uranium one, inc. corporate presentation

Corporate Presentation December 2012

Creating a Globally Diversified Uranium Producer

2 | TSX: UUU | JSE: UUU WWW.URANIUM1.COM

Cautionary Statement

Readers are advised to refer to independent technical reports containing detailed information with respect to the material properties of Uranium One. These technical

reports are available under the profile of Uranium One Inc. at www.sedar.com and provide the date of each resource or reserve estimate, details of the key assumptions,

methods and parameters used in the estimates, details of quantity and grade or quality of each resource or reserve and a general discussion of the extent to which the

estimate may be materially affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. The technical reports also

provide information with respect to data verification in the estimation.

Scientific and technical information contained herein has been reviewed on behalf of Uranium One by Mr. M.H.G. Heyns, Pr.Sci.Nat. (SACNASP), MSAIMM, MGSSA,

Senior Vice President of Uranium One Inc., a Qualified Person for the purposes of NI 43-101.

Certain of the statements herein are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include but are not limited to those with respect to the price of uranium, the

estimation of mineral resources and reserves, the realization of mineral reserve estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production,

capital expenditures, costs and timing of the development of new deposits, success of exploration activities, permitting time lines, currency fluctuations, requirements for

additional capital, government regulation of mining operations, environmental risks, costs of environmental compliance including reclamation expenses, title disputes or

claims and limitations on insurance coverage and the timing and possible outcome of litigation or investigations. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be

identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does

not anticipate”, or “believes” or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur

or be achieved. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or

achievements of Uranium One to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Such risks and uncertainties include, among others, the completion of the projects described in this document, the future steady state production and cash costs of

Uranium One, the actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined,

possible variations in grade and ore densities or recovery rates, failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, accidents, labour disputes or other risks

of the mining industry, delays in obtaining government approvals or financing or in completion of development or construction activities, risks relating to the integration of

acquisitions, to international operations, to prices of uranium as well as those factors referred to in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Uranium One’s Annual Information

Form for the year ended December 31, 2011, which is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com, and which should be reviewed in conjunction with this document. Although

Uranium One has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking

statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-

looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers

should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Uranium One expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking

statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

For further information about Uranium One, please visit www.uranium1.com.

Uranium Market Overview


28 34 43 53 62 6264

93106

141156 167

158

222

266

327322 317

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Jan-2007 Jan-2008 Jan-2009 Jan-2010 Jan-2011 Nov-2012

Global Nuclear Power Reactor New Builds

Under Construction

Ordered or Planned

349

415

521

Num

ber

of N

ucle

ar

Pow

er

Reacto

rs

250

Proposed

Source: WNA, October 2012

540

Demand Growth Fueled by New Builds

546

Corporate Presentation │ December 2012


China, India and Russia represent over 55% of the 546 reactors in the construction, planned or proposed

categories

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

South Korea

UAE

UK

Ukraine

Saudi

USA

Russia

India

China

Demand Growth Fueled by New Builds

Nuclear Reactor New Build (top eight countries)

Source: WNA, October 2012

Proposed Planned Under Construction

Number of Reactors



An estimated 70% of new global production this decade will come from Kazakhstan and Africa

Kazakhstan targeted production for 2012 of just over 21,000 t U (55 million pounds U3O8), an increase of

approximately 7% from 2011

Growth of Supply from Kazakhstan

Primary Uranium Production by Country, 1992 – 2010

Source: UxC Q3 2012 Report

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ton

nes U

Kazakhstan

Canada

Australia

Namibia

Russia (est)

Niger

Uzbekistan

USA

Ukraine (est)

China (est)

South Africa

Czech Republic



Source: Ux Consulting, Q3 2012 Report

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

2008 2009 2010 2011f 2012f 2013f 2014f 2015f 2016f 2017f 2018f 2019f 2020f

Secondary Uranium Supply

Secondary Uranium Supply

Expiry of HEU Agreement

Mill

ions o

f pounds U

3O

8


Overview of Uranium One


Global Asset Base

*

* Uranium One currently owns 13.9% of Mkuju River and has an option to acquire remaining 86% from ARMZ

