Hello, and welcome to the Ur-Energy 2015 Year-End Webcast and Teleconference. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. Please note this event in being recorded. I now would like to turn the conference over to Rich Boberg. Mr. Boberg, please go ahead.

Thank you for joining us today for our year-end 2015 teleconference and webcast. We are required to draw the attention of all of our listeners to the legal disclaimers contained in this morning's slide presentation, which apply equally to our oral presentation today. At Slide 2, you will find legal disclaimers with regard to forward-looking statements, risk factors and protections as well as other cautionary notes to U.S. investors. We ask that you read and consider these disclaimers carefully before investing in our shares. As well, risk factors inherent in forward-looking statements and projections are set forth and discussed in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 26, 2016, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange on EDGAR and with the Securities Regulatory Authorities in Canada on SEDAR. I would now like to introduce and turn the webcast presentation over to our Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Klenda.

Great. Thank you very much, Rich, and I too would like to thank you for joining us this morning. Since we will be attempting to give guidance for the upcoming year, we will, by definition be making forward-looking statements. We, as a group, will try to alert you to these as we’re making them. We may not be perfect on them but we will try and let you know where we are making these forward-looking statements so that you can identify them as such. I thought that it was appropriate today to start with a bit of a perspective next week on the 11th actually marks the fifth-year anniversary of the earthquake and the subsequent Tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. At the time as we were watching that devastation and that wall of water rolled across the landscape in Japan, little did we know what kind of an impact it would have on us as an industry or how long it would have an impact on us as an industry. But we have since come to find out that it was very much a similar event in the uranium space and in nuclear energy in general. And as a result, over the last five years we have found ourselves in a position where often times it can be a bit frustrating because there are many aspects of what we’re trying to do that are simply beyond our control. So what we have tried to do is focus on those things that we can control and to provide what we consider to be outstanding performance in the post-Fukushima environment. So as I was looking at this morning’s webcast and preparing for it, I felt it appropriate to develop a theme for this webcast and that…

Thanks a lot, Jeff. I appreciate it. Good morning, everybody. So I want to talk to you – we’re on Slide 6 now and I’d like to talk to you first about the development status. One of the key things that we’ll talk about there is that we have minimized our work during the winter months trying to optimize our efficiencies. So first in Drilling and Mine Unit 1, all of the injection and production wells have been installed for that area. This work was completed in April of '15 and has allowed for construction to proceed without the complication of working around the drill rigs. Secondly, the wells are contained in 13 header houses all in Mine Unit 1, of which only 12 are in operations at this time. So we’ve been able to get our work done in a fashion that has allowed us to utilize the best times of the year there. Mine Unit 2; fieldwork in the second Mine Unit has been minimized during the winter months to optimize productivity as we stated previously. Drilling has primarily been in header houses 1, 2 and 3; each one having approximately 26 patterns each and is moving from the pilot phase through casing, completion and testing of the wells for integrity. Let’s talk about construction status. In Mine Unit 1, construction in header houses 1 through 12 is complete. The first house, header house 1, was started in August of '13 and header house 12 started operations in November of '15. Header house 13 construction is ongoing and is expected to be brought into operation in the second quarter of '16. In our second Mine Unit, construction of the primary pipeline and power line for the first few header houses was initiated in the fourth quarter of '15…

Great. Thank you so much, Steve. With that, I’d like to also – Steve mentioned this but I’d like to reemphasize and that is that in our original PEA, we have scheduled that 2.5 years in we’d be well into Mine Unit 2 right now. Lost Creek has become such a prolific and such an exceptional producer that we have been able to sustain a high level of production exclusively out of Mine Unit 1, and we still have header house 13 to go. We’ve also experienced far greater resources there than we had originally anticipated and so that gives me a bit of a segue into our segment by Jim Bonner. Jim has been charged with the exploration and the growth of our resources and I think he and his staff have done also an exceptional job, and I’ll let him tell you how we did in 2015. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Ur-Energy’s Vice President of Exploration, Jim Bonner. Jim?

