United States

Sheep Project

Click for more information



Mine TypeUnderground
  • Uranium
Mining Method
  • Room-and-pillar
Backfill type ... Lock
Mine Life... Lock
SnapshotThe Sheep Mountain Project includes reopening the existing underground facility (the “Sheep Underground”), which includes the Sheep I and Sheep II underground areas.

The Energy Fuels will continue to evaluate its options for processing Sheep Mountain mineralized material, including continuing to pursue permitting for a heap leach facility at the site, or determining whether arrangements can be made to process Sheep Mountain mineralized materials at a third-party processing facility. The project is currently on standby, pending completion of the evaluation of the processing options for the Sheep Mountain Project and improvement in market conditions. Additional work is subject to any actions the Company may take in response to general market conditions.
Related AssetSheep Mountain Complex


Energy Fuels Inc. 100 % Indirect
The Sheep Mountain Project (Congo Pit and Sheep Underground) held by the Company’s (Energy Fuels Inc.) subsidiary Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc.

Deposit type

  • Sandstone hosted


A primary component of the geology for the Sheep Mountain Project is the Battle Spring Formation. Battle Spring is Eocene in age. Prior to deposition of the Battle Spring Formation and subsequent younger Tertiary formations, underlying Paleocene, Cretaceous, and older formations were deformed during the Laramide Orogeny. During the Laramide Orogeny, faults, including the Emigrant Thrust Fault at the northern end of the project area, were active and displaced sediments by over 20,000 feet. Coincident with this mountain building event, Paleocene and older formations were folded in a series of echelon anticlines and synclines, generally trending from southeast to northwest. The Battle Spring Formation was deposited unconformably on an erosional landscape influenced by these pre-depositional features. Initial stream channels transporting clastic sediments from the Granite Mountains formed in the synclinal valleys.

The geologic setting of the Sheep Mountain Project is important in that it controlled uranium mineralization by focusing movement of the groundwaters, which emplaced the uranium into the stream channels, which had developed on the pre-tertiary landscape. The Battle Spring Formation and associated mineralization at the Sheep Mountain Project is bounded to the east by the western flank of the Sheep Mountain Syncline and to the west by the Spring Creek Anticline. To the north the system is cut off by erosion. To the south the Battle Spring continues into the northern portions of the Great Divide Basin.

Mineralization occurs throughout the lower A Member of the Battle Spring Formation and is locally up to 1,500 feet thick. The upper B Member is present only in portions of the project and may be up to 500 feet thick. Although arkosic sandstone is the preferred host, uranium has been extracted from all lithologies. Grade and thickness are extremely variable depending on whether the samples are taken from the nose or the tails of a roll front. Typically, the deposits range from 50 feet to 200 feet along a strike, five feet to eight feet in height, and 20 feet to 100 feet in width. Deposits in the Sheep Mountain Project area occur in stacked horizons from 7,127 feet in elevation down to 6,050 feet in elevation.

Most of the mineralization in the Crooks Gap District occurs in roll-front deposits. Roll fronts have an erratic linear distribution but are usually concordant with the bedding. Deposits have been discovered from the surface down to a depth of 1,500 feet. The two major uranium minerals are uranophane and autunite. Exploration drilling indicated that the deeper roll-type deposits are concentrated in synclinal troughs in the lower Battle Spring Formation. Three possible sources for uranium have been suggested: post-Eocene tuffaceous sediments, leached Battle Spring arkoses, and Precambrian granites. Structural controls of uranium occurrences along roll fronts include carbonaceous siltstone beds that provide a local reducing environment for precipitation of uranium-bearing minerals, and abrupt changes in permeability along faults, where impermeable gouge is in contact with permeable sandstones. Uranium has also been localized along the edges of stream channels and at contacts with carbonaceous shales.



- subscription is required.

Mining Methods


- subscription is required.


Crushers and Mills

Milling equipment has not been reported.



- subscription is required.


Combined production numbers are reported under Sheep Mountain Complex

Operational metrics

Ore tonnes mined, LOM  ....  Subscribe
* According to 2021 study.

Production Costs

Assumed price Uranium (U3O8) USD  ....  Subscribe
* According to 2021 study / presentation.

Operating Costs

UG mining costs ($/t mined) USD 80.2 *  
* According to 2021 study.

Project Costs

MetricsUnitsLOM Total
UG OpEx $M USD  ......  Subscribe

Heavy Mobile Equipment


- subscription is required.


Mine Management

Job TitleNameProfileRef. Date
....................... Subscription required ....................... Subscription required Subscription required Dec 31, 2021
....................... Subscription required ....................... Subscription required Subscription required Apr 21, 2024

Aerial view:


- subscription is required.