*



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012F 2013F 2014F

Production

Notes: 1. Includes commercial production and production during commissioning

2.0 2.9

3.6

7.4

10.7

11.6

Actual production

Forecast production

Attributable U3O8 Production(1)

M lbs U

3O

8

12.5


13.0


ERA Paladin Cameco Uranium One

U1 is the Lowest Cost Producer

2013 Analyst Cash Cost Forecast (US$/lb)

Note: Cash cost shows 2013 median street consensus estimates as of November 8, 2012

$40

$35

$26

$18


CORPORATE PRESENTATION | JANUARY 2011

| 12 | TSX: UUU | JSE: UUU WWW.URANIUM1.COM

$35

$40

$45

$50

$55

$60

$65

$70

$75

1-O

ct-

10

15-O

ct-

10

29-O

ct-

10

12-N

ov-1

0

26-N

ov-1

0

10-D

ec-1

0

24-D

ec-1

0

7-J

an-1

1

21-J

an-1

1

4-F

eb-1

1

18-F

eb-1

1

4-M

ar-

11

18-M

ar-

11

1-A

pr-

11

15-A

pr-

11

29-A

pr-

11

13-M

ay-

11

27-M

ay-

11

10-J

un-1

1

24-J

un-1

1

8-J

ul-11

22-J

ul-11

5-A

ug-1

1

19-A

ug-1

1

2-S

ep-1

1

16-S

ep-1

1

30-S

ep-1

1

14-O

ct-

11

28-O

ct-

11

11-N

ov-1

1

25-N

ov-1

1

9-D

ec-1

1

23-D

ec-1

1

6-J

an-1

2

20-J

an-1

2

3-F

eb-1

2

17-F

eb-1

2

2-M

ar-

12

16-M

ar-

12

30-M

ar-

12

13-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

11-M

ay-

12

25-M

ay-

12

8-J

un-1

2

22-J

un-1

2

6-J

ul-12

20-J

ul-12

3-A

ug-1

2

17-A

ug-1

2

31-A

ug-1

2

14-S

ep-1

2

28-S

ep-1

2

12-O

ct-

12

26-O

ct-

12

9-N

ov-1

2

23-N

ov-1

2

Spot Ux U3O8 Price vs. Ux Long-Term (LT) Price

Source: Ux Consulting

Long Term Price

Spot Price

Recent U3O8 Price History

$ p

er

lb U

3O

8



0.4 0.41.5 0.8 1.5 1.7

2.91.7 2.0

3.1 3.21.8 1.9

3.12.5 2.13.2 3.1

4.25.5

6.97.8 8.2

9.6 9.9 10.1 10.0 10.0

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.011.012.0

Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012

Quarterly sales volume Rolling sales volume for previous 12 months

Attributable U3O8 Sales Volumes

2012 sales guidance of 11.0 M lbs



Sales Levels

Mill

ions o

f lb

s U

3O

8


Development Projects


Mkuju River Project

Mkuju River Resources as of September 27, 2011

Tonnes

(millions)

Grade

(ppm U3O8)

Contained U3O8

(M lbs)

Measured Resource 80.3 313 55.3

Indicated Resource 59.3 291 38.0

Total Measured & Indicated 139.6 303 93.3

Inferred Resource 42.5 278 26.1

Notes: 1. The above technical and scientific information concerning the Mkuju River Project is derived from the Company’s press release dated November 3, 2011. The above information is based on information

compiled by “Qualified Persons” (as defined under National Instrument 43-101) and is also based on assumptions, qualifications and procedures which are set out in such press release. For a complete description of the assumptions, qualifications and procedures associated with the above information, reference should be made to the full text of the press release which is available for review on SEDAR at www.sedar.com.