Thank you, Jeff, and good morning to everybody. Ur-Energy was very successful of replacing Lost Creek property resources in 2015. Since the 2013 PEA, 4.6 million pounds of measured and indicated resources and another 1.7 million pounds of inferred resources have been added to the property totals. Close-spaced pattern well drilling in Mine Units 1 and 2 along with the results of the 2015 exploration drilling program provide us with a drill data that went into these resource estimations. These resource increases were disclosed in two NI 43-101 documents. First, the technical report data June 17, 2015 and a Preliminary Economic Assessment dated January 19, 2016 and amended February 8, 2016. I’ll summarize the geo and technical report first, because it’s already been a subject of a previous webcast. High-density pattern well drilling in Mine Unit 1 provided valuable insight into the complex configuration of this uranium deposit. Interpretation of drilling data resulted in an adjusted increase of 1.5 million pounds of measured resources to Mine Unit 1. It was an adjusted increase because nearly 1 million pounds of uranium that had been produced for Mine Unit 1 were subtracted from the total resources. All Lost Creek property resources have to be adjusted to account for past production. Another important aspect of the resource re-estimation process associated with this technical report was that our uranium grade-time thickness criteria or GT was lowered from 0.3 to 0.2. This was done to reconcile higher than expected uranium recoveries for production operations and to more closely associate in-place resources with uranium recoveries. This new GT cutoff is now being applied throughout the property. A January PEA will be reviewed in detail on the following slide. For the year, however, it contributed 3.1 million pounds of measured and indicated resources and 1.4 million pounds…

Great. Thank you very much, Jim. And again, as I mentioned at the top of the hour, we felt that it was very important to demonstrate that we could not only replace those pounds that we were producing but also grow the resource at a rapid rate. And in keeping with our theme of positive trends, I’d like to point out that since Fukushima at that time in 2011, we had a little over 6 million pounds in the measured and indicated and also in the aggregate adding in the inferred categories as well. Now, in less than five years we have grown that resource to just under 20 million pounds. So I think that that is a rate of growth that has been extraordinary by anybody’s standards. But I know that most of you on this call this morning are here to listen to what our CFO, Roger Smith, has to say and he not only had to do an unexpected financing that we have excellent contracts in place. We’re only as good as those contracts, but I think that they yielding for us a very good year in 2015. So without any further delay, I’ll turn this over to Ur-Energy’s Chief Administrative and Chief Financial Officer, Roger Smith. Roger?

All right. Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. Let me just thank Steve Hatten and his group out there, because he makes my job much easier. As we’ve said before, our cost per pound will tend to decrease, so production levels increase. This is because many of our production costs are fixed in nature. This slide displays the cost per pound in ending inventory relative to pounds drummed and gives you a visual impression of this relationship. During the quarter, our production levels increased as we captured 212,000 pounds and drummed 189,000 pounds. Pounds in drummed increased about 7% over the previous quarter. Meanwhile, our production costs were actually down $730,000 from the previous quarter largely due to decreases in non-cash cost. Production cash cost were down 60,000 with slight increases in well field and distribution cash costs being more than offset by decreases in plant cash cost. Ad valorem and severance taxes were also down during the quarter. As a result, our total cost per pound in ending inventory decreased $4.20 or 14% to $25.23. More importantly, the cash cost per pound component decreased 7% during the quarter going from $16.50 to $15.39 per pound. This trend is even more evident when we look at the same chart on an annual basis. In 2014, our first full year of production, our total cost per pound in ending inventory was $39.14. In that year, we drummed 548,000 pounds. In 2015, we drummed 727,000 pounds and our total cost per pound in ending inventory was $25.23. This represents a decrease of $13.91 or nearly 36%. By the way, despite drumming 179,000 pounds or 33% more of pounds in 2015, our cash cost only went up 4%. And our cash cost per pound decreased $3.82 or 20% in 2015. This slide shows…

Great. Thanks, Roger. First of all, let me point out that there are a good number of bar charts and tables that were included in the 10-K, so if you want to review those in greater detail, those are available there. But I think that Roger put together for us some very good charts there that demonstrate just exceptional performance in what has become a very challenging environment. Before we go to Q&A here, I just want to make a few additional comments and that is that our company will continue to focus on obtaining companywide cost savings. And it’s interesting because it’s notable that we’ve gone through header houses 1 through 12 but header house 13 will be something quite different. And our guys have learned a lot in those first 12 header houses and they will be doing something completely different in header house 13 working on still greater efficiencies and bringing innovations to that process. So it’s going to be very interesting to see what those results are as we get into the operation of header house 13. With respect to the long-term sales agreements as I detailed earlier, of course we have multiple long-term contracts taking us out to 2021, which we think do a very good job of protecting the company. But one of the things that we have found is that now as spot price has dropped since the beginning of the year, really since the holidays, we’ve seen the spot price dropped to $32 on the bid, $32.5 on the offer and term price has remained at $44. However, it should be understood that the term price for all intents and purposes right now is really not a usable price. In fact, the mid-term pricing due to the carry trade that has been…

This is the operator. Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. The first question comes from Joseph Reagor from ROTH Capital Partners.

