz Energy Corp., Homestake Mining Co. and Oklahoma Public Services. We have acquired a 1979 Oklahoma Public Services ("OPS") geologic report contiguous to our claims (Artillery Peak) that indicates the possibility of incidence of uranium. OPS drilling continued on to our claims as evidenced by drill holes verified on the ground, and such drill cuttings were found to be radioactive. Close spaced developmental drilling is indicated on our claims located at Artillery Peak.

61

Other claims staked by us (Esther Basin, Crow Canyon and Dry Mountain) in Arizona were staked on known uranium occurrences as shown on Arizona State publication, "Occurrences of Uranium in Miscellaneous Sedimentary Formations, Diatremes and Pipes and Veins". Additionally, these claims were previously drilled by companies including Homestake Mining Co., Uranerz Energy Corp. and Noranda, Inc. in the 1970's uranium boom. Our management has confirmed prior claim ownership as verified with the US Department of Interior - BLM. In addition, ground surveys completed by us have located various previous drill locations and radioactive anomalies as evidenced in ground and drill cuttings.

On November 1, 2007 we entered into a binding letter Agreement to Purchase Assets with Melvin O. Stairs, Jr. ("Mr. Stairs"), for a mineral exploration claim and related database information located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company will pay total consideration of $1,200,000 including i) a $10,000 deposit upon execution (paid), ii) installments of $95,000 cash on January 10, 2008 (paid) and August 15, 2008, and iii) installments totaling $100,000 on January 10 and August 15 of each year for the period from January 10, 2009 through August 15, 2013. Additionally, the Company has granted the seller security interest on the acquired assets until the agreement is paid in full.

We confirm that as of this date our Arizona located claims contain no uranium reserves, and require extensive exploration by us.

The following provides information relating to such claims:

The following provides information relating to such claims:

62

Our Laguna Trend Project consists of approximately 800 acres of lode claims on Bureau of Land Management land in northwestern New Mexico. The claim block is on-trend and several miles northeast of the historically-producing St. Anthony, Jackpile Paguate, and L-Bar uranium deposits, mined by Anaconda Minerals and Sohio. Northeast of the Company's claim block is Kerr McGee's (now Anadarko Petroleum's) uranium deposit, Rio Puerco, and Conoco's Bernabe uranium deposit. Both of these deposits are yet to be developed.

Acquisition of the Laguna Trend claim block by Uranium Energy was driven by intense analysis of the Morrison Nuclear database, which includes drilling data indicating significant uranium mineralization in the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation. This property was most recently held by Kerr McGee. We will initiate exploration permitting during the fourth quarter of 2007.

We have recently acquired 479 claims, covering 13 sections within the Ambrosia Lake Valley. These claims encompass a total 9,896.14 acres, and include such historic mines as the Ann Lee and Sandstone. These claims are located in Township 14 North, and Ranges 9 West and 10 West, which encompasses the heart of the Ambrosia Lake Mining District, and is home to the mines of the district historically operated by Kerr McGee, Homestake, United Nuclear, Phillips and Dysart. This claim block which may be acquired by our company is contiguous to the current mineral resource holdings of BHP Billiton.

We confirm that at the current date, our New Mexico located claims contain no uranium reserves and require extensive exploration by us.

63

Wold Nuclear's previous work conducted on and around our exploration targets located in South Texas (Zavala County) is in a certain formation that was not the focus of uranium exploration in previous uranium booms (the "New Formation"). The New Formation represents a new "out of traditional trend" host rock for possible uranium mineralization. We have acquired a number of drill hole gamma logs, as well as one drill core, whose chemical analysis supports the indication of uranium, along with lease and drill hole location maps. Insufficient drilling in past exploration programs did not quantify any reserves for Wold Nuclear.

The expected mineralized area comprising the New Formation has been defined in the geological area by our own work product. The New Formation host rock is up to 250 feet thick and has the potential for uranium mineralization similar to Wyoming's Powder River Basin. As of this date we have acquired two leases (473.06 gross acres) in an area where previous drilling and coring indicated uranium mineralization.

The following provides information relating to such leases:

64

The following provides information relating to such claims and leases:

The Burnt Wagon project, located 35 miles west of Casper, Wyoming, was acquired from NAMMCO (Kirkwood) in 2006. The 200 mining claims and 3 state leases total about 4,000 acres. Current staking work will not be complete until November 2007.  Previous operations defined shallow uranium mineralization in the Wind River formation of early Eocene age, at 50 to 200 foot depths, from 500 drill holes and 16,000 feet of electric logging data.

Situated in the Lower Eocene Wasatch formation of the southwest Powder River Basin, our Powder River Basin LO-Herma uranium property exploration data was acquired from H. Brenniman as a part of the Pioneer Nuclear, Inc., package in 2006.  The 305 mining claims total 5,948.76 acres and are contiguous to the Energy Metals Corp. (Uranium One) property.