2. Reported at a cut-off grade of 100 ppm U3O8 3. All figures are rounded to reflect appropriate levels of confidence . Apparent differences may occur due to rounding

Option Agreement

On March 15, 2012, the Corporation paid $150 million to acquire 13.9% of Mantra Resources and to extend its option to

acquire the remaining 86% interest in Mantra until June 7, 2013.

Updated Resource Estimate

39% increase in Measured Resources to 55.3 M lbs U3O8, 48% increase in Indicated Resources to 38.0 M lbs U3O8

Inferred Resources of 26.1 M lbs U3O8

87% or 81.2 million pounds U3O8 of the Measured and Indicated resources are within 60 metres of surface (91% of

Measured Resources and 82% of Indicated Resources)



Mantra Definitive Feasibility Study(1): Initial life of mine 12 years Annual production of 4.2 M lbs Life of mine average cash cost $22/lb U3O8 Capital expenditures of US$430M

Upside to Definitive Feasibility Study:

Strong potential to increase production beyond 4.2 M lbs per year

Growth via heap leaching being investigated

Large land package; excellent exploration potential

Mkuju River Project

Note: 1. Mantra Resources News Release; May 6, 2011

T A N Z A N I A

Kayelekera

Maputo

Durban

PretoriaGabarone

Bulawayo

Victoria Falls

Lusaka

Makambako

Mtwara

Dar es Salaam

Dodoma

Songea

Mbamba Bay

L a k e M a l a w i

I n d i a n O c e a n

Mkuju RiverUranium Mine/DepositCity/TownRailwayRoad

A F R I C A

Mkuju River



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009 2010 2011 2012F 2013F 2014F Steady State

Production Growth

3.6

7.4

10.7 11.6

22 to 26

Akdala 1.8

South Inkai 3.6

Kharasan 2.3

Karatau 2.6

Akbastau 3.9

Zarechnoye 1.3

U.S. 2 to 4

Mkuju River

4.2 to 5.7

Existing Operations

18 - 20

Attributable U3O8 Production

12.5 Mlb

U3O

8

Honeymoon 0.9


13.0

Conclusion


Attractive Investment

Focus on market-related pricing

Significant uncommitted future production

Steady state production of 22-26 M lbs per year

$19/lb(1)

$442 M cash(2)

8 producing mines

Diversifying into Tanzania with development of Mkuju River

Production growth

Low total cash costs

Diversified asset base

Leverage to uranium price

Strong balance sheet

Notes:

1. Cash costs as per U1 Guidance 2012

2. Cash as at September 30. 2012


Appendix 1 Mine by Mine Assets


2011 production of 2.0 M lbs(1)

2012 guidance:

Production - 1.8 M lbs(1)

Cash cost per pound sold - $16

Capex - $19 M(1)

2013 guidance:

Production - 1.8 M lbs(1)


Capex - $22 M(1)

Akdala Uranium Mine (70%)

Note: 1. Attributable to Uranium One Inc.

Pump House at Akdala

Q3 2012 Q3 2011 FY 2011

Production (lbs)(1) 494,400 496,100 2,027,800

Sales (lbs)(1) 582,100 728,900 1,408,200

Inventory at End of Period (lbs)(1) 1,021,100 936,800 1,227,000

Operating Expenses (per lb sold) $13 $13 $13




2012 guidance:

Production – 3.4 M lbs(1)


Capex - $36 M(1)

2013 guidance:



Capex - $39 M(1)

South Inkai Uranium Mine (70%)

South Inkai production facilities

Q3 2012 Q3 2011 FY 2011

Production (lbs)(1) 903,400 690,800 2,817,700

Sales (lbs)(1) 767,800 666,800 3,622,400

Inventory at End of Period (lbs)(1) 1,799,700 1,162,000 693,700






2012 guidance: Production – 2.6 M lbs(1)

Cash cost per pound sold - $13 Capex - $26 M(1)

2013 guidance: Production – 2.6 M lbs(1)