Good morning, guys, and thanks for taking the questions.

Good morning, Joe.

One quick thing just to get it out of the way. You guys went over kind of first two quarters shipments and contract sizes. I think that Q2, you said 137,000 pounds. What was Q1?

Q1 was 25,000 pounds.

25,000, okay. All right. Thank you. And then second thing, looking at the raise you did, obviously, it sounds like you kind of got some late notice on the shipment moved to the second half. Wouldn’t it had been possible to potentially avoid the dilution, sell into spot and then buyback at spot and deliver into the contract, or was this one of those contracts that has to be delivered from your facility?

Well, it did not need to be – it was a non-site specific. However, we were put in a position where we did, as you point out, had such late notice on it that we did not have adequate inventories built that would have allowed us to deliver into those. Once you have the contracts in place, it does allow for a certain amount of, for lack of a better term, financing engineering that you can do around those contracts. However, we were put in a very difficult and precarious position and with very little notice, as we have never missed a principle or interest payments on any of our indebtedness and we simply did not want to take the chance that that would be the case. So it was quite opportunistic when we received the call for the bought deal financing. We weighed our alternatives. Even if we had the ability to incur additional debt, I doubt that we would have. Debt is a killer in this marketplace and I think as all the guys in oil and gas are going to find out in a very painful fashion this year in 2016. And we simply did not want to incur any additional debt. Even though we didn’t like the pricing, we felt that the terms were very favorable and we felt that given the circumstances, we would simply have to live with the dilution. So, we did what we had to do when we had to do it. I hope that answers your question, Joe.

Yes, that’s good. Second question or bigger question is Shirley Basin. What do you think the timing is right now as far as – you have submitted your application but how far out is the project still in your mind today? And once you got there, you just kind of said you’re kind of against raising additional debt, but would you be able to use the Wyoming bonds again if you have paid back the majority that you’re currently paying by the time Shirley Basin went into construction?

Sure, understood. I think that first of all, timing as was mentioned by Jim Bonner, this is something that has become a little difficult to pin down. The regulatory agency that shall remain unnamed have proven to be very slow at responding right now, even for example you submit an application what you’re supposed to receive is a completeness review within a 90-day period of time. Right now, you can’t even get any type of an indication as to when the completeness review will indeed be completed by the regulatory agency. So it brings another level of uncertainty. One of the things that is absolutely a factor for us this year is the fact that it is an election year and that has made the agency even more skittish than they normally are about making decisions or advancing some of these applications in that environment. To answer your other question with respect to the Wyoming bonding, the answer is yes. The program is a viable program, it’s very healthy, it’s one that has had great results in the state of Wyoming. We have been something of a poster child for them in a very positive way. Our project has been a great success. We again have never missed a payment on our bonding now, which began nearly more than two years ago, anyway. And so yes that money is available to us. And keep in mind, as I mentioned earlier, by the end of this year – at the end of 2016, we will have paid off our remaining RMB indebtedness, which that will require $4.5 million this year. That’s gone as of December 31. So we eliminate that and all we’ll have after that is the very, very favorable debt service that we have with the state of Wyoming on the Lost Creek project.

Okay, that’s very helpful. And then one final one, if I could. You mentioned the impact of lower natural gas prices on energy consumption in the U.S. Can you give an order of magnitude on what you guys are seeing as far as uranium demand declines in the U.S. because of the low oil and nat gas price environments?

I’m not sure. I think my answer would be somewhat anecdotal. What we’ve seen is that I think some of our utility customers, despite the fact that they are very large multibillion-dollar entities as we’ve said so many times, there are no small companies that own nuclear reactors, they are nonetheless very mindful of the money that they’re spending right now and they’re letting us know it. And that resulted in the postponement of the February transaction that required our response. But I think that what we’re seeing is that last year, total demand in the United States I believe came in just above 53 million pounds. I might be off just a bit on that. But that does not represent a significant decline from the year before. There are 99 reactors that are up and running in the United States and unlike other natural gas or coal facilities, these cannot be shutoff readily once you start a nuclear reactor. It must remain on and continue to provide that base load. So we have not seen any type of a significant reduction in demand here in the United States as a result of those lower natural gas, and they have heavily subsidization of wind and solar. But I think that what we have seen is increased stress on the part of our utility customers.