Our DL, 1,275 acre, property is being reassessed by using Pioneer Nuclear, Inc., 1970 uranium exploration data from the H. Brenniman database.

We confirm that at the current date, our Wyoming located claims contain no uranium reserves and require extensive exploration by us.

65

The total cost of expected Phase II exploration on all mineral properties contemplated at this time is equal to $2,000,000 inclusive of a contingency cost allowance. Additional costs for Phase II exploration work and for further lease and land acquisitions are expected to be funded by future financings from debt and equity sources.

The work program that has been recommended for the mineral properties is dependent on the nature of the exploration conducted prior to our acquisition. The intended Phase I work programs will be on the claims located in both New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and Colorado.

During Phase I work programs on these particular mineral claims we plan to review and analyze all historical exploration data available to us in our current possession, acquire additional acreage as available, obtain exploration permits through state and federal agencies and to probe existing drill holes with gamma probes, with a strategy that attempts to confirm historical drill results. Costs have been estimated at $14,500 per claim block.

Based on exploration databases acquired during 2006 we were able to establish six separate lease positions with the South Texas uranium trend. Four of these lease positions are within Goliad County and would compliment our existing Goliad project. One of the positions was heavily drilled by Mobil Oil during the 1970s and 1980s. The three remaining Goliad County lease positions are highly encouraging prospects that we plan to drill during 2008 to prove or disprove the occurrence of uranium resources. The fifth lease position is within Duval County and falls within the Catahoula Formation, an historic uranium host formation of South Texas. The sixth lease position is with Karnes County and covers a property heavily drilled by Conoco Petroleum in the 1970s. As previously stated, these lease position were developed by the Company during 2006 from historic databases. Land acquisition costs for these five prospects total $381,000 excluding the value of any stock based expenditures, and drilling costs are approximated to be $562,000.

66

The exploration databases used to develop the lease positions described above were obtained during the acquisition of the Moore Energy information and the acquisition of the Knupke database. Both databases consist primarily of numerous geophysical logs with corresponding maps, field reports and regional maps. The Moore Energy database was developed over a period of approximately 10 years and consists of a compilation of their exploration projects and prospects and is quite reliable. This database will be used to guide in the development of the Goliad Project and to develop additional projects and prospects. It is exclusively used by the Company. The Knupke database was developed by an individual over a period of approximately 20 years and consists of past project information, map and logs and potential prospects developed through analysis of regional geology. This database was used exclusively by the Company during 2006.

During the Phase I work program geologic information pertinent to the six lease positions noted above will be gathered and analyzed by Company geologists in order to develop additional lease plays, setup drilling programs and develop exploration drilling permits.

The purpose of Phase I exploration work in the Colorado Plateau, Uravan mining district in Colorado and Utah, as well as the Grants uranium district in New Mexico, and the South Texas trend, on both claim blocks and leases, is chiefly to determine which areas require new drilling. The Phase II work programs will consist of focused exploratory drilling programs.

The total cost of Phase II exploration on all mineral properties contemplated at this time is equal to $2,000,000 including contingency cost allowance. Additional costs for Phase II exploration work and for further lease and land acquisitions are expected to be funded by future financings from debt and equity sources. We expect minimal effect on our ability to proceed with Phase II exploration should they be required in conjunction with further lease and land acquisitions as the amounts projected for Phase II exploration costs are not substantial in relation to budgeted total annual capital and operating expense expenditures. If, however, additional land and lease expenditures during the next twelve months create a lack of capital for Phase II exploration costs beyond that anticipated in relation to available capital, we may not be in a financial position to conduct Phase II exploration if required.

In all cases, results from Phase I of exploration on our properties will determine whether we proceed to Phase II of the exploration program or discontinue exploration on a particular property. Phase II costs, if any, will be incurred in the subsequent 12-month period, and would require additional financing.

We have acquired a second dual wheel truck on which we have installed logging equipment. We further expect to purchase a PFN assay tool for the logging truck. Total aggregate costs of approximately $294,000, net of taxes and applicable fees is budgeted for the aforementioned. A PFN logging truck will enable Company geologists to directly read uranium values in a borehole under "real time" conditions. A standard logging truck, running a gamma ray probe, reads all radioactive emitting elements in the hole and does not discriminate uranium. In the past a core sample would need to be collected and sent to a laboratory for analysis of uranium before a geologist would know the exact uranium concentration in a bore hole. A PFN logging truck provides this information in the field and saves considerable time and money. We received the PFN assay tool in December 2007 and expect delivery of the second logging truck in January 2008.

Our operational business plan calls for the acquisition of further uranium exploration properties in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. We have developed detailed exploration programs for each claim block area of interest based on historical data derived from past uranium exploration by other companies with a mandate to prove or disprove the existence of uranium resources.