Cash cost per pound sold - $13 Capex - $26 M(1)

Karatau Uranium Mine (50%)

Karatau Well Fields (view from processing plant)

Q3 2012 Q3 2011 FY 2011

Production (lbs)(1) 722,300 691,900 2,826,800

Sales (lbs)(1) 808,400 1,084,700 2,569,400

Inventory at End of Period (lbs)(1) 842,400 551,200 659,900






2012 guidance:



Capex - $57 M(1)

2013 guidance:



Capex - $21 M(1)

Akbastau Uranium Mine (50%)

Akbastau – Karatau building to process Akbastau Flow

Notes: 1. Attributable to Uranium One Inc

Q3 2012 Q3 2011 FY 2011

Production (lbs)(1) 345,400 389,500 1,437,000

Sales (lbs)(1) 282,100 303,700 1,361,200






2012 guidance:



Capex - $21 M(1)

2013 guidance:



Capex - $18 M(1)

Zarechnoye Uranium Mine (49.67%)

Zarechnoye Mining Blocks

Notes: 1. Attributable to Uranium One Inc

Q3 2012 Q3 2011 FY 2011

Production (lbs)(1) 312,300 211,400 947,900

Sales (lbs)(1) 318,400 302,400 920,200





Entered commercial production on July 1st, 2012

2012 guidance:


Capex - $20 M(1)

2013 guidance:



Capex - $10 M(1)

Kharasan Uranium Project (30%)

Processing facilities at Kharasan

Notes: 1. Attributable to Uranium One Inc 2. Values since reaching commercial production as of July 1, 2012 Kharasan Mining Blocks


Q3 2012 (2)

Production (lbs)(1) 117,100

Sales (lbs)(1) 107,00

Inventory at End of Period (lbs)(1) 285,700

Operating Expenses (per lb sold) $28


Design capacity of 880,000 lbs per year

2012 guidance:

Production – 0.6 M lbs


Capex - $25 M

2012 guidance:



Capex - $8 M

Honeymoon Project, Australia (100%)

Honeymoon – Precipitation and Thickening Circuits



Entered commercial production on May 1st, 2012

2012 guidance:



Capex - $33 M

2013 guidance:



Capex - $26 M

Powder River Basin, Wyoming (100%)

Irigaray Central Processing Facility

Christensen Ranch Wellfield

Q3 2012 Q2 2012 (1)

Production (lbs)(1) 186,400 95,900

Sales (lbs)(1) - 184,200

Inventory at End of Period (lbs)(1) 452,600 267,000

Operating Expenses (per lb sold) - $36

Note: 1. Values since reaching commercial production as of May 1, 2012


Appendix 2 Recent Financial and Operating Highlights



Financial Highlights

Highlights:

Figures in USD millions, unless otherwise indicated

Q3 2012 Q3 2011

Attributable sales (lbs) 2,865,800 3,086,500

Average sales price ($ per lb) 49 51

Average cash cost ($ per lb sold) 16 14

Revenue 142.6 157.7

Operating expenses (45.6) (42.2)

Depreciation (38.2) (41.8)

Earnings from mine operations 58.8 73.7

Net (loss) / earnings (61.6) 45.8

Net (loss) / earnings per share (0.06) 0.05

Adjusted net earnings 7.6 46.4

Adjusted net earnings per share 0.01 0.05



Highlights:

Figures in USD millions, unless otherwise indicated

2011 2010

Attributable sales (lbs) 9,881,400 6,861,600

Average sales price ($ per lb) 54 48

Average cash cost ($ per lb sold) 14 13

Revenue 530.4 326.9

Operating expenses (142.6) (91.9)

Depreciation and depletion (125.2) (96.3)

Earnings from mine operations 262.6 138.7

Net earnings 88.4 (153.7)

Net earnings per share 0.09 (0.25)

Adjusted net earnings 113.7 (3.3)

Adjusted net earnings per share 0.12 (0.01)