Okay. Thank you. I’ll turn it over.

Great. Thanks, Joe.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. All right. We do have a question from Geoffrey Scott with Scott Asset Management.

Good morning. Thanks for all the details. A couple of questions on the long-term sales agreement. You had 10 agreements in place at 12/31/'15. Have you fund any further long-term agreements since then?

We have – our last contract was signed last year I believe in the very early part of – first half of 2015. Since that time, because of the impact that the carry traders have had on pricing in our space, as I mentioned the forward demand curve has been somewhat flattened over the course of the next, say, 12 to 18 months and has resulted in that lower pricing. So, I think that right now we have been out to bid for a couple of additional contracts. As you all know, we’re very targeted in terms of what pricing we’ll accept in our contracts. And consequently, we will submit bids that reflect what we believe we can live with. Unfortunately, the carry traders, they’re satisfied to make $0.50 out of a $1 on a pound. That’s not our corporate objective. Of course, we have to maintain certain margins. And consequently, we have not been successful in the other bids that we engaged in throughout 2015 but we’ll continue to be very selective. That’s one of those things that we just don’t control. And with the lower prices, there are companies out there, utilities out there with offers in the marketplace, a couple of them, because we know what the prevailing – the winning bids will be, we have chosen not to engage in the bidding process. So, we’re going to continue to be very selective.

Okay. For the year 2016, what do you think the total number of RFPs and the tonnage will be for the year for delivery in 2019 and later? Do you have any sense?

I guess if I’m hearing you right, what you’re asking is to give some sort of a projection as to what the level of contracting might be in those outline years. I would have to be speculating on that. Those numbers are much better provided by UX Consultants or WMA, and those are the things that are available and their projections are on line. However, I would mention that’s one of the things that we have seen from the most recent UX – that was released earlier this week with year-to-date figures. Spot numbers were down significantly for the month of February and there are virtually no base level escalated contracts being entered into right now at $44 moving out into the 2018 and 2019 timeframe. So, they have pointed out the industry commentators and quotation services like Tradetrek, UX and WMA have not given us – they have their own forward projections as to what the level of contracting will be in those years. But really all we can point to is that the level of activity is down. These low numbers are not very inspirational to those of us that are producing.

Would it be fair to say that you are in general agreement with those other numbers?

From what I’ve seen, I’m really not in a position to dispute them. I suppose that’s the way I would express that. I think that they do fairly good research. These utilities are exposed in those years. I think that they’re fairly well covered over the course of 2016 and into 2017. But as we’re recently meeting with nearly a dozen of our utility customers at the most recent NEI conference, they are filing contracts right now in the 2018 to 2021, 2022 timeline. So they are going to be in the market and we have very reason to believe that this will be an active year throughout the year for most of the utilities trying to fill those timeframes.

Okay. One more follow up and it has to do with I guess the outlook from the fleet operators. There’s been a lot of international turmoil with Russia, Ukraine and Boko Haram in Nigeria [ph] and is there any sense that U.S. source of supply is worth a premium? Are you hearing that from anybody?

We’re not specifically hearing that although there are entities like TVA and others that do have as part of their mandate to source from the United States if possible. Given the inventories that have unfortunately been overhanging in the market for the last six months or better, we have not heard any indications from the utilities that they will need to pay a premium for U.S. sourced material. But one of the things that I think was notable is that we saw a substantial drop in the U.S. production when we got our fourth quarter figures. And so we are only producing from three facilities right now in the United States. So if that geopolitical event that you somewhat alluded to were to occur, which I think can happen at any time given the global geopolitical situation out there, I do believe that a premium would return to the U.S. producers just because it’s a lot easier to get it from less than 1,000 miles away than it is to get it from halfway around the world. So I don’t know what else I can say to comment on that.

But so far you have not seen any willingness to pay a premium for a 2019 or 2020 or 2021 delivered from the U.S. source?

Not in the last six to 12 months, no we have not.

Okay. Thank you very much.

You bet.

Thank you. As there are no more questions at the present time, I would like to turn the call back over to Jeff Klenda for any closing remarks.

Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate your attendance once again today. We will try and be as transparent as a company as we can, as I think that has become our reputation and we will look forward to updating you. And I hope that these positive and improving trends continue and that we’re going to be able to bring those to you when we do our next webcast, which should be in the early part of May. So, once again, thank you so much on behalf of all of the staffers at Ur-Energy for your support and to your attendance this morning. With that, I’ll say goodbye.

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