We operate in a highly competitive industry, competing with other mining and exploration companies, and institutional and individual investors, which are actively seeking uranium minerals exploration properties throughout the world together with the equipment, labour and materials required to exploit such properties. Many of our competitors have financial resources, staff and facilities substantially greater than ours. The principal area of competition is encountered in the financial ability to cost effectively acquire prime minerals exploration prospects and then exploit such prospects. Competition for the acquisition of uranium minerals exploration properties is intense, with many properties available in a competitive bidding process in which we may lack technological information or expertise available to other bidders. Therefore, we may not be successful in acquiring, exploring and developing profitable properties in the face of this competition. No assurance can be given that a sufficient number of suitable uranium minerals exploration properties will be available for acquisition, exploration and development.

67

Exploration and production activities are subject to certain environmental regulations which may prevent or delay the commencement or continuance of our operations. In general, our exploration and production activities are subject to certain federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental quality and pollution control. Such laws and regulations increase the costs of these activities and may prevent or delay the commencement or continuance of a given operation. Compliance with these laws and regulations has not had a material effect on our operations or financial condition to date. Specifically, we are subject to legislation regarding emissions into the environment, water discharges and storage and disposition of hazardous wastes. In addition, legislation has been enacted which requires well and facility sites to be abandoned and reclaimed to the satisfaction of state authorities. However, such laws and regulations are frequently changed and we are unable to predict the ultimate cost of compliance. Generally, environmental requirements do not appear to affect us any differently or to any greater or lesser extent than other companies in the industry and our current operations have not expanded to a point where either compliance or cost of compliance with environmental regulation is a significant issue for us. Costs have been incurred to date with respect to compliance with environmental laws, primarily relating to the posting of a performance bond, and costs are only expected to increase with the increasing scale and scope of exploration operations, especially with the advent of Phase II exploration costs.

Minerals exploration operations are subject to comprehensive regulation which may cause substantial delays or require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated causing an adverse effect on our business operations. Minerals exploration operations are subject to federal, state, and local laws relating to the protection of the environment, including laws regulating removal of natural resources from the ground and the discharge of materials into the environment. Minerals exploration operations are also subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations which seek to maintain health and safety standards by regulating the design and use of drilling methods and equipment. Various permits from government bodies are required for drilling operations to be conducted; no assurance can be given that such permits will be received. Environmental standards imposed by federal, state, or local authorities may be changed and any such changes may have material adverse effects on our activities. Moreover, compliance with such laws may cause substantial delays or require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated, thus causing an adverse effect on us. Additionally, we may be subject to liability for pollution or other environmental damages which we may elect not to insure against due to prohibitive premium costs and other reasons. As of the date of this prospectus, other than with respect to the posting of a performance bond, we have not been required to spend material amounts on compliance with environmental regulations. However, we may be required to do so in future and this may affect our ability to expand or maintain our operations. Environmental regulation is discussed in further detail in the following section.

68

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

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

Our operations are subject to local, state and federal regulations for the control of emissions of air pollution. Major sources of air pollutants are subject to more stringent, federally imposed permitting requirements. Administrative enforcement actions for failure to comply strictly with air pollution regulations or permits are generally resolved by payment of monetary fines and correction of any identified deficiencies. Alternatively, regulatory agencies could require us to forego construction, modification or operation of certain air emission sources.

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

No research and development expenditures have been incurred, either on our account or sponsored by customers for the past three years.

69

We own 15.19 acres of real estate located in Goliad county, Texas. Our registered office is located at 9801 Anderson Mill Road, Suite 230, Austin Texas 78750. We have entered into office rental and service agreements as follows:

The following selected financial data has been derived from and should be read in conjunction with (i) our audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003, together with the notes to these financial statements, (ii) our audited financial statements for the seven-month period ended July 31, 2007, together with the notes to these financial statements, (iii) our interim unaudited financial statements for the six-month period ended January 31, 2008 and 2007, together with the notes to these financial statements and (iv) the sections of this prospectus entitled "Description of Business and Properties" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations".

On June 29, 2007, our board of directors approved the change of our fiscal year end from December 31 to July 31. On October 29, 2007, we filed a Transition Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal period ended July 31, 2007, as subsequently amended, with the SEC and commenced a new reporting period.

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003. During 2004, we changed our business operations focus from precious metals exploration in the State of Nevada to the exploration for economic reserves of uranium throughout the United States. Since then, we have been acquiring mineral property interests in the United States. In addition, we amended our audited financial statements for the fiscal period ended July 31, 2007 to include a note explaining a reclassification of mineral property acquisition costs from the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, which had no impact on the reported loss for these periods. Accordingly, the financial information presented below may not be comparable from period to period.

70