Financial Highlights


Appendix 3 2013 Capital Expenditure Guidance



2013 Capital Expenditure Guidance

Mine/Project

Figures in USD millions, unless otherwise

indicated

Wellfield

Development

Plant and

equipment and

other

Total Ownership % Total

100% Attributable

Kazakhstan

Akdala 11 21 32 70% 22

South Inkai 31 25 56 70% 39

Karatau 30 22 52 50% 26

Akbastau 25 16 41 50% 21

Zarechnoye 32 4 36 49.67% 18

Kharasan 30 4 34 30% 10

SKZ-U - 4 4 19% 1

Subtotal - Kazakhstan 159 96 255 137

Australia and United States

Honeymoon 5 3 8 100% 8

Willow Creek & Powder River

Basin 20 6 26 100% 26

Other - 2 2 2

Subtotal – Australia and United States 25 11 36 36

Totals 184 107 291 173


Appendix 4 Reserves and Resources Summary


* Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. ** All figures are subject to rounding and columns may not add up due to rounding. All mineral resources and mineral reserves are based on CIM Standards. *** Represents the portion of total reserves and/or resources notionally attributable to Uranium One’s equity interest in the joint venture through which the property is owned in the percentage indicated in this column.

Assets Proven Probable Proven & Probable Company Share

Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Ownership lbs U308

000's U308 % 000's 000's U308 % 000's 000's U308 % 000's % 000's

Kazakhstan

Akdala 28,600 0.011 6,990 1,300 0.033 940 29,900 0.012 7,930 70% 5,551

South Inkai 38,100 0.009 7,720 20,000 0.028 12,430 58,100 0.016 20,150 70% 14,105

Karatau 22,000 0.013 6,530 18,700 0.040 16,480 40,700 0.026 23,010 50% 11,505

Akbastau 7,600 0.020 3,430 12,300 0.066 17,780 19,900 0.048 21,210 50% 10,650

Kharasan 7,300 0.015 2,440 21,600 0.041 19,450 28,900 0.034 21,890 30% 6,567

Zarechnoye 22,900 0.006 3,000 29,500 0.027 17,400 52,400 0.018 20,400 50% 10,133

United States

Christensen Ranch 2,981 0.121 7,930 2,981 0.121 7,930 100% 7.930

Irigaray 3,514 0.076 5,899 3,514 0.076 5,899 100% 5,899

Australia

Honeymoon 1,750 0.163 6,280 1,750 0.163 6,280 51% 3,203

East Kalkaroo 1,890 0.088 3,656 1,890 0.088 3,656 51% 1,865

Total 126,500 30,110 113,534 99,235 240,034 129,345 70,104

Average 0.011 0.040 0.024

Proven and Probable Resource*



* Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. ** All figures are subject to rounding and columns may not add up due to rounding. All mineral resources and mineral reserves are based on CIM Standards. *** Represents the portion of total reserves and/or resources notionally attributable to Uranium One’s equity interest in the joint venture through which the property is owned in the percentage indicated in this column. **** For Notes 1-5 See page 37

Assets Measured Indicated Measured & Indicated Company Share

Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Ownership lbs U308

000's U308 % 000's 000's U308 % 000's 000's U308 % 000's % 000's

Kazakhstan

Akdala 33,230 0.011 7,753 628 0.075 1,037 33,858 0.012 8,791 70% 6,153

South Inkai 21,933 0.020 9,630 12,523 0.050 13,810 34,456 0.031 23,440 70% 16,408

Kharasan 2,000 0.193 8,600 10,800 0.091 21,700 12,800 0.107 30,300 30% 9,090

Karatau 10,650 0.052 12,100 9,342 0.089 18,300 19,992 0.069 30,400 50% 15,200

Zarechnoye 7,600 0.032 5,200 18,300 0.064 25,700 25,900 0.054 30,900 50% 15,348

Akbastau 3,494 0.056 4,300 11,194 0.126 31,000 14,692 0.109 35,400 50% 17,700

United States

Moore Ranch 2,427 0.06 3,210 - - 2,427 0.06 3,210 100% 3,210

Christensen Ranch - - 6,091 0.096 12,905 6,091 0.096 12,905 100% 12,905

Irigaray - - 3,516 0.076 5,899 3,516 0.076 5,899 100% 5,899

Peterson 763 0.097 1,624 208 0.086 393 971 0.095 2,017 100% 2,017

Barge 3,922 0.053 4,590 - - 3,922 0.053 4,590 100% 4,590

Jab 1,133 0.063 1,561 220 0.077 371 1,352 0.065 1,932 100% 1,932

West Jab 328 0.115 830 109 0.059 143 437 0.101 973 100% 973

Jab RD 1,167 0.061 1,570 - - 1,167 0.061 1,570 100% 1,570

Red Rim - - 305 0.169 1,142 305 0.169 1,142 100% 1,142

Allemand-Ross 223 0.085 417 29 0.066 42 252 0.083 459 100% 459

South Sweetwater 151 0.065 217 33 0.091 66 184 0.07 283 100% 283

New Velvet 329 0.271 1,966 - - 329 0.271 1,966 100% 1,966

Old Velvet - - 56 0.41 509 56 0.41 509 100% 509

Wood - - 341 0.281 2,113 341 0.281 2,113 100% 2,113

Frank M - - 993 0.101 2,210 993 0.101 2,210 100% 2,210

Tanzania

Mkuju River 80,300 0.031 55,298 59,300 0.029 38,001 139,600 0.03

93,300 14% 13,062

Australia

Honeymoon 1,553 0.197 6,761 1,553 0.197 6,761 51% 3,448

Goulds Dam 1,700 0.12 4,409 1,700 0.12 4,409 51% 2,249

East Kalkaroo 2,639 0.088 5,129 2,639 0.088 5,129 51% 2,616

Total 169,649 118,836 139,884 191,665 309,533 310,502 142,915

Average 0.032 0.062 0.046

Assets Inferred Company Share

Tonnes Grade lbs U308 Ownership lbs U308

000's U308 % 000's % 000's

Kazakhstan

Akdala 9,683 0.073 15,640 70% 10,948

South Inkai 42,845 0.047 44,450 70% 31,115

Kharasan 17,600 0.120 46,700 30% 14,101

Karatau 9,685 0.085 18,200 50% 9,100

Zarechnoye 11,600 0.055 14,300 50% 7,103

Akbastau 31,370 0.115 79,600 50% 39,800

United States

Irigaray 94 0.068 141 100% 141

Jab 219 0.031 150 100% 150

West Jab 119 0.09 236 100% 236

Red Rim 428 0.163 1,539 100% 1,539

Allemand-Ross 1,156 0.098 2,496 100% 2,496

Clarkson Hill 684 0.062 940 100% 940

South Sweetwater 42 0.078 73 100% 73

New Velvet 158 0.174 604 100% 604

Wood 10 0.157 35 100% 35

Frank M 38 0.09 75 100% 75

Wate Breccia Pipe 53 0.076 886 100% 443

Findlay Tank 191 0.223 954 100% 954

Tanzania

Mkuju River 42,500 0.028 26,104 14% 3,631

Australia

Honeymoon 12,000 0.03 7,937 51% 4,048

Total 180,475 261,068 127,445

Average 0.066

Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources*



Notes to slides 35-36:

(1) The above technical and scientific information is based on information compiled by "Qualified Persons" (as defined under National Instrument 43-101) and is also based on

assumptions, qualifications and procedures which are set out in the following independent technical reports concerning the Corporation's material mineral properties which are available for

review on SEDAR under the Corporation's profile at www.sedar.com:

Akdala Mine: report titled “Technical Report on the Akdala Uranium Mine, Kazakhstan” dated February 17, 2012 prepared by Wayne W. Valliant, P.Geo and R. Dennis Bergen,

P.Eng of Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (“RPA”) (the “Akdala Report”);

South Inkai Mine: report titled “Technical Report on the South Inkai Uranium Mine, Kazakhstan” dated March 12, 2012 , prepared by Wayne W. Valliant, P.Geo and R. Dennis

Bergen, P.Eng of RPA (the “South Inkai Report”);

Karatau Mine: report titled “Technical Report on the Karatau Uranium Mine, Kazakhstan” dated March 1, 2012, prepared by Wayne W. Valliant, P.Geo and R. Dennis Bergen,

P.Eng of RPA (the “Karatau Report”);

Akbastau Mine: report titled “Technical Report on the Akbastau Uranium Mine, Kazakhstan” dated March 1, 2012 , prepared by Wayne W. Valliant, P.Geo and R. Dennis Bergen,

P.Eng of RPA (the “Akbastau Report”);

Zarechnoye Mine: report titled “Technical Report on the Zarechnoye Uranium Mine, Kazakhstan” dated February 27, 2012, which was prepared by Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc.(Applied),

P.Geo., and R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng. of RPA (the “Zarechnoye Report”);

Kharasan Mine: report titled “Technical Report on the Kharasan Uranium Mine, Kazakhstan” dated February 14, 2012, which was prepared by Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc.(Applied),

P.Geo., and R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng. of RPA (the “Kharasan Report”)

(2) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability

(3) Mineral Resources are inclusive of Mineral Reserves

(4) All Reserve and Resource estimates are as at December 31, 2011 except for the Reserve and Resource estimates for the Mkuju River Project which are as at September 27, 2011

(5) Columns and rows may not add correctly due to rounding

Reserves and Resources - Notes


Appendix 5 Uranium Industry Overview


Top 10 Producers 2011 M Lbs U3O8 Kazatomprom 23.1 AREVA 22.9 Cameco 22.4 Uranium One 10.7 Rio Tinto 10.6 BHP Billiton 8.7 ARMZ 7.5 Navoi 6.5 Paladin 5.9 Others 20.6 Total 139.1

Production by Mining Method 2011

2011 Global Production 2011 Percentage of Total Nuclear Power Generation MWe

Kazakhstan, 36%

Canada, 17% Australia, 11%

Niger, 8%

Namibia, 6%

Russia, 6%

Uzbekistan, 5%

United States, 3%

Ukraine, 2% Other, 8%

ISL, 45%

Conventional, 50%

By Product, 5%

Source: WNA, UxC

USA, 27%

France, 17%

Russia, 7% South

Korea, 6%

China, 3% India, 1%

Other, 39%

Uranium Industry Overview Corporate Presentation │ December 2012

Appendix 6 In Situ Recovery Process


In Situ Recover Process Sheet


Appendix 7 Uranium One Board of Directors


Board of Directors

Ian Telfer, CA –

Chairman Chairman and former CEO of Goldcorp Inc., former CEO of Wheaton River Minerals

Ken Williamson Former investment banker at Midland Doherty (Merrill Lynch), director of Goldcorp,

QuadraFNX

Andrew Adams, CA Former CFO of AngloGold north America. Chartered Accountant in the U.K since 1981

Phillip Shirvington Former President and CEO of UrAsia prior to acquisition by Uranium One

Peter Bowie, CA Former CEO of Deloitte China and former Chairman of Deloitte Canada

Chris Sattler – U1 CEO Former EVP, Corporate Development and Investor Relations at U1 and investment banker at

BMO Capital Markets

Vadim Jivov – U1

President

Chairman of ARMZ, former Deputy Director General of Tenex and former Deputy Director

General of Gazprom Media

Jean Nortier Former CEO of Uranium One

Ilya Yampolskiy M&A and Legal Departments of Rosatom since 2004

Board of Directors


uranium one, inc. corporate presentation

Documents

forwardlooking statements

future results

price of uranium

profile of uranium

prices of uranium

behalf of uranium

future events

material properties